3 ms·
In these escalation scenarios either both sides commit to non-escalation or it doesn't matter. I don't know if current US policy had a nuclear retaliation for a
by netflixandkill 6y ago
In these escalation scenarios either both sides commit to non-escalation or it doesn't matter. I don't know if current US policy had a nuclear retaliation for a strike against a carrier group, but it is such a high probability that any adversary likely considers is as true.
China or whomever attacking a carrier to destroy it with anything other than 1945 style surface warfare tactics leads to nuclear war, even if it's not the final decision point. The response to such an attack leads to nuclear war in enough projections.
- magicsmoke 6y agoI doubt it. Losing a military asset means the US will start throwing civilian assets into the pot and gambling with MAD? The civilian population will revolt when they realize that the Navy wants to double down with NY and SF because they're throwing a tantrum over losing Nimitz. In the same way, the US should keep strikes on Chinese military facilities on the table. But escalation is much likelier because those facilities are located in civilian areas and near nuclear missile sites. That's a perfect analogue of the strategic asymmetry. China and it's civilian population actually lives in the area. The US is just visiting with military assets, and losing a civilian is a tragedy but losing a member of the military is the job they signed up for.