Sometimes implication follows conclusion and it's not a matter of argument but facing reality. If conclusion is large surface combatants aren't survivable, then maybe bad idea to double down on large surface combatants. Problem is navy institutional inertia/identity depends on building big ships, with 11+9 carriers mandated by law. The other implication is if large surface combatants, and US to some degree needs largish combatants with high endurance to run global missions, is not survivable, then maybe US naval/expeditionary model is not viable and if there's no alternative (can't protect global basing without survivable global navy) a lot of dominos start falling.
Comments
Sometimes implication follows conclusion and it's not a matter of argument but facing reality. If conclusion is large surface combatants aren't survivable, then maybe bad idea to double down on large surface combatants. Problem is navy institutional inertia/identity depends on building big ships, with 11+9 carriers mandated by law. The other implication is if large surface combatants, and US to some degree needs largish combatants with high endurance to run global missions, is not survivable, then maybe US naval/expeditionary model is not viable and if there's no alternative (can't protect global basing without survivable global navy) a lot of dominos start falling.