Initially I was full of thoughts and comments to do with low tech and olde skool methods easily taking on big political, policing and military forces, etc. Often this comes to mind when I hear the authorities talking about terrorists using the internet and cell phones for communicating, and getting caught. What's wrong the the old dead drop, human courier, etc, I think. And MC02 is another great example. But I bet we all think that. So... boring!!!!<p>However, having read this, the comments here and particularly the article in exile.ru, Im wondering about the problem of the aircraft carrier. As I understand it, the point of these things is to plonk a use-able base near or in the theatre of operations. "Projecting power" is the phrase, I believe. Anyway, these operations, and other examples, talk about being 100 miles off shore, or something similar, and there for being vulnerable to small mass attacks, one of operations, or what ever. The conclusion seems to be that aircraft carriers are vulnerable sitting ducks, and there for useless. Further, carrier owners are some how wrong for wanting, using or advocating them. I disagree.<p>If one is going to engage in this sort of war, a base near where the war is to be fought is essential. The US (China, Russia, etc) cant do war in the middle east (or anywhere not close to the people doing war) with out some thing like a carrier, unless suddenly the locals get friendly and allow huge US bases on their land. Yes, deals were, are and will be done, but its not comprehensive or ideal. If it were, heh, why war? Oops, tangent...<p>Anyway, point being, the carrier is as vital as it is vulnerable. What needs to be sorted out is how you get them in place, then defend them. But IMHO, they are certainly not worthless, useless, or even slightly redundant. They are literally a part of the country that can be manoeuvred to different places. If you can't do that, you can easily do major war 1000's of miles away.<p>Edit:
Or, I read too much Tom Clancy....