“But China’s goal was never to trigger an extended, costly, bloody contest of superpowers.”
Sorta like how Japan thought. “If we sink the fleet at Pearl Harbor, the Americans will quickly back down.”
This is always a silly fantasy the enemies have. That if the Nimitz limps home a smoldering wreck from a sneak attack,, that Americans will quickly negotiate a settlement.While our nation appears limp-wristed, the world would be stunned at an American response to an outright military attack. ANd while Obama might not, every other president would probably launch ICBMs.
Thats the essential value of nuclear weapons. Realistically, you have no latitude anymore to launch conventional warfare against a nuclear power.
Not to mention, the instant they tried this, their loans to us are voided, and their biggest markety vanishes overnight. Did Lockheed write this fantasy to sell more stuff? The chineses “launch” button is actually an “instant destroy the chinese economy button”.
No American President would EVER nuke land targets in response to an attack on warships.
That's been the fallacy of the carrier battle group for years and years.
Any conflict in which CBGs could play a role would result in the CBGs being sunk in fifteen minutes with nuclear weapons.
And the idea that a Soviet (or Chicom) attack on a seaborne military target would lead to us trading Los Angeles for Beijing is just absurd.
A land attack that killed civilians - sure. A clean kill in the middle of the ocen - not a chance.
If Bush didn't attack Tora Bora with ICBMs, you can dismiss it as a possibility under your scenario. THIS isn't an Obama problem - our weakness has been apparent for years.
You stated the obvious-the fallacy of going to war against a conventional power. But it applies equally to the US as well.
So let us rephrase the whole issue of the USS Nimitz. Will it be deployed to defend Taiwan???