>>512972448
Counterpoint: if China wiped out our Aircraft Carriers I think the logical response is to nuke them. Without our carrier fleet we have no conventional force superiority, whereas China's nuclear arsenal is notoriously smaller and less effective than ours. If we use salvoes of tacnukes on (mostly) military targets with concern for radiation spillover to erase China's excuse for a nuclear arsenal and then remove their "navy" from the board, I don't think Russia would go into MAD mode, I think they would just kind of hem and haw and pretend they didn't notice. And if I'm thinking these big thoughts then I bet Pete Hegseth is too, and if there are any chinks left in the Red Chinese government with brainpower they probably came to a similar conclusion.
Wars and conflicts between, lets say "great" powers in current year are all about measured escalation with maximum face saving and minimal risk of uncontrollable escalation. It's about bullying the other guy into backing down, without making him feel his back is against the wall and he has to go Samson Option to avoid being completely destroyed. Apply this model to Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Iran, India/Pakistan, Thailand/Cambodia. China sweeping our carriers off the map would be an escalation perhaps one step removed from Samson Option territory, because our carriers are that important to maintain our global empire. So I think probably a lot of guys at the Pentagon would agree that if all our carriers were obliterated, a preemptive nuclear strike should at least be discussed.
