US Navy Carrier's Problems Are Tied to Attacks on U.S. Base Early in War

nytimes.com

4 pointsthrow0101a4 comments

The damage/destruction of a key base for logistics seems to have been kept under wraps for months:

> Diego Garcia, a tiny island 2,200 miles from the Gulf of Oman, took over as the Navy’s logistics hub after Iran damaged a base in Bahrain.

Of course you don't want to dock your capital ships at a place that is with-in striking distance of your enemy.

I'd phrase that as "you always want to minimize your dependency on a naval base within easy striking range of a potential enemy". And point out how the Royal Navy moved from Malta to Alexandria a couple years before WWII started, because the former was within easy striking range of Italy.

Alexandria was within striking range - most famously the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Alexandria_(1941) - but it was far less easy. Especially after the Royal Navy tightened up their lax security against enemy frogmen sneaking in to plant bombs on the bottoms of their battleships.

The USN is quite aware of WWII history. I'd ask (1) who made the bad decision to stay dependent on Bahrain, and (2) how well protected are the USN's bases and anchorages against both frogmen planting bombs, and various similar threats.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com