Let's not forget what the Pacific theater of WWII was about: control of trade in the region. The US won decidedly, but at a damn high price. I think the lesson of WWII in both Europe and the Pacific is that appeasement isn't a viable long term policy. Of course I have no interest in a war, especially one that would necessitate the type of effort it would take to fight a war with China, but someone (namely, the US) has to make a stand vis-a-vis China's behavior in the South China Sea, Sea of Japan, etc. Every time they get away with taking territory by force, the simultaneously undermine the rule of law and inch closer to provoking a conflict (while also learning the lesson that aggression works consequence free).
I spent a ton of time following this during this past semester. It's crazy. China is claiming all sorts of silly loopholes in maritime law while denying the same loopholes to other countries in the region. The reclamation is happening FAST too. CSIS is tracking it really well. http://amti.csis.org/island-tracker/
this was in the paper one morning when I was in Beijing. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/cartoon/img/attachement/jpg/site1/20150414/a41f72773d1b16969c810c.JPG
Ah, I've just finished reading a very interesting short on the U.S. Navy: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u-s-navy-s-big-mistake-building-tons-of-supercarriers-79cb42029b8In order to deliver firepower on a target, the U.S. Navy fields an increasing unaffordable supercarrier which must be escorted by one Aegis cruiser, two destroyers, a nuclear attack submarine and a combined strike force crew of more than 6,000 to carry and launch an air wing of increasingly unaffordable airplanes with inadequate range.