> Carrier escorts do the defense.

Modern carriers are overprovisioned for electricity generation PRECISLY to keep the option open to mount DE and similar weapons directly on them. Just because destroyers were used for AA defence during WW2 doesn't mean they will have that role in WW3.

> impossible to shoot them all down

Almost nothing is impossible. And I don't even think the cost of shooting down a lot of satellites need to be very high. And keep in mind that you only have to shoot down those that are on top of the TOO. It's probably rather simple to have ground or even air launched missiles that can shoot down satellites at will.

> IRBMs will out range them

Most hypersonic missiles today have a relatively limited range (less than the range of most aircraft, especially if they're refueled in-air) Ballistic missiles are easier to shoot down and less accurate. This comes down to a cost analysis, not black/white.

> PRC will have more firepower bandwidth than multiple carrier groups can intercept.

This is correlated with range. The longer range, the higher the cost to have this kind of arsenal. Combine with improvements in both ABM's energy weapons, etc, the outcome is not given, I would say.

> US basing near PRC is not survivable,

Just because an airfield can be reached by some cruise missile, doesn't mean the attacker can destroy anything at that air field at will. What we're seing in Ukraine, is that air defences can stop a large percentage of missiles. If you have missiles of your own, you can shoot back at enemy missile launcers. If you have good bunkers, missles may not do much damage, and if you store aircraft underground or within mountains (like Taiwan is rumored to), the aircraft are even harder to kill.

Also, F35B do not rely on airfields at all. You can hide them anywhere, and they can take of from a short stretch of road.

It is NOT easy to make an area unsurvivable. The number of missiles will always be limited.

> but being hit will likely end in mission kill.

That depends what is hitting them, and where they're hit. Some hits have little effect, some sink the carrier, some put it out of action for hours, days or weeks.

> WW2 strategic bombing failed at forcing capitulation but succeeded in breaking the war machine.

Germany had a higher industrial output just a few months before the end of the war than they had in 1940/41.

The bombing certainly had an effect. It diverted resources into building AA, repairing damage, defensive fighters and so on, but it was the ground forces, in particular the Red Army that crushed Germany.

Against Japan, the submarine blockade was probably more important for the industrial output than the bombing. The nukes did make a convincing argument psychologically, though.

> for the PRC reverting to 3rd world country or coalition uniting against them. Not really possible, PRC export to the west bloc likely to sanction

I'm not talking sanctions, but a full naval blockade lasting years, probably combined with cutting rail links to Russia. China is much more dependent on trade than the USA. (Japan would suffer a lot though, if China could return the favor.)

> energy producers aren't siding with the west

In an actual war, blockade means you stop all shipping going in/out. With torpedos if neccesary. There are no oil producers that can break a USN blockade if China cannot (except for a small number of Russian rail lines).

A full convential war between NATO and China would look nothing like the Ukraine war. The economy of almost every country in the world would be wrecked due to collapsing supply chains. Living standards would fall to a fraction of what they are today. In many places, famines would erupt. And even where there'd be enough food, a lot of essential goods (such as medicines) would become unavailable in most countries not producing them themselves.

Imagine the worst stage of Covid, multiply by 5.

The worst part is that this scenario is very likely to happen within 10 years.