[CondorFlight]

For the cost of the carrier (not including its escort ships and planes — several billions more) we could have had

several nuclear attack submarines

multiple times that non-nuclear but silent submarines

over 100 small silent submarines

etc. etc.

Which would be easier for a potential enemy to defeat — one huge target, or many multiple targets with varying capabilities?

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I think North Korea should fear the undersea responders they can’t see instead of the carriers they can see.

[central_va]

If you want a defensive Navy then go your way. Destroyers and subs are great for second class navies. I want to fight in the enemies back yard and not in mine.

You can't take land, conduct amphibious operations or keep sea lanes of communication SLOC open without air superiority at sea. CVNs will be the cornerstone of the US Navy and will always be here as long as the USA wants to maintain an offensive approach to Naval warfare.

If the USA back down form fixed wing deep water operations other nations will fill the void.

[BBell]

I’m with you on that. I also think the B-2 Spirit is a big waste of money.

[Teacher317]

Which would be easier for a potential enemy to defeat — one huge target, or many multiple targets with varying capabilities?

Your empty argument presumes that we do not already have many multiple other units with varying capabilities. Hint: we do. Next?