If you read my last post on the UK's new carriers, you'll note that I reported the Economist's comment that at the point where they were now in construction, it would be more expensive to cancel than finish. I predicted they'd mothball them first thing when completed, you'll see. And, if carriers are so important as you point out, why has the UK decided to go without for 8 to 13 years? The Chinese have been building that carrier for decades almost now. And for what? No other carrier on the horizon. As to India, Italy, Spain, supposedly allies, their carriers are jokes. Only France has one modern nuclear carrier.<quoted text>
And when a carrier task force arrives off the coast of a rogue country, they notice. And then why is the U.K. building two new carriers? And why is China working to deploy their first carrier?
As to carriers off the shores of rogue nations, tell me what that accomplished in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, in the Middle East etc. Very little or Zilch. In the Cuban missile crisis, double zilch. It's all about guerilla warfare, insurgency and terrorism now, Rogue. We'd best find solutions to those. Might be cheaper too.