That is absolutely true, but it remains to be seen if those attempts will hold up in the long run. There is a big difference between American power being in decline (but still dominant) and the world being multipolar. I would say that currently the derivative is <0 but American power is still vastly greater than any other country.
Of course the Chinese nuclear arsenal is enough in absolute terms to destroy a large segment of the US population (and an even greater share of GDP) but I would not say the same in practice. Contrary to the US and Russia, China has a “no first use” nuclear weapons doctrine. This piece of policy does have material consequences, meaning that the PRC’s nuclear arsenal is really just a large stockpile of weapons, not a 24/7/365 array of ICBM bunkers. There is no such thing as a Chinese “red button”, but there is an American one. The PRC also possesses no significant SLBM potential, meaning that the US could probably wipe out much of the Chinese land based capability and population centers with minimal losses in return.
I guess my point is that there are diminishing diplomatic/power rewards from increasing the number of nuclear weapons in your stockpile. While having nuclear capability is certainly important to be considered a superpower, the advantage the US gains over China by having a nuclear arsenal way bigger than the the Chinese one is, in my view, relatively small. China still has enough nuclear weapons to make launching missiles at it a really bad idea for a president of the US who wants to keep his job/his party’s political power/his citizens safe (even including the possible incompetency of China’s nuclear force—see this report). Also, having a no first use policy would matter more if China’s leader was bound by his countries laws, which he is unfortunately not.
That is absolutely true, but it remains to be seen if those attempts will hold up in the long run. There is a big difference between American power being in decline (but still dominant) and the world being multipolar. I would say that currently the derivative is <0 but American power is still vastly greater than any other country.
Of course the Chinese nuclear arsenal is enough in absolute terms to destroy a large segment of the US population (and an even greater share of GDP) but I would not say the same in practice. Contrary to the US and Russia, China has a “no first use” nuclear weapons doctrine. This piece of policy does have material consequences, meaning that the PRC’s nuclear arsenal is really just a large stockpile of weapons, not a 24/7/365 array of ICBM bunkers. There is no such thing as a Chinese “red button”, but there is an American one. The PRC also possesses no significant SLBM potential, meaning that the US could probably wipe out much of the Chinese land based capability and population centers with minimal losses in return.
I guess my point is that there are diminishing diplomatic/power rewards from increasing the number of nuclear weapons in your stockpile. While having nuclear capability is certainly important to be considered a superpower, the advantage the US gains over China by having a nuclear arsenal way bigger than the the Chinese one is, in my view, relatively small. China still has enough nuclear weapons to make launching missiles at it a really bad idea for a president of the US who wants to keep his job/his party’s political power/his citizens safe (even including the possible incompetency of China’s nuclear force—see this report). Also, having a no first use policy would matter more if China’s leader was bound by his countries laws, which he is unfortunately not.