1) No one died, mostly because civilian fire departments refused to board it in case they got lost.
There's some interesting parallels with the HMS Stark, which burned after being hit by an Exocet missile in the Falklands War. Their electronic communications and radar systems weren't working properly, they couldn't fight the fire, and the captain was recently assigned from subs. So it was more of an overal systemic failure like the BR than specific to a missile attack - the Exocet was an ignition source, but the failures afterward were leadership-related.
You can watch YT videos on the Forrestall carrier fire, started by electrical faults in Zuni missiles on John McCain's airplane. The Navy supposedly raised fire-fighting skills as a priority after that, but I guess not.
During WW2, the Franklin carrier burned and when around 100 sailors got blocked off by smoke and flames, they jumped overboard to save their lives. Sadly the captain blacklisted them, and they were interned as deserters in Hawaii.
2) No lives, but multiple billions of dollars, lost.
3) There's a scenario that China could occupy Australia with 10,000 soldiers using their existing troop carriers. The US actually needed the ship that burned.
NTD Media - How China Might Win a War with the US (Dr. Robert D. Eldridge) @4:41
4) My understanding is the fire involved a love triangle. If so, wokeism set back the US military, as expected. I've also heard recently that in time of war, many female personnel are expected to "accidently" get pregnant before deployment, affecting readiness. I bring this up because our current military leadership seemingly can't.
Source: I study WW2, and to a lesser extent, other wars.
I tend to think the military needs to be split in two. One half to deal with boots on grounds kinetic action and a second to deal with the permanent economic and cyber war. Of course integration of women would be far easier the the latter.
