I agree. It wouldn't be a small escalation. But it still wouldn't merit a strategic nuclear counterstrike.
Point is, there is a lot of room for escalation before we go into strategic nuclear war. Or even physically damage on either side's mainland.
I don't believe this is widely accepted.
Consider that the last time the US lost significant naval assets, we committed to a hugely costly war and effectively annihilated the attacker. It was the original impetus for developing nuclear weapons in the first place, and it remains the only time they've been used against an enemy.
> Point is, there is a lot of room for escalation before we go into strategic nuclear war.
My understanding of the military and political thinking around the use of nuclear weapons is that the use of tactical nuclear weapons inevitably leads to their strategic use.
Destroying a US carrier via conventional means would carry significant risk of nuclear retaliation. Doing it through nuclear means effectively guarantees it.
They also have a strategy of assured retaliation and maintain a countervalue stance. Hopefully, we won't have to find out whether or not they will follow through with it...
Yeah we know that's false now, it's just something they claimed and will never uphold, after they threatened to obliterate Japan.
That statement isn't worth the electrons we're wasting on displaying it. Authoritarian regimes have no policies. Their "policy" every day is what the autocrat feels like when he wakes up, and if he's constipated during his morning dump the "policy" can change before breakfast.
I'd hestitate to describe the US as a nation who could politically accept a one-sided nuclear strike.