I agree with you up to the "limited nuclear exchange."
It is ludicrous in the extreme to think that a nation like China WOULDN'T see the effects of taking out a good number of carriers and COULDN'T do it if they said 'damn the cost.' However I consider it likley that ANY nation that unleashes the atomic fire against America will be destroyed utterly by the same means. The reason being: Why would we want to live in a world with a nation that is considers atomic weapons something to be resorted to so easily?
I believe that "limited nuclear exchange" isn't on our list of tolarable things. It was MAD that prevented ANY firing of nukes during the cold war.
YOU SAID..."I believe that "limited nuclear exchange" isn't on our list of tolarable things."
Absolutely it was not in the past.
I cant see Bush opting for such a scenario in the present timeframe.
I could see Hillary or a Kerry clone going there however in the future.
I think everyone assumed in the past with MAD that both sides had rational men who controlled the missles, and that basic principles of national sovereignty or even national honor would not be compromised.
"I believe that "limited nuclear exchange" isn't on our list of tolarable things."
The problem is keeping any such exchange "limited."