Yes, US went with an all-nuclear supercarrier fleet. You just proved our point! Yes, they are so great, that's why all US aircraft carriers have nuclear propulsion.
Whether a dinghy boat or littoral ship lacks nuclear propulsion is a red herring argument and irrelevant to carrier propulsion discussion at hand.
Except they didn't go with an all-nuclear fleet, not even an all-nuclear carrier fleet (if we were to include LHAs), and that is not red herring but the actual point. The same arguments being used to explain why China's aircraft carriers should have nuclear propulsion are the same old ones used that turned out poorly in practice. Imagine the US at its zenith where money was no object and still found something too expensive. As to why US has an all-nuclear supercarrier fleet, tead what I've wrote again which you conviently left out:
The US sticks with nuclear carriers not because nuclear propulsion is wonderful, but because of entrenched interests, essentially suffering from 体制问题 and not something that China should emulate.
China is not a dirt poor country anymore, it can afford luxury items like nuclear carriers without blinking an eye. GAO points out diminishing returns, but GAO also recognizes US can absorb the costs ten times over, so it's almost a rounding error as far as Pentagon is concerned.
GAO report was written when US was at its zenith, and even then GAO recommended conventional carrier fleet. Clearly, it wasn't a rounding error and it still isn't. You offer no argument as to why China's aircraft carrier should be nuclear powered other than because US does it, and the reason US does it is on shaky foundation to begin with. China no longer being dirt poor doesn't mean China is now free to set money on fire, as there are always areas that could use more funding even within a military.
