I'm not questioning relevancy, but escalatory logic. CONUS vulnerability is going to increase with mid/high end missile/drone proliferation. But skipping over proxy fight vs lesser adversaries with limited CONUS strike capabilities vs peer adversaries with significant CONUS strike capabilities is not particularly sound. Now it may get there if existential, but that's far from first run on escalation ladder.

Obviously the former, hint: that's what PRC is doing, basically Third Front 2.0. The retardation of the second is instead of fighting an underpowered proxy with limited CONUS strike you fight a peer power with enhanced CONUS strike, see latest China Power report that suggests all west coast is open to PRC conventional global strikes. In the mean time, PRC IS hardening and digging, (and distributing) - corollary to that is they aren't sunk cost in US naval/airforce model that requires physical sanctuary and can in fact build out entire survivable underground prompt global strike complex with high end rocketry, i.e. you can shelter TELs but not carriers (maybe b21s).

The real answer is of course, do as much of A as feasible and simply accept/recognize technology has made fortress America increasingly obsolete. CONUS vulnerability is baked into the medium term tech stack and will increasingly constrain US expeditionary model. Nevermind PRC drone factories, irbms and shaheed tier poverty moped drones that can hit CONUS is well within Monroe countries industrial capabilities, and the techstack is only going to get more commoditized with time. It's not just PRC US has to worry about, it's general global tech uplifting/proliferation. So what can US do to protect CONUS... harden CONUS at extreme cost... and restrain itself because blowback 10-20 years from now is not some terrorist attack on CONUS soil but PADD3 refineries going boom.