that's only partially true. The Threat has to be realistic to the mind of the Deterred. that's the key here. The Deterrence has to be a threat that is real to the mind of your foe. it doesn't have to be real. The Enemy has to think it is though. Jeff understands that. Although I don't think it is a toothless system, I am not that bold. DF21D is aimed to deterre, But the PRC leaderships knows that if they sink an American carrier The responce would be far larger then conventional.
As I've said before, I doubt the PLA will seek to sink a carrier outright, given smashing even a 500kg RV into a carrier's hull may not assure enough damage to sink it. Cluster munitions on deck will probably be the aim -- a mission kill.
IF a carrier is somehow sunk, whether the US decides to escalate or decides to back down will depend on how events play prior to it. US anger at events like pearl harbour and 9/11 were partly due to their "cowardly" and "underhanded" nature. Sinking a legitimate military target, if preceded by prior warnings, especially when the target itself has massive offensive capability? Well... who knows.
That said, I do think the US military and US public have become a little too casual about their military deployments, that it is normal and acceptable to achieve military victories with little loss of one's own forces. If something like a carrier is lost, it would probably cause immense soul searching.
The question should less be whether China is prepared for the consequences of attacking a carrier, but whether the US is prepared for the consequence of deploying a carrier.
That said however my belief is that the DF21D has a expiration date. and that date will come in the form of a countermeasure. Rail gun technology in particular has my attention.
That's ridiculous. that's like saying cruise missiles have an expiration date because SAMs and ciws are a valid counter.
The easiest way to counter AShBM is to disrupt the kill chain instead of trying to terminal kill it.
haha
