Now Mongo, do we really want to start down the road of "which asset is the best"? All have limitations, all have strengths in different areas. Almost always, it is the Combined TEAM that is the best answer...
But let me answer a few of the glaring ones you posted, based on the discussions I am having with Congress, OSD, and the joint services as part of my current job...
Can we guarantee that all the world's potential hot spots are within range of existing friendly capable airfields?
May not need to if it is just a short, one strike mission into a denied airspace. Persistent / prolonged combat? Well, different story, but if it's a prolonged war, it will include the ENTIRE power of the DoD.
I think most, if not all, are within range of international waters.
So are most of the anti-ship missile batteries and the potential enemies OWN aircraft, complete with anti-ship weapons. Does the CSG have it's own self-protection capabilities? Certainly. Can they get ALL the incoming missiles? A pretty gutsy bet, especially if you will be the one standing on the LARGEST radar reflector in the water for miles...
It is also extremely difficult (or at least more so than with a carrier) to maintain any element of surprise when forward land basing a couple of squadrons of AF jets into a potential hot spot.
Thanks for the chuckle. Element of surprise? From a Carrier Group having to sail close enough to employ against potential targets?
Well, maybe if we stick to taking on the Pirates off the Somali coast. I think both deploying a Wing of Strike aircraft from the AF and deploying a Carrier group really don't count on surprise. I think there both more inclined to be sending a message.
But this is besides the point. As has been mentioned, this is clearly a situation where the senior military leadership will have to work with OSD and Congress to establish priorities. Someone's capabilities will have to be reduced for another's to be supplemented; the defense budget's imminent reduction will make this a reality. I just hope the debate will include the foresight to look beyond the current situation and also include future possibilities. Or at least those in charge to have the courage enough to identify National priorities for the next 20 or so years, and publicly declare their willingness to accept risk in other areas.
One factor no one has addressed is "How will Congress take this?" They do have a tendency to muck up our best plans for shifting priorities and reductions. The C-130J comes to mind, plus the whole BRAC process. Not to sure how our Congessmen from California, Virginia, and Florida will take to suggestions to reduce the fleet. And I'm positive the Congressman who has the shipbuilding yard in their district WILL NOT be the first in line to shake the SECDEF's hand in support of his intentions. I always get a big laugh when Congressmen hold a press conference about "how can we risk our troops' safety" when it's suggested a program from their district be cut or eliminated. Never forget: Congress's 1st priority is NOT National Defense (although they may loudly claim it is). Their 1st priority is getting re-elected, and that means keeping the jobs in their district.