Aircraft Carriers are Thundertrinkets ?

Not a good analysis, I think.

E.g. none of those new wonder weapons can hit a CVN without knowing where it is or will be after launch for the slower ones.

His off-hand dismissal of ABM capability is not credible and in the case of the USNavy is for now (well, prior to the systems being used in anger) falsified by the many successes of the AEGIS SM-3 ABM system, which is being rolled out fleet wide and beyond (2 out of 3 successful intercepts by Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force ships to date, with the Royal Netherlands Navy slated to join the fun).

I think his dismissal of our nuclear submarine force is also mistaken. Even if lose some of our surface fleet or some areas become no-go zones, those unequaled boats should still be able to do a lot of damage and most likely be able to prevent an adversary from gaining the command of the seas (at least regionally).

And finally his dismissal of CVNs for the current types of wars we're fighting is not credible. The utility of a floating airbase that can be off shore within a short period of time is pretty immense. No messing with getting approval from foreign nations for basing, no slow startup getting a remote base set up, more manageable security, etc. Supercarriers have proven their worth in a lot of small "dirty" wars and incidents.

In terms of soft power they're great for natural disasters. They carry lots of stuff, have a bunch of helicopters and can probably support more, can distill a lot of fresh water, etc. etc. etc.