Are you claiming that trade dependence between countries makes war between them more likely?
I am claiming that showing weakness by giving a powerful weapon (supply chain dependency) to an adversary invites them to see what they can get away with especially if they wish to conquer another country and you are their main blocker. Our supply chain dependency means China has a direct "cause pain" button they can push on America to cause political unrest or directly punish American involvement in China's "internal affairs." It is a tool they can use to try to make our elites present the Taiwan invasion, not as the conquering of a vibrant democracy, but as America's imperialist meddling in China's internal affairs. The supply chain can directly be used to extort our neutrality, just like Nord Stream was used to extort Germany's neutrality and corrupt Germany's elites. Is our defense posture better then that? Probably, but there is no denying Xi's China is getting more belligerent not less, which means they likely see the relative power shifts favoring them.
It is not the trade that I view as making war more likely, but the hard to replace dependency, namely Nord stream and the tech hardware supply chain.
Having the other side dependant on you in trade does give you a massive advantage.
Depends on the relative symmetry of trade—balanced, deficit or surplus—combined with other factors, of course.
The individual business decision is sound, but the collective business decision is catastrophic. Not only does it create an economies of scale for adversaries instead of ourselves, but it gives them a lever to press to cause us pain. There is a national security disaster directly caused by the idea that paying Americans more is not a sound decision. Another country now has a say in what can be in our movies, and what our politicians, business persons, and celebrities can do or say. Add to this ambition, beligerance, and the prospect of war (a clear destroyer of value), and the picture gets even worse.
The answer is not handing out wads of cash to businesses like Intel that have failed to be productive by choosing business first (extract all the money possible) rather than values first (make the best products possible) practices, but to unburden our businesses with costs like healthcare and housing costs.
The minimum wage wouldn't have to be so high if there was cheap housing, good public transportation, abundant cheap healthy food, low debt policies, and government run health care. If you reduce the cost of living, you de facto reduce the cost of labor.
Housing policy that ensures limited supply and therefore high rents transfers wealth from laborers to owners, which is a transfer of money from businesses to landlords because the cost of rent is passed on to businesses in the form of wages.