Pretty inept article . Taiwan Strait is no place for carriers . US could of course put their CVBGs there, but what would they do ? In case of shooting war between China and Taiwan, US would have to decide would they join the fray . If they start firing at Chinese forces, there is no question Chinese would return fire - in that case placing US carriers so near Chinese coast would be equivalent of suicide . and of course China would not use their single training carrier to face US fleet, they have other forces for that .
I fail to see whats so inept about it?
The article clearly states that the aircraft carriers are valued not for their conventional capabilities, but the strategic ramifications that would come with attempting to sink one. In other words, the US would deploy a carrier(s), or carrier battle-group(s) as a form of strategic deterrence. China acquiring a carrier of its own neutralizes this advantage, and forces the US to seek methods of deescalation to prevent an all out war.
The Diplomat said:"In the 1996 crisis, the U.S. “carrier monopoly” neutralized the Chinese tactical advantage over Taiwan by highlighting the U.S. strategic dominance. China’s leadership saw the potential destruction that an attack against U.S. carriers would unleash. However, in a renewed Taiwanese crisis today, China could pass the ball to the U.S. side. Its single carrier has delivered strategic risk parity in the straits. As the Chinese carrier would face-off against the U.S. carriers, a war of nerves would begin... As China would enjoy the advantage of playing on its own doorstep with Chinese public opinion fiercely opposing any retreat, and is it would be willing to dance with the U.S. closer to the edge, the U.S. would have to deescalate and take the conflict to the UN or risk a nuclear confrontation.