As I recall the Soviet Backfire bomber was specifically designed to attack US carrier battle groups. I believe, if a war goes nuclear, it will go nuclear at sea first in an attempt to get our carriers. However, one does not want to pi$$ off a carrier battle group.
No question. The same has also been said if China decides it's ready to defy us and invade Taiwan. The obvious thing to do would be to nuke our carrier groups first, and maybe it's a question what our response would be if they also have the ICBMs that clinton sold them targeted on Los Angeles and other cities on the west coast, or possibly the whole of ConUS.
"I believe, if a war goes nuclear, it will go nuclear at sea first in an attempt to get our carriers."
BTTT. I'm sure that the DoD has thought of that in their myriad contingency plans, but that is the most likely scenario to me, too.
Given the state of the nation, it would be an awful blow militarily, one that would likely result in a division of the hawks and doves immediately. I fear for America if the doves win. Worst part is the doves would not have a hard time spinning the foreign attack as righteous pre-emption if the carriers were sitting off another nation's coast (as they so often are) to impose a threatening presence, and casting America as hypocritical if it attacks. I can certainly see something like this coming from Iran, and again, given the divided country that is America right now, I can see the argument to withdraw might even work.
God help us if it does. A return to a more isolationist policy would in my view be a good thing, but running scared back home, tail firmly between legs, after getting a nuke dropped on us, that is not the same thing at all as choosing a less entangled foreign policy.
The carrier batle group has friends under water, too, but your point is accurate.