A lovely and exciting idea, which I am in favor of.

However...

This is going to crash into politics badly in this country. The reading I just did got more than its fair share of articles discussing protectionism as a policy within the defense system.

Apart from all that, what stands directly in the way of this is the need to repeal what gets referred to as "the Byrnes-Tollefson Amendment," (which can also be referred to the other way around.) It turns out to actually be two separate ammendments from two DoD acts from 1965 and 1968. I could not find any wikipedia-type article with a simple, straightforward explanation of this. I am reduced to copying a blurb from a Cato Institute article I scanned through. I am not linking it because it is mostly a political discussion of our protectionism policies. Here's the blurb:

"The Byrnes-Tollefson Amendment

Protectionism of arguably even greater consequence to the DOD is the Byrnes-Tollefson Amendment, which applies to the construction of vessels for the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard. The Tollefson Amendment, passed as part of the DOD Appropriations Act of 1965, forbade appropriated funds from being used for the construction of major components of vessel hulls in foreign shipyards, while the Byrnes Amendment, incorporated into the DOD Appropriations Act of 1968, prohibited funds to be used for the construction of naval vessels in foreign shipyards. Both measures are now codified at 14 U.S.C. 1151: “Restriction on Construction of Vessels in Foreign Shipyards” and 10 U.S.C. 8679: “Construction of Vessels in Foreign Shipyards: Prohibition.”36"

Given our current political climate, I am sure this will lead to lively political discussions on Capitol Hill, which will trickle out into the public consciousness, sparking knock-down drag-out ill-informed impassioned feces slinging.

Ought to be great fun. Might even get us some ships from Korea, but I am not holding my breath. The debate alone could rage for years.