I think attacking US assets on US territory in close proximity to US civilians, yes. You keep downplaying that, do you consider. Guam and it's people lesser than downtown LA? Hawaii is an actual state, why are they less important than LA? What if it's just Portland or Seattle?
The people don't matter and more or less, but i don't think an American president would treat the two as equivalent, especially if the targets were hypothetically dual-use, in the same way I don't think China would see strikes in major cities as equivalent to attacking Guam.
The strikes on dual-use targets undermine a nuclear deterrent more and the strikes against Downtown Los Angeles further erode the perception that the government is able to protect its population
If you disagree with that fine, but then I don't think that this discussion really serves any further purpose
If the people don't matter, I don't see why you keep using proximity to population centers as a metric? Why is the assumption that China's attacks are fine and non-escalatory but the American response is inherently so? You keep talking about hitting downtowns in China, but only bases in US.
I'm saying the people in Guam don't matter and more or less as people in Los Angeles, but population centers mean more people are at risk. I didnt say attacks on Guam aren't an escalation, we escalated to war! Our discussion assumes we are fighting a war with them!
If they strike guam, we strike fiery cross reef, and then they strike Hawaii that would be an escalation. If we retaliate against something equivalent and then try strike downtown LA that is also an escalation. If we retaliate against Beijing, that's an escalation too. We both do it!
Honolulu isn't a major population center? Attacking like for like isn't an escalation, you're the only person who insists that degrading Chinese AA capabilities in response to China doing the same means attacking specifically population centers, as if that's the sum total of assets.
Again if you think think all these things are the same then fine (including the dual use C2 part which you keep ignoring), we can end the discussion here. Every possible U.S. strategy is equally escalatory as any of the others, and we can do whatever we want
We don't have to consider possible Chinese responses. We don't have to care about dual use targets. It's all the same, we are responding in kind, the risk of nuclear escalation and strategic cyberattacks doesn't change, hooray, problem solved
Again: you're the only person insisting the US degrading Chinese AA means specifically means hitting population centers. This is a pointless convo until you recognize that you're steelmanning a hypothetical Chinese surprise attack while strawmanning the retaliation.
Some are in cities, much of it isn't. www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-Seco...
Some assets certainly are, others are surrounded by farm fields or forests. Why assume people saying the US would have to degrade that AA mean "bomb Beijing?" climateviewer.org/history-and-...