>If you view China as an imperialist nation, then a war between them and the USA seems implausible due to their co-dependence.
This is Kautsky's theory of super-imperialism. He predicted in the early 20th century that the co-dependence of Great Power economies made conflict between them highly unlikely. It's not difficult to see why he thought this way, however the outbreak of WW1 proved him to be incredibly wrong (and also validated Lenin's rejection of his theory). Not even the co-dependence of great powers on each other in military terms seemed to matter. For example most of the artillery shells fired by the French army in 1914 were actually made in Germany. Now obviously things have changed since then, and while the period immediately before WW1 did see a lot of globalization (hence Kautsky's theory), that has occurred on a far greater scale since then. As such I'm not sure what to make of it today, since it seems to make sense on the surface but was proven wrong in the past. I think that a better bulwark against great power conflicts today is the sheer destructiveness of modern warfare. It seems that direct confrontation between the US and PRC is unlikely simply because an armed conflict would likely cost even the winner more than they would gain. This isn't event taking nuclear weapons into account.
>China is imperialist
Not really, but barring a dramatic shift in economic policy a development towards imperialism is likely.