Did the US Navy make a mistake by retiring nuclear cruisers and not building the proposed strike cruiser?
Short answerThe economics favored conventional escorts, but nuclear cruisers offered exceptional rapid-deployment, upgrade, and diplomatic-signaling advantages that the fleet subsequently lost.
NotesConventional cruisers are cheaper, can visit more ports, and benefit from improved underway replenishment. Nuclear escorts, however, could keep pace when a carrier surged between oceans, while a larger hull and reactor offered room and power for decades of upgrades. A powerful cruiser also filled a signaling gap between sending an ordinary destroyer and committing an entire carrier battle group; an 8-inch gun could reinforce that distinctive status even when a 5-inch weapon met the practical fire-support need.