> The carriers are deterrents, not weapons. They will be among the first major casualties of any true, open warfare. Any country powerful enough to challenge a

> The carriers are deterrents, not weapons. They will be among the first major casualties of any true, open warfare. Any country powerful enough to challenge a US carrier strike group in true, open warfare, isn't a country that is fighting a full symmetric conventional war with the United States. They're fighting a nuclear war. They are weapons, powerful, effective, government-toppling weapons, and that is what makes them such effective deterrents. For the non-Chinas and non-Russias in the world, a carrier strike group is probably sufficient. If one won't do, how would you like two?