[El Gato]

If you can't fight 2 wars simultaniously, you cannot afford to fight any war, since you will be vulnerable

A very good point. However nothing says both must be fought with carrier aircraft. B-2s, or in a more permissive air environment, B-1s and more permissive still B-52s, armed with JDAMs or LGBs, represent sent a heck of a lot of firepower. If necessary they can be based right in the US, although something closer would obviously be better, as they would eat up fewer tanker assets and be able to fly more sorties per aircraft, from closer in.

[rmlew]

A very good point. However nothing says both must be fought with carrier aircraft. B-2s, or in a more permissive air environment, B-1s and more permissive still B-52s, armed with JDAMs or LGBs, represent sent a heck of a lot of firepower. If necessary they can be based right in the US, although something closer would obviously be better, as they would eat up fewer tanker assets and be able to fly more sorties per aircraft, from closer in.

Bombers cannot provide air superiority and are still limited in close air support. Carrier aircraft are simply more flexable in the Littorials. They are a sovereign Us airfield floating off almost any shore and backed up by a task force carrying cruise missles.
When a crisis happens, presidents don't ask "Where are the B-2's?", they ask: "Where are the Carriers?"