I 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.