Sorry, what decision are you saying is being made because China can nuke Boise more easily than other places? Are you envisioning a limited tactical strike by China that bombs half the country but leaves the Eastern seaboard militarily relevant?
If you have a limited number of long range ICBMs then you will likely prefer more directly military targets rather than a manufacturing facility which would likely only start to matter for a conflict months into combat, which itself is a scenario (drawn out conventional war) that is likely precluded by exchange of nuclear weapons in the first place.
> If you have a limited number of long range ICBMs
China has hundreds going on thousands of ICBMs. Nobody is creating redundancy from Boise to Albany and Sunnyvale to increase survivability in case of a nuclear exchange between America and China.
Sorry, I should have said hundreds going on a thousand. Glad we put that fab in Sunnyvale!
(442 is hundreds. Your own source says the "Pentagon also estimates that China’s arsenal will increase to about 1,000 warheads by 2030, many of which will probably be 'deployed at higher readiness levels' and most 'fielded on systems capable of ranging the [continental United States]'." By 2035 that could grow up to 1,500. These are MAD figures.)
You realize if China is launching ICBMs on US cities we are simultaneously deploying nuclear weapons against China and it’s the end of the world… right?
