Eh, the way the author uses “First strike capability” is not the way professionals in the field use the term.
ANY nuclear weapon is technically a “first strike capability” in the way Fisher uses it.
The couple dozen ICBMs that China first fielded during the Reagan administration were a “first strike capability” because they could reach the US, and if they wanted to they could ready them and launch them, and take out several US cities, and there’s nothing we could do to stop them (and not much we could do now to stop them).
Of course, we could still annihilate Chinese civilization in a second strike response.
What pros USUALLY mean by “first strike” capability is an ability to almost completely disarm an opponent preventing a second strike...meaning it might MAKE SENSE for a non-crazy leader to launch a first strike.
Even when all the Jins and JL-2s and tunnel-based ICBMs are fielded by the Chinese, they still have ZERO capability to disarm the US.
The hundreds of warheads on undectable US SSBNs at sea would still end Chinese civilization in a second strike.
You are correct but also assume any president would destroy Chinese civilization when China possesses a second strike which can do the same to us.
It goes something like this. Once they are strong enough they move to take what they want in the Pacific. If we cant win there, can we afford to escalate? If they escalate and take out our bases, can we afford to retaliate?
Keep in mind Obama is degrading our conventional and nuclear forces, leaving us with increasingly unattractive options.
Just saying the Chinese build up and our disarmament are not good. Nor do I trust the Chinese to be rational and to resist using their shiny new toys forever.