I am in favor of the US having several very conventional battleships. As in their primary weapons being 16 inch guns and their being heavily armored.
No country ever attacked by a US battleship has ever forgotten it, because there is nothing quite like a 16” gun to leave a lasting impression. Here is the logic.
While the US has several different classes of advanced bomber aircraft, of great cost and advanced technology, its antique B-52s do the vast majority of the work, because they are simple, low maintenance and reliable. Which is all that is needed on a low tech battlefield. So this is what we need in a battleship, with the same objectives in mind.
While steel plate and powder explosives are good, today we have much better technology and engineering. We have advanced materials much stronger than steel, and much more stable and powerful machined propellants and explosives that take up much less area. We also have lightweight advanced insulation, much more advanced alloys for gun tubes, and they could likely also mount sophisticated anti-submarine and anti-missile technologies.
So, in addition to the conventional cannon, the battleship would also likely mount both a rail gun and energy weapons, which might require it to be a nuclear ship.
I like how you think.
I’ve often wondered why the US doesn’t have inexpensive propeller driven fighters that can do simple routine things like patrolling harbors and airports and etc. while leaving the expensive fighters free to concentrate on specific missions.
Ditto with the ships. Less expensive but brutally effective old style battleships can fill a role in the navy far cheaper than the modern styles can. Plus they look really awesome and would be a thing of national pride.
Which is why the Democrats will oppose them.