>If anything the US needs more carriers as recent years have taught the navy.

This is an insane position. The US already has a bigger navy than the next 10 great navies combined, 8 of which are close allies. There has never in the history of the world been such a huge power imbalance (the British Empire at its height maintained a navy twice the size of its two biggest rivals). And you think they need a bigger one???

Not so insane if your goal is serious force projection in two or more disconnected theaters simultaneously. The US Navy does a lot more than sink enemy ships. Given that the US is in North American and is on friendly terms with Canada and Mexico, the vast majority of our force projection is facilitated by the Navy.

It's not about relative size, it's about desired capabilities. And if China ever makes a move on Taiwan, I think a lot of people will appreciate the "insanity" of those capabilities, just as they've appreciated our policing the world's oceans for the last 70 years.

< And if China ever makes a move on Taiwan, I think a lot of people will appreciate the "insanity" of those capabilities

How many carrier fleets do you need to protect a small colony? And of course, this is assuming the US would actually go to war with China over Taiwan, which is highly doubtful.

> just as they've appreciated our policing the world's oceans for the last 70 years.

That is highly debatable. Most of the world does not appreciate US imperialism.

> "That is highly debatable. Most of the world does not appreciate US imperialism."

Then I'll happily debate you and say that most of the word does appreciate US peacekeeping and aid. It's easy to throw around the imperialism word without context. What would you call the Belt and Road initiative by China which now practically owns Africa? And who do you think will defend against it when that situation escalates?

I think it's much easier to like Chinese imperialism with things like Belt and Road, which actually helps little people despite all of the downsides, than it is to love American imperialism, which largely consists of coups against democratically elected governments, forced work on US companies' plantations, civilian infrastructure bombing, paying and training terrorists (the taliban, first and foremost), weapon sales to terrorist belligerent regimes (Israel, Saudi Arabia, historically Irak, Iran), forced kidnappings and interrogations, mining the harbors of Nicaragua and ignoring the International Criminal Court penalties for this proven war crime, and so many others.

Of course, it should go without saying that most people would much rather live in the US than China. But to most people who are not citizens, the US is much scarier than China. Exceptions such as Japan, Israel, South Korea, Republic of China (Taiwan), Federal Republic of Germany after WWII are just that - exceptions.

According to Gallup poles, the majority of the world fears the US more than any other country.

Of course America has done harm. But tell me what peace has China kept over the last 7 decades? What little people are actually helped by the Uyghur genocide? By the One-China policy that ignores Taiwan and pressures the other southeastern nations? By the continued oppression of North Korea? By the resource depletion and territorial control in Africa as seen by the Congo power conflict? This is, quite literally, imperialism in action and often gets dangerously close to provoking war.

But sure, some misguided folks might prefer the lifetime dictators of Russia and China much better. I'm sure that'll last until a real conflict starts.

Are you claiming that the USA has been 'keeping peace'? The one country in the world that has been involved in each and every war that has happened in the last 70 years, often on the side of (or being) the aggressor? China,for all of the atrocities they carry out inside their country, has at least not started any wars.

Huge powers are never your friends - that much is certain. Whatever they do is ultimately meant to further the goals of their own citizens (the wealthy and powerful, of course) - this is true of China, the USA, the USSR, and every other empire in history. Some small countries benefit from an empire's influence, when they happen to be in a place where that empire wants stability (for example, Romania has mostly benefitted from US colonization). Other small countries are devastated and thrown into dictatorship (Nicaragua, Cuba, Iran, Honduras, Guatemala, Vietnam, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Syria, to name a few).

Yes, keeping the peace sometimes requires minor conflicts to prevent larger ones, and some regions are unstable at best. Meanwhile China has a population of 1.5B+ on its own and atrocities "inside" are still atrocities large enough to dwarf prior world wars. Same with the existence and suffering of nations like North Korea under their protection.

Your selective dismissal of conflict is telling. If you're afraid of, and dislike, the USA then that's unfortunate, but it doesn't leave much more to discuss.

Except that aircraft carriers are obsolete-- sitting ducks that will be sunk by long range guided missiles within hours of the next Great Power conflict. Submarine carriers with fleets of drones are the obvious replacement.

So your solution for an expensive surface vessel is an even more expensive subsurface vessel that does the same thing?

A true life-or-death Great Power conflict will likely end human civilization, regardless of who wins, due to nuclear weaponry. Why bother trying to win a war that everyone is bound to lose? Until then, submarine carriers are a lot more expensive.

you are proving the point that aircraft carriers are useless for anything other than bullying 3rd world nations

More like useless against counties that have nuclear weapons. There are probably only nine[1] of those.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_we...]