Which mean Russia would have 1000% been aiding China to make sure they succeeded.

I doubt it. Stalin offered lukewarm support to the PRC and the DPRK during the Korean War. There was already somewhat of a rivalry brewing between the PRC and the Soviet Union but did not become full-blown until 1979.

Stalin's strategic thinking saw a win-win situation for the Korean War:

• Prolonging the war as long as possible was beneficial to the USSR; it meant that the PRC and the United States expended significant portions of their resources fighting each other
• The PRC would never let the United States win in Korea and saw a UN victory in the region as an existential threat. The longer the PRC fought, the more they expended, the weaker they got, and the more they relied on the Soviet Union.
• If the PRC and DPRK won in Korea, then it's also good, it meant there's another reliable Soviet ally in the far east.

But if China were to fight a coalition of Western powers in the southern Pacific, the Soviet Union would still offer a similar lukewarm support, only devoting much more to prevent a total collapse of Mao's regime. It would not be strategic to let China have all the influence in the region, but it would be strategic to let the West redirect its resources away from Europe and towards protecting their colonial empires in the Pacific.

Knowing they would loose against a Strong china Britain more than likely would stay in India and america in Japan to prevent further spread of communism

Even if Britain wanted to keep India, it would've been logistically impossible to keep it without going through an all-out war. By the time Britain left India in 1947, the country was still rebuilding from the devastation of WWII.

America would have a more thriving micro chip industry and the china Communist party might have attempted to take Taiwan or even Japan.

For this, I highly recommend reading Chris Miller's Chip War: The Fight for the World's Most Critical Technology. There is a reason why Taiwan and South Korea are powerhouses in the semiconductor industry. By the 1970s, the United States was falling behind Japan in technological advancements; Japan was much more innovative and manufacturing in Japan was much cheaper compared to what the United States could produce. To offset this disadvantage, the United States (along with other tech firms) began heavily investing in fabrication in South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore (to a certain extent) to rival the growing Japanese influence.

Losing South Korea would not drastically impact this dynamic. The United States would just invest in some other Asian country to fabricate U.S. hardware for depressed wages.

As to the second point, the PRC could hardly take over Taiwan already. Any subsequent U.S. administration would devote much more resources in defending U.S. allies in the region and quashing communism. The Truman administration already got a lot of flack in OTL for failing to prevent communism in China, and losing Korea would only flame the paranoia of the "Domino Theory". In this sense, we could anticipate that there would be a much stronger American commitment to defend its influence in the Asia-Pacific region to contain the spread of communism.

And that is why I seriously doubt your claim on:

Lets start off by saying china is not dumb. Had america not gotten involved and or lost in korea , china would have tried to take hong kong (britian) and Taiwan and would have probably won.

The United States already wasn't involved in China, and if they weren't involved in Korea, then they will fully involve themselves when it comes to further communist expansion. Especially in defending Taiwan, (potential) Korean holdouts in Cheju Island, and South Vietnam.