China also hoped to prevail simply by having non-nuclear “area denial” weapons, that would keep our forces out of range. Other nations would then have to capitulate to China, without American protection.
These types of weapons could deny the same areas to the Chinese. The USA could provide the capability to the nations in the region.
The South China Sea could quickly become a shooting gallery for China’s one or two carriers, and its man-made islands, sitting ducks.
No argument.
It’s just that I have marveled at all the “arms control” advocates over the years, in the west from the 50s on, and then observed the actual history of events during the cold war, and also the India-Pakistan dispute. I have marveled because the “arms control” advocates have advocated for western appeasement as necessary to prevent MAD, when the history shows that it was a strong mutual deterrent that has always prevented things coming to the point of MAD.
What is known about ALL the largest advocates in the west against the U.S. nuclear deterrent, and all the “protest” groups they spawned, was the origins came directly from the Soviets who introduced the approach to the Leftist groups in the west, who then picked up that line of march as their own, and have kept with it to this day. The Soviets may be gone, but western Leftists continue the Soviets geopolitical lines still today.
The excuse, used a an argument, is/was the bad actors in the world would not be the bad actors they are if the U.S. was not as strong and dominant as it is. The further error of that argument is the bad actors would melt away if the U.S. quit its status as the super power. History shows the opposite. The U.S. vacating its super power status would only mean that some bad actor or group of bad actors WOULD fill the power vacuum. So, in sum the western Leftists propagated a Soviet lie, because if U.S. policy makers bought that lie, it would serve the Soviets own power ambitions, and not “disarmament”.