~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for this extremely clear explanation. :)
I did not intend to say Sub. v. Sub that China was approaching the U.S.
What I intended to say was that the U.S. superiority in submarines, taken in the context of all other factors might not be a sufficient advantage to ensure U.S. interests.
Maybe I am wrong--would love to be wrong on this.
Maybe the U.S. has the unchhallengeable ability to interdict Chinese imports and exports by using our subs to sink their entire fleet; but, somehow I'm thinking this is not the first thing that would happen.
I'm thinking that China's first efforts would be to take out our communications by multiple means, and that from what I have been reading in the public sphere, we are at risk.
If this happened, it is not clear how America would react. In the Soviet Cold War there was very grave concern that if Europe/NATO were attacked, the political will would be lacking for tactical nuclear which was the next step back in the day.
In response to this "Game Theory" analysis, America and the U.K. (mostly) posted forces on the frontier with the USSR which were INSUFFICIENT TO REPEL a SOVIET INVASION, but would hopefully serve as a tripwire.
I think many similar real-world "Political" considerations come into play on the frontier of the New "COLD" War in the South China Sea.
PRC isn't the only country that can do asymetric warfare. The only reason they haven't paid for Kungflu in the war planned way, is that the President understands the DS would like that.
One Ohio SSBN would run out of fruitful targets in China.