[ericmay]

> Even if they decide to do so, why would we expect them to be more successful than the US military - which outspends the entire rest of NATO - at it?

More ships always helps - they wouldn't be doing it without the US, it would be with the US.

[ceejayoz]

> More ships always helps...

So the 11 aircraft carriers are not enough, one might say?

[maxglute]

This what most "why Americans have no healthcare" proponents not realizing. 11 carriers a pittance in terms of sortie generation. ~80% CENTCOM strikes was from now degraded land basing. 3 carriers = ~20% of total fires... ~10% when pushed to standoff range and have to spare sorites for tanking + cap... ~5% when tanking from land basing disrupted. >5% because original ~20% assumes unsustainable high tempo operations. If US waves magic wand and somehow got 11 carriers doing standoff strikes on Iran tier threat, that's ~10% of CENTCOM land strike generation. Iran degrading regional land basing and pushing CSGs to standoff in Arabian Sea basically broke CENTCOM logistics posture in ways that compound. NVM global (not just theatre) stockpile of highend munitions and interceptors would likely be gone before dismantling Iranian ghetto regional strike complex... who could also reconstitute faster. TLDR even if US could, 11 carrier are likely not enough.

[ericmay]

Great points I think. And even more poignant when you realize that this is basically the only game in town. No other country or combined group of countries has the ability to even attempt what the United States is doing. So without the US, well, you don't really have a way to stop Iran if they decided to get a nuclear bomb or close the Strait pending tribute.

[ericmay]

You're familiar with the mythical man month, right?

If we park all 11 aircraft carriers outside of Iran, how will we have them deployed to support interests elsewhere?

[ceejayoz]

You have correctly identified why people are asserting to you that the US looks weak over this, yes.

[ericmay]

This is incorrect