Trying to keep my reasoning succinct in order to avoid writing a wall of text:
The soviets were geographically blocked from this being an option
Similarly for Vietnam for different reasons
Cuba doesn’t have the option of dedicating the requisite amount resources(and has the misfortune of being an island next to the most powerful current naval power)
China has the geography to become a great naval power. Sure, it doesn’t have both coasts. It has land connections that led to the Silk Road being a thing on the other, possibly a greater advantage.
They are building up militarily, and seem to be advancing commercial maritime pursuits on this well.
Thoughts?
CVs were only the undisputed premier capital ships in WW2 from 1943 at best. I know this position doesn't make a lot of sense given the historiographical weight Taranto, Midway Pearl Harbour etc. hold, and I'm about to go to bed so I'm not going to elaborate much but consider a few points:
(Scharnhorst, Bismarck, Kirishima, Fusou to BBs, Yamato, Musashi to CVs, assuming the criteria of a loss attributable solely to either surface warfare or naval aviation. Plenty of BBs were lost to naval aviation in port from CV strikes, but there were only two cases of CVs sinking underway, combat-ready BBs by themselves.)
Even in WW2, which we consider to be the heyday of CVs, the work they were actually doing was largely sinking lighter ships, providing intelligence and air cover or sinking other CVs. BBs remained something that naval aviation struggled with without support for most of the war. Why am I so focussed on the BB - CV relationship? Because the narrative around CV dominance is largely linked to this idea that they directly replaced BBs, which largely stems from a USN centric view of the war.
BB's and CV's are both floating coffins if any conventional naval warfare was to happen any time soon.
BBs are irrelevant to modern naval warfare, but yes I agree that neither are particularly valuable in the age of guided missiles.