> preemptive strikes Prompt global strike less about preemption, but building up proportional responses on retaliation latter. US discussion around TW scenario

> preemptive strikes Prompt global strike less about preemption, but building up proportional responses on retaliation latter. US discussion around TW scenario factors in mainland strikes, with assumption that CONUS will be relatively spared. Once conversation includes hitting PRC mainland = PRC hitting CONUS, then escalation math becomes very different. Global strike and blue water are both we can touch your homeland capabilities, with global strike potentially able to make bluewater obsolete, i.e. global striking carrier hulls or logistic nodes that sustains bluewater prevents them from being forward deployed and being able to deliver fires at all. That's what makes US GD optics extra worthwhile, at this point US has sunk trillions and decades into carrier centred (and soon B21) expeditionary force structure, with no hint of pivot (i.e. IMO too much interbranch drama to build out equivalent of PLARocketForce). Sailors like their big boats, aviators like their fancy planes. No one wants to be the glorified uber driver for big icbm rockets. Marine MLRs closest, but they get to brag about driving off big boats in their big cars that shoot small missiles. At the end of the day, GD, going to be blanket wank material for US having bestest/most impenetrable missile defense can validate the other force structures that requires forward / preposition by at least pretending they're not as vulnerable as they are. It's how US gets to continue play the China weak card as long as china remains cautious / PLA remains untested. i.e. if PRC stays smart and appear weak relative to US.