Facing a symmetric opponent that isn't holding back (e.g., to maintain deniability about their actual involvement), the US’s entire conventional arsenal is irrelevant (and, heck,even the tactical nuclear arsenal is mostly irrelevant.)
Of course, the same is true of the symmetric opponent, that is the way symmetry works.
I'm rejecting the idea that, for analysis of the utility of US military forces outside of the strategic triad, “real opponents” = “symmetric opponents”, and even casting doubt on the idea that, in the same context, “real opponents” ⊆ “symmetric opponents”.
Of course, the same is true of the symmetric opponent, that is the way symmetry works.
I'm rejecting the idea that, for analysis of the utility of US military forces outside of the strategic triad, “real opponents” = “symmetric opponents”, and even casting doubt on the idea that, in the same context, “real opponents” ⊆ “symmetric opponents”.