> If a carrier can launch fields of drones and missiles, then whatever land mass your attacking can launch more

This is also true of airplanes. The point is you choose where you launch your drones from anywhere in the world.

> change in dynamic here isn’t a function of carriers or their abilities. It’s a change in the cost of drones and missiles

It's a return to battleship economics. Except instead of direct fire from and onto shores, you have indirect fire via drones. Unlike shells, however, we have anti-drone capabilities on the horizon.

It's silly to assume the current instability will persist for more than a few years. If the U.S. were paying any attention to Ukraine, it shouldn't have persisted until even now.

> the technological advantage is that carriers represented for a long time has been completely neutralised

Really not seeing the argument. Again, being able to build and launch and being able to field drones–alongside other weapons–is night and day. (Note that all of these arguments were made when missiles first dawned, too. Drones are, in many respects, a missile for area denial.)