First, anyone added up what this costs?

Then, are they really, really sure that all the ships involved in these battle groups won't hit each other, or local fishing fleets/freighters?

And finally, moving two groups into the area just for show without a real shootin' war might lead someone to think those groups have no point being where they were.

multiple carriers were stationed in the tight confines of the Persian Gulf during Desert Storm and the Iraq War. And yes, it's mind bogglingly expensive to operate super carriers. One of the reasons no one else does it.

Probably nothing more.

Having peer pressure not to fuck up probably make them more alert than cruising alone.

It is a sign of aggression.

spare parts and other losses any time you make that large a move.

Yes, it is obviously aggressive-- that seems to be the point with this guy. The greatest dealmaker in the world seems too be unable to make a deal with Kim.

It's not like we bought new ships to put these three groups together. If they were not together, they would have been somewhere else, using the same spare parts, needing the same maintenance, etc.

There likely isn't a whole lot of extra expense for this exhibitionism.

that every time our Army battalion went out on maneuvers or training missions we not only used vast amounts of fuel but most of our equipment needed some sort of repair.

Trucks and tanks, for instance, were assumed to be good for no more than 30-50 miles per mission before they needed "recuperation". At several points, we had to cancel simple training operations because of budget restraints.

I imagine the costs for moving a carrier group would be vastly higher. Remember, it's not just the carrier itself, but its support vessels:

http://www.public.navy.mil/airfor/cvn69/Pages/CARRIER%20STRIKE%20GROUP.aspx

"CARRIER STRIKE GROUP

The Carrier Strike Group (CSG), composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, an aircraft carrier, at least one cruiser, a flotilla of six to 10 destroyers and/or frigates, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft. A carrier strike group is the largest operational unit of the United States Navy and comprises a principal element of U.S. power projection capability."

These are the combat vessels. Since not everything is nuclear, I suppose there are still oilers and other supply vessels attached to the group. Minesweepers?

Whether they are together or not, they would have the same costs.

I am not an expert on Naval operations either, but the costs for them being together are likely not higher than them being apart. The fact is, they would be somewhere, using expendables, no matter where they are.

The support vessels would still be using the same fuel, regardless. You are comparing your battalion not being deployed to being maneuvers or training missions. Are you asserting that these three carrier groups would be in port, anchored up if they were not together in the Pacific? Because it seems that is what you are implying.

lounging around in port or loafing around in the area.

when in fact, they would be deployed somewhere else, if they where not together for this dick waving.

If they were sitting idle in port, there would be less cost, but that is not likely the case.

No wonder NK wants a nuclear deterrent. Not having one is what would be more insane.

... "show of force" rhymes with "stroking genitalia."

-- Mal

found out about the wisdom of putting all their carriers in
one basket...midway is.

i would hope they remain far enough apart that the nk fool is not tempted to do a 3 for 1 bomb hail mary