I actually go by official ones. Being simple is helpful ;p
Naval warfare doesn't rely on building "walls of ships", on a material level.
This is not land warfare, it's both hard to achieve and pointless at the same time - naval warfare isn't static.
Assets intended to defend Home Islands either don't conflict with escorting ones, or can reasonably perform both functions (for example, JMSDF MPAs) - and, frankly speaking, Japan has plenty of them.
Offtop: I don't like nuclear warfare entusiasts. Most of them think of what they can do to "them". Fewer think about what will happen if anyone will reply. And, as we know from Caribbean crisis, they only remember about their own families when bombers are already on high alert.
It's important to remember about nuclear weapons, but aim of the military - superpower military especially so - shall be in ability to attain its goals without going up the nuclear ladder.
It's especially true for China, which is by far the most vulnerable to any sort of nuclear warfare (and even non-nuclear strategic strikes are meh). It's simply against its interest - especially in a conflict, which is very much winnable as things stand right now.
Taiwan is a political goal. While political limits on warfare are a nice thing (no sarcasm here), sometimes it may make things almost unachievable.
In particular, while taking of Taiwan without isolating(blockading) it is possible - it's the least desirable way not only militarily, but politically too (best course scenario is Crimea-style fait accompli).
