Between January 11 and 15, 2026, China deployed three newly built Shuiqiao-class invasion barges to Nansan Island in the South China Sea. These are not ordinary ships. They are mobile, self-deploying logistics platforms designed to create instant docks, temporary ports, and heavy equipment offload points where no infrastructure exists.
Each barge can drive into shallow water, jack itself above the surface, and deploy roadway systems that turn open coastline into a functioning logistics hub.
This is not experimentation. This is rehearsal.
China is practicing how to build ports on demand.
Why This Is Different
Most people imagine amphibious invasions as waves of troops and armored vehicles storming beaches.
That image is outdated.
Modern war is won by logistics.
Fuel, food, ammunition, spare parts, medical care, maintenance, and the continuous movement of people and equipment matter more than the first landing. Whoever sustains operations longest wins.
These barges are not weapons. They are infrastructure.
And infrastructure is what makes everything else possible.
By deploying these platforms, China is demonstrating its ability to:
Create instant ports
Establish temporary logistics hubs
Sustain forces across islands
Operate without fixed bases
Support heavy equipment transfers
Expand control incrementally
This is how power is consolidated in the 21st century.
My Commentary
If you once doubted China’s intentions, think again.
This is not defensive infrastructure. This is not routine maritime development. This is not a commercial experiment.
This is about control.
This is about reach.
This is about being able to move, land, supply, reinforce, and sustain military forces wherever and whenever they choose.
You don’t build mobile ports unless you intend to use them.
This is not about one island. This is about a system.
Why Americans Should Care
Naval power is not a platform. It is a system.
Ships, ports, logistics, repair facilities, supply chains, workforce, industrial capacity, and governance all matter.
China understands this.
That’s why it is investing in portable infrastructure, modular logistics, and rapid deployment capabilities—while the United States struggles with:
Aging sealift
Fragile port security
Long shipyard delays
Limited surge capacity
Shrinking industrial depth
Vulnerable maritime infrastructure
Power today is not just about firepower.
It is about who can show up, stay, and sustain.
China is building that capability deliberately.
What This Signals About China’s Strategy
This development aligns with a broader pattern:
Artificial islands
Dual-use ports
Civil-military fusion
Expeditionary logistics
Rapid infrastructure construction
Maritime normalization
China is not just building ships.
It is building the scaffolding of dominance.
And it is doing so quietly, persistently, and methodically.
This is how territorial control is modernized.
This Is a Governance Issue, Not Just a Military One
Military capability does not appear by accident.
It is built through alignment:
National will → budgets → priorities → behavior → readiness
China is aligning all five.
The United States is not.
We debate platforms. They build systems.
We argue procurement. They build logistics.
We delay shipyards. They build mobile ports.
This is not about spending more. It is about thinking differently.
What Must Change
America must stop treating naval strength as a niche defense topic.
It is economic security. It is supply chain security. It is alliance credibility. It is deterrence. It is peace.
If we fail to understand how power is now constructed, we will lose it without a single dramatic moment.
That is the real danger.
Not invasion headlines. Not dramatic conflict.
But quiet displacement.
Closing
China just showed us something important.
Not with missiles. Not with warships. But with infrastructure.
And that should worry anyone who believes in a free, open, and stable maritime world.
That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
Why This Is Not a Navy Problem, but an American One
This essay explores why the current debate over rust and warfighting readiness is not an internal Navy issue, but a national one. The real problem is not cosmetic—it is systemic. Sailors are capable.The American public is supportive. What often fails is alignment upstream—where Congress, the Department of Defense, and senior leadership decide what gets funded, staffed, scheduled, and rewarded.
Bill Cullifer, Founder
From the Founder
I served on a U.S. Navy destroyer in the 1970s. Some of the hardest-working, most capable people I’ve ever known wore Navy uniforms—officers and enlisted, engineers and operators, deckplate sailors and watchstanders. They weren’t lazy. They weren’t careless. And they weren’t disconnected from the mission.
They were doing the best they could inside a system that constantly forced tradeoffs.
That experience is why I’m paying close attention to the public debate about rust, preservation, and warfighting readiness. Because this is not a Navy culture fight. It’s not a generational fight. And it’s not an internal matter.
It’s a national readiness issue.
What Sparked This Debate
A recent article by LT Spike Dearing, published on the Center for International Maritime Security (CIMSEC), argued that today’s surface fleet is being inspected more for preservation than for warfighting. His point was not that preservation doesn’t matter—it absolutely does—but that what leaders choose to inspect shapes what sailors prioritize.
His concern is simple and serious: if warfighting performance is rarely inspected, it will inevitably become secondary.
The article prompted multiple responses in the CIMSEC comment section, including from naval historian and analyst Steven Wills, and was later republished on other defense platforms—signaling that its themes are resonating beyond its initial posting.
This is not a closed-door conversation. This is a public one—because the consequences of readiness, or the lack of it, do not stay inside the Navy.
What Steven Wills Gets Right
Steven Wills made an important point: corrosion is not cosmetic. Rust is not superficial. Preservation reflects discipline. And visible neglect often signals deeper organizational decay.
He’s right.
Saltwater destroys steel. Systems fail. Neglect spreads. No serious warfighting force can afford to treat material condition as optional.
But this is where people often misframe the issue.
This is not a choice between paint and warfighting.
It is about whether the system enables both.
What LT Dearing Gets Right
LT Dearing is also right.
People respond rationally to what leaders inspect.
If leaders inspect surfaces, crews will optimize for surfaces. If leaders inspect tactics, crews will optimize for tactics.
That’s not laziness. That’s survival.
After the USS Bonhomme Richard fire, the Navy made fire safety non-negotiable. Inspections changed. Behavior changed. Training changed.
That’s how priorities shift.
Standards Matter — But Systems Decide Whether They Are Achievable
When defense analyst Brent Sadler says that a clean ship is a well-run ship and a combat-ready ship, he is pointing to something real: discipline, standards, and leadership signals matter. Order reflects process. Process reflects leadership. And leadership shapes behavior.
But that truth only holds when the system supporting those standards is aligned.
A ship can only be clean, disciplined, and well-run if crews are given the time, manpower, training windows, maintenance access, and parts availability needed to meet those standards. Without that support, expectations become performative instead of operational.
This is where the problem becomes systemic.
When standards are enforced without the resources to meet them, discipline turns into distortion. Crews are not failing — they are adapting. And adaptation is not weakness. It is rational behavior inside a misaligned system.
This is why this is not a deckplate problem.
This is a governance problem.
Who sets the priorities? Who controls the budgets? Who defines the metrics? Who decides what gets inspected, rewarded, and penalized? Readiness is not free. It is built—or it is hollowed out—by budgets, manpower decisions, and time allocations.
Those decisions are made upstream.
Sadler’s point about cleanliness is not wrong — it is incomplete without a systems lens. A clean ship should reflect readiness. But that only works when leadership designs a system that makes real readiness possible, not just presentable.
This is why LT Spike Dearing’s argument about what leaders choose to inspect matters. And it is why Steven Wills is right to warn that visible neglect often signals deeper organizational decay. Both are describing the same thing from different angles: signals versus systems.
Signals matter. But systems decide outcomes.
My Experience
When I served, my shipmates worked relentlessly. We fought corrosion while underway. We knew what mattered. But we also knew what inspectors looked for.
So when inspections came, we painted.
Not because we didn’t care about readiness. But because we cared about protecting our command inside the system.
And a lot has changed since the 1970s. The Navy is smaller now and stretched even further. The systems are more complex, the demands are higher, and many of the sailors and officers carrying this load today could be my children. In many cases, they may not even have the time to paint over rust—because they are busy keeping the ship running, the systems online, and the mission moving.
That doesn’t weaken this argument. It strengthens it.
That’s not moral failure.
That’s a warning sign.
Hardworking people will always try to do everything. When they can’t, they triage based on what leadership rewards.
This Is Not a Navy-Internal Problem
This is not about sailors. This is not about pride. This is not about tradition.
This is about alignment.
Sailors are capable.Sailors are disciplined.Sailors are supported by the American people.
What they often lack is consistent backing from those who control resources, manpower, time, and priorities.
Readiness is not a slogan. It’s a system.
And when that system is misaligned, people adapt.
Why Americans Should Care
The Navy does not exist for the Navy. It exists for the American people.
If we want deterrence, we must prepare seriously. If we want peace, we must be credible. If we want stability, we must invest in real readiness—not performative readiness.
You cannot paint your way to warfighting competence.
Implications for the Navy
This debate exposes a dangerous risk: a force that looks ready but is not consistently evaluated for the conditions it will actually face.
War does not care about inspections. Adversaries do not grade on appearance. And there are no do-overs.
Implications for Our Allies
Our allies don’t just watch our ships. They watch our seriousness.
Credibility comes from demonstrated competence under stress—not polish.
The Bottom Line
Preservation matters.Warfighting matters more.Both must be enabled.
This is not about rust. It is about readiness design.
Real readiness cannot be painted on.
That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
A Navy Intelligence Officer Was Fired for Telling the Truth. Now We’re Living His Warning.
In February 2014, Captain James Fanell, then the senior Intelligence Officer for the U.S. Pacific Fleet, gave a speech that would cost him his career. His crime? Warning that China was modernizing its navy at an alarming rate and preparing for what Beijing called a “short, sharp war.”
The Pentagon’s response was swift and chilling. Rather than heed his warning, they publicly rebuked him. An Office of the Secretary of Defense officer visited his secure facility with a direct order: stop giving speeches like that. The message was clear—don’t “provoke” China. Within months, Captain Fanell was fired.
Ten years later, his testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability reads like a prophetic indictment of three decades of strategic failure. And for Americans who care about naval power and national security, it should be required reading.
The Numbers Don’t Lie: We’re Losing the Naval Race
Here’s the reality Captain Fanell laid out in stark terms: In 2005, the U.S. Navy enjoyed a 76-warship advantage over China. By 2023, we faced a 39-combatant deficit. That’s a swing of 115 naval platforms in less than two decades—and the trend shows no sign of reversing for at least another decade.
The People’s Liberation Army Navy is now the largest in the world. But it’s not just about numbers. China has achieved qualitative parity, if not superiority, in critical areas. Their new Renhai-class cruisers pack 112 vertical launch tubes carrying supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles with ranges of 186 miles. Meanwhile, our carrier strike groups lack sufficient defenses against hypersonic weapons.
Captain Fanell’s assessment is blunt: “If there is conflict with the PRC, it will be on, over, and below the high seas, from Okinawa to Guam to Honolulu, all the way to the West Coast and into the U.S. homeland. This will be a conflict the likes of which the U.S. has not experienced since World War II.”
How Did We Get Here? The Anatomy of Strategic Failure
Captain Fanell identifies three catastrophic failures that brought us to this precipice:
1. Threat Deflation by the Intelligence Community
For decades, the U.S. intelligence community consistently underestimated China’s capabilities and intentions. Admiral Robert Willard noted in 2009 that China had “exceeded most of our intelligence estimates of their military capability and capacity every year.” This wasn’t occasional miscalculation—it was systematic error, always in the same direction: underestimating the threat.
The intelligence community failed its prime directive. As Commander Joseph Rochefort, the architect of America’s victory at Midway, famously said: an intelligence officer must tell his commander today what the enemy will do tomorrow. On China, our intelligence apparatus failed spectacularly.
2. Avarice Over Strategy
Business interests and financiers prioritized profits over national security. The promise of cheap labor and vast markets blinded American leaders to a fundamental strategic truth: every dollar China earned was partly spent building the military force that now threatens us.
As Captain Fanell notes: “From a strategic perspective, there is no ‘Goldilocks’ amount of safe trade in high tech with China. Indeed, the right amount is zero.”
3. A Flag Officer Corps That Failed to Sound the Alarm
Perhaps most damning is Captain Fanell’s assessment of Navy leadership. He contrasts today’s admirals with the principled officers of the Cold War—admirals like Arleigh Burke and Hyman Rickover, who fought relentlessly for the capabilities needed to counter the Soviet threat.
Where are today’s equivalents? For 20 years, not a single U.S. Navy admiral spoke out publicly against the dangerous trajectory of naval power shifting to China. Instead, they embraced “engagement at all costs,” hosting Chinese admirals on our carriers and submarines, while China used those very lessons to build a navy specifically designed to defeat us.
The culture became one of “going along to get along”—where career advancement trumped the oath to the Constitution.
The Scarborough Shoal Lesson: When Weakness Invites Aggression
Captain Fanell recounts a watershed moment that demonstrates the cost of our failures: the 2012 Scarborough Shoal incident. When China attempted to seize the shoal from the Philippines, the U.S. brokered an agreement for both sides to withdraw. The Philippines complied. China did not.
The U.S. response? Nothing. We failed to back our treaty ally, and China seized sovereign territory without firing a shot.
The lesson China learned was clear: America will not stand up to Chinese aggression. Within a year, under the leadership of then-Vice President Xi Jinping, China began building seven militarized artificial islands in the South China Sea—three of them the size and capacity of Pearl Harbor. Today, they’re fully militarized despite Xi’s 2014 assurances to President Obama that they wouldn’t be.
What Must Be Done: Seven Urgent Recommendations
Captain Fanell doesn’t just diagnose the problem—he prescribes bold solutions:
The National Security Community Must Admit Failure – Only by acknowledging how completely they missed the threat can we begin to fix the system.
Restructure Decision-Making – Move CFIUS chairmanship from Treasury to Defense. Economic interests can no longer trump national security.
Expect Resistance and Stay the Course – The “engagement” advocates will fight every reform. We must persist despite bureaucratic resistance.
Act with Urgency – We don’t have years to correct course. China’s timeline for the “Great Rejuvenation” is measured in years, not decades.
Create a “Team B” on China – Just as alternative analysis challenged benign assumptions about the Soviet Union in the 1970s, we need contrarian voices on China now.
Study Chinese Military Doctrine – During the Cold War, we knew Soviet doctrine inside and out. We must achieve the same familiarity with PLA thinking and strategy.
Target the CCP Directly – This requires political warfare, rolling back Chinese gains in the South China Sea, and making clear that the Chinese Communist Party is illegitimate.
A Navy Built for the Fight We Face
Americans for a Stronger Navy has long advocated for the fleet we need, not the fleet we can afford. Captain Fanell’s testimony reinforces this urgency.
We need:
A crash naval building program reminiscent of the 1940 Naval Expansion Act
Hypersonic weapon defenses for our carrier strike groups
A distributed maritime architecture that can survive and fight in contested waters
Forward-deployed forces capable of deterring Chinese aggression
But ships and weapons aren’t enough. We need leadership willing to speak hard truths, even when they’re politically inconvenient. We need admirals who will fight for the Navy our nation requires, not manage their careers toward comfortable retirements.
The Stakes: Freedom or Totalitarian Abyss
Captain Fanell frames this struggle in the starkest terms: “The Sino-American security competition is the great struggle of the 21st Century and promises to resolve the dispositive question of the age—whether the world will be free and protected by the U.S. or fall into a totalitarian abyss as sought by the PRC.”
This isn’t hyperbole. It’s the assessment of an intelligence officer who spent his career studying Chinese capabilities and intentions—and was punished for telling the truth.The Choice Before Us
We face the same reality as a patient diagnosed with cancer. We can follow the prescribed treatment—painful, expensive, and difficult though it may be—or we can ignore the diagnosis and hope for the best.
Captain Fanell’s testimony shows us that hope is not a strategy. Engagement failed. Wishful thinking about China’s “peaceful rise” failed. Prioritizing corporate profits over national security failed.
What remains is the hard work of rebuilding American naval power, restructuring our national security apparatus, and confronting—not engaging—the Chinese Communist Party’s bid for global hegemony.
The good news? America still possesses fundamental strengths: our Constitution, our tradition of individual liberty, our innovative spirit, and our alliances. These are more powerful and durable than the Chinese Communist Party’s coercion and control.
But these strengths won’t matter if we lack the naval power to defend them. And we won’t build that power unless we acknowledge how badly we’ve failed, learn from officers like Captain Fanell who tried to warn us, and commit to the urgent work of reclaiming maritime dominance.
A Call to Action
Americans for a Stronger Navy exists precisely for this moment. We need:
Public Awareness: Share Captain Fanell’s testimony. Demand that political leaders address this threat honestly.
Congressional Action: Pressure representatives to fund naval shipbuilding and reform the national security bureaucracy.
Cultural Change: Celebrate officers who speak truth to power, even when that truth is uncomfortable.
Strategic Seriousness: Reject engagement policies that strengthen our adversary.
Captain Fanell ends his testimony with optimism rooted in American exceptionalism. We should share that optimism—but only if it’s paired with urgent action.
The decade of concern is here. The question is whether we’ll rise to meet it.
Americans for a Stronger Navy advocates for robust maritime power as essential to American security and prosperity. Captain Fanell’s full testimony is available through the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability and deserves wide distribution among citizens, policymakers, and military professionals.
Pete Hegseth’s 2024 The War on Warriors has ignited fierce debate across America. As I write this, decorated veterans like Senator Mark Kelly and Pete Hegseth—both men who’ve served with distinction—are in public conflict.
Americans for a Stronger Navy is not going to adjudicate those battles.
What started as an effort to understand Pete Hegseth’s perspective through his book and interviews evolved into something else entirely. As I watched his past interviews and listened to the three-hour conversation with Shawn Ryan, I found myself repeatedly pulled back to our core mission: the urgent need for a Navy capable of deterring China and defending American interests.
While I agree with many of Hegseth’s principles about building a stronger fighting force and improving resources for veterans, I also recognize that his book and interviews reflect a specific moment in time—the period leading up to and following publication. The debates they’ve sparked are important, and good people disagree on the solutions.
But while we debate internally, China doesn’t pause its carrier production.
Our lane is clear: advocating for the naval power necessary to protect America’s future. While others debate military culture, we’re compelled to focus on what both Shawn Ryan and Pete Hegseth spent significant time discussing in their three-hour interview: the existential threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party.
Our veterans deserve better care than they’re receiving. When the VA is failing the warriors who already served, spending defense dollars on elective procedures while vets wait months for basic care is unconscionable. This isn’t a cultural position—it’s a resource management position. Every dollar matters when China is building carriers faster than we can.
With that stated, let’s focus on what should unite all Americans regardless of political persuasion: “China has us by the balls,” says Hegseth. And by our best estimates, we’re running out of time to do something about it.
The Strategic Reality
The most critical parts of the Hegseth-Ryan interview aren’t about DEI or pronouns. They’re about strategic vulnerability to an adversary that’s been playing the long game while we’ve been distracted.
Here’s Pete Hegseth’s unvarnished assessment:
“When they’ve already got us by the balls economically, with our grid, culturally, with elite capture going on around the globe, microchips, everything—why do they want Taiwan? They want to corner the market completely on the technological future. We can’t even drive our cars without the stuff we need out of China these days. They have a full-spectrum, long-term view of not just regional but global domination, and we have our heads up our asses.”
Here’s the short 50 second YouTube clip, watch it for yourself.
Let’s break down what “by the balls” actually means:
Economic Leverage: Our Grid is Their Weapon
China produces all of our electrical transformers, solar panels, and wind turbines. Not most. All. They’re already embedded in our power grid infrastructure. FBI Director Christopher Wray has publicly confirmed Chinese operatives have pre-positioned malware in our electrical grid and water treatment facilities.
As Wray stated, “the dashboard is flashing red and smoking.”
Think about what this means: In the opening hours of a Taiwan conflict, before a single shot is fired at a carrier strike group, China could potentially darken American cities, shut down water systems, and cripple our ability to mobilize.
Our Navy can’t sortie from ports without power. Our sailors can’t fight if their families are in crisis at home.
Naval Asymmetry: We’re Losing the Numbers Game
Hegseth reveals what Pentagon insiders know but rarely admit publicly:
“In the past 10-15 years, the Pentagon has a perfect record in all of its war games against China. We lose every time.”
Every. Single. Time.
Why? Multiple factors:
Numerical Inferiority: China’s Navy now exceeds the U.S. Navy in sheer hull numbers. They’re building aircraft carriers and advanced destroyers at a pace we cannot match with our current industrial base.
Hypersonic Missiles: China has developed hypersonic weapons specifically designed to defeat our carrier strike groups. As Hegseth notes: “If 15 hypersonic missiles can take out our 10 aircraft carriers in the first 20 minutes of a conflict, what does that look like?”
Our primary tool of power projection—the carrier strike group—may be obsolete on Day One of a Pacific conflict.
Supply Chain Dependency: When Shawn Ryan mentions defensive technologies like directed EMP weapons (from companies like Epirus) that can counter drone swarms, even he expresses concern: “I don’t know if anything’s coming from China. I don’t know what other weapons we have and what’s manufactured in China or what IP they’ve stolen from us.”
We can’t even be certain our most advanced defensive systems aren’t compromised by Chinese components or stolen intellectual property.
The Microchip Chokepoint: Taiwan is Everything
Why does China want Taiwan? Not reunification nostalgia. Taiwan is the beating heart of the global economy and modern civilization.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) doesn’t just produce “the majority” of advanced microchips—it produces over 90% of the world’s most advanced semiconductors. These aren’t chips for smartphones and laptops. These are the chips that power:
Every advanced weapon system – F-35s, guided missiles, radar systems, naval combat systems
Every AI system – From civilian applications to military command and control
Every modern vehicle – Cars, trucks, tractors, commercial aircraft
Every communications system – Cell towers, satellites, internet infrastructure
Every financial system – Banking, stock markets, payment processing
If China controls Taiwan, China controls the technological backbone of human civilization.
This isn’t hyperbole. During the COVID chip shortage, automobile production halted worldwide. Factories sat idle. Dealership lots emptied. That was a supply chain hiccup. Imagine China with a monopoly, deciding who gets chips and who doesn’t.
American weapon systems would depend on Chinese approval for components.American hospitals would need Chinese permission to operate.American banks would require Chinese consent to process transactions.
This is why Taiwan isn’t just another regional territorial dispute. Taiwan is the strategic fulcrum upon which the entire 21st century will turn.
And China knows it. That’s why they’re building a military specifically designed to take Taiwan before we can effectively respond. That’s why every hypersonic missile, every carrier, every amphibious assault ship they build is calculated toward this single objective.
Salt Typhoon: They’re Already Inside
In late 2024, U.S. intelligence agencies revealed that Chinese hackers operating under the codename “Salt Typhoon” had achieved deep, persistent access to American telecommunications infrastructure.
Not a probe. Not a test. Deep, persistent access.
They’re inside AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile networks. They can intercept phone calls, text messages, internet traffic. They’ve targeted senior government officials, military personnel, critical infrastructure operators.
This isn’t theoretical preparation for future conflict. This is active intelligence collection happening right now.
Combined with their penetration of our electrical grid (FBI Director Wray’s “flashing red dashboard”), their control over our transformer supply chains, their dominance in 5G infrastructure, and their positioning in our water treatment systems—China has achieved the infiltration necessary to paralyze America without firing a shot.
When the Taiwan crisis comes—and it will come—our response will be shaped by what China has already positioned to cripple us from within.
The Indo-Pacific: Where Our Future Will Be Decided
The Indo-Pacific region isn’t one theater among many. It’s THE theater where American prosperity and security will be won or lost.
Consider the stakes:
Economic: Over 60% of global maritime trade flows through the South China Sea. $3.4 trillion in trade passes through the Taiwan Strait annually. If China controls these waters, they control global commerce.
Alliance Structure: Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, India—our entire network of Pacific allies depends on American commitment. If we cannot or will not defend Taiwan, why would anyone trust American security guarantees?
Resources: Critical minerals, rare earth elements, advanced manufacturing—the Indo-Pacific is the industrial and technological center of the 21st century. Ceding this region to Chinese dominance means accepting permanent economic subservience.
Naval Power Projection: If China controls the First Island Chain (Japan-Taiwan-Philippines), American naval power is effectively contained to Pearl Harbor and San Diego. Our ability to operate globally collapses.
This isn’t about the military-industrial complex wanting another war. This is about the economic and security future of our children and grandchildren.
This is Nothing Like Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan
I understand the skepticism. Both Pete Hegseth and Shawn Ryan expressed it in their interview—they’re both “recovering neocons” who supported Iraq and Afghanistan and now recognize those were strategic disasters.
Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were wars of choice built on questionable premises:
Nation-building missions in societies we didn’t understand
No vital national interests at stake
No clear victory conditions
Counterinsurgency in impossible terrain against irregular forces
Decades-long occupations with no end state
Trillions spent with nothing to show for it
The potential Taiwan conflict is fundamentally different:
1. Vital National Interests: Taiwan semiconductors aren’t optional. Modern civilization depends on them. This isn’t about abstract concepts like “democracy promotion”—it’s about maintaining access to the technology that runs everything from hospitals to power grids.
2. Deterrence, Not Occupation: We don’t need to occupy Chinese territory or rebuild their society. We need to make the cost of taking Taiwan prohibitively high. That’s classic deterrence, not nation-building.
3. Conventional Warfare: This would be state-on-state naval and air conflict where American technological advantages matter, not counterinsurgency in urban terrain where they don’t.
4. Clear Objectives: Maintain Taiwan’s de facto independence and semiconductor production. That’s it. No “hearts and minds,” no transforming societies, no endless occupation.
5. Alliance Structure: We’d fight alongside Japan, Australia, potentially South Korea and others with shared interests. This isn’t America alone trying to remake a foreign society.
6. Existential Stakes: If China controls Taiwan’s chips, they control the global economy. If they demonstrate American security guarantees are worthless, our entire alliance system collapses. If they dominate the Indo-Pacific, American prosperity ends.
The lesson from Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan isn’t “never fight wars.” It’s “don’t fight stupid wars based on lies about stupid objectives in stupid ways.”
Deterring China from taking Taiwan is none of those things. It’s the most strategically vital mission American naval power faces.
This is about ensuring our grandchildren grow up in a free, prosperous America—not one subordinated to Chinese Communist Party dictates because we couldn’t muster the will to maintain our position when it mattered most.
Economic Warfare: The Crypto Scam Example
Hegseth and Ryan discuss an underreported aspect of Chinese strategic operations: systematic economic extraction through crypto scams.
Chinese operatives run sophisticated confidence schemes:
Approach target with small crypto investment opportunity ($15,000)
Deliver real returns quickly ($45,000) to build trust
Escalate to larger investments ($200,000)
When target invests life savings ($1,000,000+), disappear with everything
This isn’t individual crime—it’s organized economic warfare to extract American wealth before potential conflict.
Ryan’s local sheriff’s department just tracked one operator across multiple states to Las Vegas. “It’s happening all over the place,” Ryan notes.
Cultural Infiltration: TikTok and Beyond
As Hegseth observes: “We let in TikTok where they can trans our kids and they don’t trans their kids.”
Whether you agree with his framing or not, the strategic point is valid: China operates TikTok to influence American youth while banning it domestically. That’s not cultural exchange—that’s information warfare.
The CCP understands something we’ve forgotten: The side that controls what the next generation believes controls the future.
The Long Game: China’s Strategic Patience
Here’s what separates China’s approach from ours:
China’s Strategy:
Multi-decade planning horizon
Systematic IP theft and technology acquisition
Economic positioning for future conflict
Military buildup specifically designed to defeat the United States
Letting China manufacture our critical infrastructure
Outsourcing our industrial base for quarterly profit margins
Assuming the international rules-based order will protect us
Internal political warfare consuming our attention
As Hegseth puts it: “China is playing chess while we’re arguing about pronouns.”
The Timing Question: When Will They Strike?
Both Ryan and Hegseth wrestle with a critical strategic question: When will China make its move on Taiwan?
Ryan’s analysis is chilling:
“If I was them, I would put in the scenario into war games and see what the probability is that we’re going to come out on top. I wouldn’t make a move until after this election because they know what’s going on. They see it. Nobody made any weird moves under Trump that I’m aware of. As soon as they got in—Russia went after Ukraine, tensions with Taiwan getting stronger, the border, Israel—everybody that wanted to make a chess move on the board did it as soon as Trump was out of office.”
“If I was them, I would make my move the first day that Trump is in office because that would be the weakest point before we start to see an incline. And if Kamala gets in there, I would wait another four years, just let it keep declining, and that would just let this place get as weak as it possibly can, and then I would pull the trigger.”
Think about that logic:
China runs the scenarios through their war game simulations
They update the probability matrices with current data
Every year we decline, their probability of victory increases
They wait until the optimal moment
The clock is ticking. And we’re not on it.
What This Means for the Navy
Everything Hegseth discusses in the Army context applies with even greater urgency to naval forces:
Recruitment Crisis: The Navy can’t crew the ships we have, let alone the fleet we need. If patriotic families from military traditions are second-guessing service, where do future sailors come from?
Retention Problems: Experienced petty officers and junior officers are leaving. Institutional knowledge walks out the door with them.
Technical Expertise Gap: Modern naval warfare requires STEM-educated personnel. Our education system is producing activists, not engineers.
Readiness vs. Rhetoric: Hegseth mentions sailors in the DMZ in Korea reporting they have “basically enough artillery for 3 days—the rest of it’s in Ukraine.” How many naval munitions have been drawn down? How many maintenance dollars diverted?
Close Quarters Reality: Destroyers, cruisers, submarines—these platforms require maximum unit cohesion in confined spaces over extended deployments. Any policy that complicates that dynamic affects operational capability.
Industrial Base Collapse: We can’t build ships fast enough. China launches a new carrier while we’re still arguing about shipyard contracts.
Why the Navy? Why Not Just “Military” Generally?
Americans for a Stronger Navy focuses specifically on naval power for a fundamental reason: The China challenge is inherently a maritime problem.
Consider the geography:
70% of Earth’s surface is water. The Indo-Pacific theater is defined by vast ocean expanses, island chains, and sea lanes. This isn’t the deserts of Iraq or the mountains of Afghanistan—it’s a maritime domain where naval power is decisive.
Taiwan is an island 100 miles from mainland China. Any conflict over Taiwan is fundamentally an amphibious assault/defense scenario. China must cross water. We must defend across water. The Air Force matters, the Army matters, but the Navy is the primary deterrent.
The First Island Chain is maritime. Japan, Okinawa, Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia—the strategic barrier that contains Chinese power projection is a series of islands. Controlling this chain means controlling maritime access. Losing it means Chinese naval dominance from the South China Sea to the Pacific.
Global trade flows through water. Over 90% of global trade moves by ship. The South China Sea handles $3.4 trillion annually through the Taiwan Strait alone. If China controls these sea lanes, they control global commerce. You can’t secure maritime trade with land forces.
Distance matters. The nearest U.S. territory to China is Guam—3,000 miles from California. You can’t project power across the Pacific with the Army. The Navy is how America reaches the theater. The Navy is how we sustain operations. The Navy is how we defend allies. Without naval dominance, we’re not even in the game.
China understands this. That’s why they’re building the world’s largest navy. Not the world’s largest army (they already had that). They’re specifically building carriers, destroyers, submarines, amphibious assault ships—naval power to challenge American naval power.
They’ve studied American carrier strike groups and designed hypersonic missiles to sink them. They’ve built artificial islands in the South China Sea to extend their naval reach. They’re developing a blue-water navy capable of operating globally.
The Indo-Pacific challenge is a naval challenge. China’s threat is a naval threat. Our response must be naval.
That’s why Americans for a Stronger Navy exists. We’re not generically “pro-military.” We’re specifically focused on the domain where the 21st century’s decisive competition will be won or lost: the sea.
The Resource Allocation Question
Here’s where Americans for a Stronger Navy takes a clear position:
Military resources must be allocated to maximize readiness and deterrence. Period.
That means:
This isn’t about culture. It’s about math.
If we’re losing every war game against China, if our carriers are vulnerable to hypersonic missiles, if our grid can be darkened remotely, if Taiwan is the strategic prize of the century—then every resource decision matters.
The Education Pipeline: Tomorrow’s Sailors
Hegseth spends significant time in both the book and interview discussing education, and this directly impacts naval readiness.
The Navy needs:
Nuclear-trained operators for submarines and carriers
The pipeline is broken. Even if we solve every other problem, we can’t crew a technically complex fleet with graduates who can’t do algebra.
This is where Hegseth’s education critique directly intersects with naval readiness. China is graduating millions of STEM students. We’re graduating activists who think America is irredeemably evil. Who’s going to win that competition?
What We Learned From a Destroyer Sailor
I served on a U.S. Navy destroyer in the 1970s. Several shipmates reached out over the past few years expressing concerns about changes in today’s Navy. I’ll admit I was initially skeptical—were they exaggerating? Were they just resistant to change?
After reading Hegseth’s book and listening to the three-hour Ryan interview, I realize I should have listened more carefully to the warnings. But I also realize something else:
We’re spending so much energy fighting each other that we’re not focusing on the actual threat.
My shipmates on both sides of these cultural debates all agree on one thing: China is the threat. They disagree on solutions to internal problems, but they all recognize the external danger.
That’s where Americans for a Stronger Navy needs to focus.
Let the cultural debates happen. Let good people like Senator Kelly and Pete Hegseth have their disagreements. Our job is to relentlessly advocate for:
Sufficient naval hulls to match China’s growing fleet
Advanced weapon systems that counter hypersonic threats
Industrial base that can actually build ships at competitive speed
Recruitment and retention of qualified personnel
Training and readiness focused on war-fighting
Supply chain independence from Chinese manufacturing
Electrical grid hardening so our bases can operate
Cybersecurity that prevents Chinese infrastructure penetration
Educational reform that produces STEM-capable recruits
Budget prioritization toward capabilities over social experiments
The Three-Hour Wake-Up CalIf the warnings from Ryan and Hegseth about the CCP don’t shake you to the core, I don’t know what will.
Here’s what should terrify every American:
Pentagon loses every war game against China
China’s Navy now exceeds ours in numbers
Hypersonic missiles can sink our carriers in minutes
Chinese malware already embedded in our grid
Taiwan’s semiconductor monopoly is China’s target
Economic warfare extracting American wealth daily
Our sailors report ammunition shortages
Recruiting and retention in crisis
Industrial base can’t build ships competitively
Education system failing to produce technical talent
And while all this is happening, Americans are fighting each other instead of the actual enemy.
Our Call to Action
Americans for a Stronger Navy has a clear mission: advocating for the naval power necessary to defend America and deter aggression.
After reviewing Hegseth’s book and the extended Ryan interview, here’s what we’re calling for:
Immediate Priorities:
1. China Threat Education We will dedicate equal or greater time to educating Americans about the CCP threat as we spend on internal debates. The Ryan-Hegseth interview should be required viewing for anyone concerned about national security.
2. Resource Allocation Focus Every dollar matters when you’re losing war games. We support policies that maximize readiness and deterrence, including ending taxpayer funding for elective medical procedures that render service members non-deployable.
3. Industrial Base Revival We cannot have a strong Navy without shipyards that can build ships. This requires industrial policy, workforce development, and political will.
4. Grid Hardening Naval bases can’t operate without power. American families can’t support deployed sailors if they’re in crisis at home. Chinese control of our infrastructure must end.
5. Supply Chain Independence We must stop buying critical military components from our primary adversary. Yes, it will be expensive. No, we don’t have a choice.
6. Education Pipeline Repair Supporting classical education, STEM focus, and programs that produce technically capable recruits is a national security imperative.
7. Bipartisan Unity on China This is the one thing that should unite Americans across political divides. China is not Republican or Democrat. They’re our adversary, and they’re winning.
What You Can Do:
1. Watch the Full Interview The three-hour Shawn Ryan Show interview with Pete Hegseth contains more strategic analysis than most national security briefings. Share it widely.
2. Contact Your Representatives Demand they prioritize naval shipbuilding, infrastructure hardening, and China competition over internal political warfare.
3. Support STEM Education Whether through donations, volunteering, or advocacy—we need the next generation capable of operating advanced naval systems.
4. Spread Awareness Most Americans have no idea how vulnerable we are or how aggressively China is positioning for dominance. Change that.
5. Stay Focused on the Mission Don’t let internal debates distract from external threats. We can disagree on culture while agreeing on China.
Conclusion: The Enemy Gets a Vote—But So Do We
There’s a military axiom: “The enemy gets a vote.”
While America argues about pronouns, DEI, and cultural issues, China is voting with carrier launches, hypersonic missile tests, infrastructure infiltration, and economic positioning.
While good Americans like Senator Kelly and Pete Hegseth have their necessary debates about military culture, China is running war game simulations and updating their probability matrices for success.
While we fight over what makes someone qualified for military service, China is building the fleet that will challenge our ability to defend Taiwan, Japan, Korea, and the Philippines.
The clock is ticking.
But here’s what the alarm shouldn’t become: despair.
What started as a book review to understand Pete Hegseth’s perspective became a stark reminder of what actually matters: our children’s future. And that future is not predetermined. China’s rise is not inevitable. American decline is a choice, not a destiny.
We Have Advantages China Can’t Match
American Innovation: When we freed American energy production, we became energy independent within years. When COVID hit, we developed multiple vaccines in record time. When we commit to solving problems, we still lead the world in innovation.
Emerging Technologies: Directed energy weapons, autonomous systems, AI-enabled targeting, hypersonic defense systems—American companies are developing technologies that can offset Chinese numerical advantages. The Epirus directed EMP system Ryan and Hegseth discussed is just one example.
Alliance Structure: China stands largely alone. We have Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, and emerging partnerships with India and others. China has no equivalent alliance structure. Authoritarian systems inspire fear, not loyalty.
Economic Strength: Despite our challenges, the U.S. economy remains the most dynamic, innovative, and resilient in the world. Our capital markets, universities (when focused on STEM), and entrepreneurial culture are unmatched.
Geographic Position: China must project power across oceans to threaten American territory. We’re protected by two vast moans and friendly neighbors. They have hostile or unreliable neighbors on every border.
The WWII Precedent: In 1940, America had the 17th largest military in the world. By 1945, we had built the arsenal of democracy and defeated two major powers simultaneously on opposite sides of the globe. When America gets serious, we can mobilize faster than any nation on Earth.
This is Winnable—If We Act Now
The Pentagon may lose every war game against China today, but war games assume current capabilities. We can change those capabilities.
We can build more ships. We built 175 ships in two years during WWII. We can revitalize our shipyards.
We can harden our infrastructure. We built the Interstate Highway System, the Hoover Dam, put men on the moon. We can protect our power grid.
We can secure our supply chains. We can reshore critical manufacturing. We can incentivize chip fabrication in America.
We can fix our education system. Classical education is growing. Homeschooling is expanding. STEM-focused alternatives exist.
We can restore deterrence. China only moves on Taiwan if they believe they’ll win. Make the cost prohibitive, and they won’t move.
This requires political will, not miracles. It requires Americans to stop fighting each other and focus on the actual adversary. It requires leaders who prioritize national security over political advantage. It requires citizens who demand action.
And it requires a Navy capable of controlling the seas.
Pete Hegseth’s The War on Warriors contains valuable warnings about institutional problems. The debates his book has sparked are important, and good people disagree on solutions. But the most critical warning in both the book and the Ryan interview isn’t about wokeness—it’s about China.
“They have a full-spectrum, long-term view of not just regional but global domination, and we have our heads up our asses.”
I understand the weariness from Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Both Hegseth and Ryan express it—they’re “recovering neocons” who supported wars they now recognize as mistakes. But the Taiwan situation isn’t another optional nation-building adventure. It’s about the semiconductor supply that powers modern civilization, the alliance structure that maintains global stability, and the economic future our grandchildren will inherit.
This isn’t about the military-industrial complex wanting another war. This is about whether America remains a free, sovereign nation or becomes economically subordinated to Chinese Communist Party control.
Americans for a Stronger Navy exists because we understand that naval power is not optional in a maritime century against a maritime threat. We exist because someone needs to focus relentlessly on building the fleet, supporting the sailors, and educating Americans about what’s at stake.
We need a stronger Navy. We need it now. We need the tools, resources, training, personnel, and industrial base to match the threat.
Our veterans who already served deserve the care they earned—not to see their VA benefits delayed while billions go elsewhere.
Our sailors need ammunition, not just for three days, but for sustained operations.
Our children need semiconductor access that doesn’t depend on Chinese permission.
Our grandchildren deserve to grow up in a free America, not one bowing to Beijing because we couldn’t maintain our naval power when it mattered most.
But they also deserve to grow up knowing their parents and grandparents didn’t give up. That when faced with a determined adversary, America remembered who we are and what we’re capable of achieving.
Everything else is secondary to this mission.
Let’s stop fighting each other and start focusing on the actual enemy. Let’s stop despairing and start building. Let’s stop the internal warfare and restore the external deterrence.
The Salt Typhoon hackers are already inside our telecommunications systems. Chinese malware is pre-positioned in our electrical grid. China controls our transformer supply. They’re building carriers while we argue about culture. They’re war-gaming Taiwan scenarios while we debate pronouns.
But we can still win this. We have time—barely—to restore deterrence, rebuild capacity, and secure our position.
The question isn’t whether we can. It’s whether we will.
Americans for a Stronger Navy is committed to this fight. We’ll continue advocating for the naval power our nation needs. We’ll continue educating Americans about the China threat. We’ll continue supporting the sailors who keep us safe.
Join us. The future our grandchildren inherit depends on what we do right now.
Note: In future posts, we’ll address specific topics including:
Detailed naval force structure requirements and shipbuilding timelines
The shipyard and industrial base crisis—and how to solve it
Allied burden-sharing and the AUKUS partnership
Economic warfare beyond military competition (ports, Belt and Road, fentanyl, elite capture)
How to pay for naval expansion and why we can’t afford not to
Concrete legislative actions and how to engage your representatives effectively
Stay focused on the mission. The Navy we need is within reach if we have the will to build it.
About Americans for a Stronger Navy
Americans for a Stronger Navy is dedicated to promoting peace through strength by supporting a robust, modern, and capable United States Navy. We advocate for the resources, policies, and personnel necessary to ensure American naval dominance and the security of our maritime interests.
Our mission is focused, non-partisan, and urgent: Build the Navy we need to deter the China threat.
This review reflects the analysis of one destroyer sailor who served in the 1970s and believes Americans on all sides of cultural debates can unite around the China threat. We encourage readers to form their own opinions on internal military debates while maintaining absolute clarity on external threats.
The War on Warriors: Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free By Pete Hegseth Published 2024
Recommended for: Anyone concerned about national security, China competition, and America’s strategic position
Key Takeaway: Stop fighting each other. Start focusing on China.
As a crewman aboard the guided missile destroyer Henry B. Wilson (DDG-7) in the mid-1970s, and with family members tragically scarred from the ravages of war, Veterans Day has always carried deep meaning for me. It’s a day to pause—not just to thank—but to truly remember. To remember those who served, those captured or killed, and those who still stand the watch today.
Why This Matters
Growing up in the 1950s and ’60s shaped how my generation understood service. We played with G.I. Joe action figures modeled after real Medal of Honor recipients. We watched John Wayne storm the beaches in black-and-white war films. We practiced duck-and-cover drills beneath our school desks, Cold War tension seeping into our childhood games.
But today’s America looks different. More than half of our population was born after 1980—long after the draft ended, after Vietnam, after the Cold War. For many Americans under 45, military service is something distant, something other families do. Only about 7% of living Americans have served in uniform. The connection between civilian and sailor, between hometown and ship, has quietly frayed.
That disconnect matters more than ever.
Service Without Fanfare
For many who wore the uniform, service wasn’t about recognition. It was about duty. For some, like the sailors of the Vietnam era, there were no parades waiting when they came home. For others, like my shipmates during the Cold War, their battles were fought in the shadows—quiet missions, constant vigilance, and readiness that helped keep the peace. And for those who have served through the long years in the Middle East and beyond, their courage continues the legacy of those who came before.
Every generation of sailors shares the same bond—service, sacrifice, and love of country.
A Navy of Many Missions
The U.S. Navy has always been more than ships and sailors—it’s a reflection of America’s strength, innovation, and resolve. Across decades, each generation of naval service has carried its own unique challenges.
Vietnam Era: From the blue-water carriers and destroyers offshore to the brown-water patrols on the Mekong Delta, Navy men and women served in every corner of the conflict. Aircraft carriers launched thousands of sorties into hostile skies. River patrol boats navigated treacherous waterways where the enemy could be anywhere. Many came home quietly. Some never did. Too many were forgotten.
Cold War Service: During the tense decades that followed, our ships sailed the world’s seas not to fight—but to deter. We tracked Soviet submarines beneath the Arctic ice. We escorted convoys through contested waters. We maintained an unbroken presence that reminded adversaries of America’s reach. It was a different kind of war—one measured in vigilance rather than victories—but no less vital to our nation’s freedom.
Middle East and Modern Conflicts: From the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea, from the Horn of Africa to the South China Sea, today’s sailors face danger in new forms—terrorism, piracy, cyber warfare, and constant deployments that stretch families to the breaking point. They serve aboard destroyers, submarines, carriers, and expeditionary units—standing between chaos and stability, often far from home, always ready.
The POW/MIA Legacy
No tribute is complete without remembering those who never returned—and those who survived against impossible odds.
Some Did Make It Home—But Paid a Heavy Price
Captain Charlie Plumb, a Navy fighter pilot from Kansas who flew F-4 Phantoms off the USS Kitty Hawk, completed 74 successful combat missions over North Vietnam. On his 75th mission—just five days before the end of his tour—he was shot down over Hanoi. He spent the next 2,103 days as a prisoner of war. Nearly six years in an 8-by-8-foot cell. Torture. Isolation. Yet Plumb became a lifeline to his fellow POWs through underground communications, serving as chaplain and inspiration when hope seemed impossible. He came home. He continued flying for the Navy for decades, retiring as a Captain after 31 years of service. His survival reminds us that some battles don’t end when the guns fall silent—they continue in the hearts and minds of those who endured.
Others Waited Decades to Come Home
Captain Thomas Edwin Scheurich Sr., a Naval Aviator from Norfolk, Nebraska, was designated missing in action following a night mission on March 1, 1968. For 57 years, his name stood among the missing. His wife Eileen raised their four children without him. His family grew—grandchildren he would never meet, milestones he would never witness. But they never forgot. On May 23, 2025, the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency notified his family that his remains had been identified and recovered. This Veterans Day week—November 14, 2025—Captain Scheurich will be laid to rest with full military honors at Arlington National Cemetery.
He was 6’4″ tall and somehow squeezed his whole family into a tiny blue Austin-Healey Sprite. He taught himself banjo and accordion, played in a Dixieland band, and built a boat from scratch. He lived life to its fullest. His journey ended far too soon at age 34.
Captain Plumb made it home. Captain Scheurich finally came home. But thousands of their brothers and sisters never will.
These stories remind us: some debts can never be fully repaid. But they can be remembered. They must be remembered.
Welcome home, Captain Scheurich. Your courage endures. Your sacrifice will never be forgotten.
Why Americans Should Care
Freedom doesn’t sustain itself—it depends on those willing to protect it. Whether in Da Nang or the Persian Gulf, in the Pacific or the Arctic, the spirit of America’s sailors remains constant.
These men and women come from every corner of our country—from farming towns and inner cities, from both coasts and everywhere in between. They stand the watch, often without thanks, but always with pride. They miss birthdays and holidays. They sacrifice time with children who grow up in their absence. They do this so the rest of us don’t have to.
As citizens, we owe them more than gratitude—we owe them understanding, support, and the tools they need to succeed. We owe them a Navy that’s ready, maintained, and respected. We owe them leaders who remember that ships don’t sail themselves, and that every capability gap puts sailors at risk.
Let’s Roll
On this Veterans Day, let us honor every sailor—past and present. From the jungles of Vietnam to the carrier decks of today’s fleet, from the Cold War’s silent service to the visible wars of the 21st century, they’ve carried America’s strength across the seas.
That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter—a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
The watch continues. The mission endures. And America’s sailors deserve our unwavering support.
As founder of Americans for a Stronger Navy, I’m posting the full hearing video from the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on East Asia & the Pacific on the People’s Republic of China’s gray-zone/IAD tactics—actions that are illegal, coercive, aggressive, and deceptive but stay below the threshold of open war. This is one of the most consequential national security issues of our time. If you want the complete context, watch it here
What This Hearing Covers This bipartisan session, led by Sen. Chris Coons (Chair) and Sen. Pete Ricketts (Ranking Member), examines how Beijing is reshaping the regional order through maritime intimidation, disinformation, economic coercion, and lawfare. Expert witnesses include: • Craig Singleton (Foundation for Defense of Democracies) • Ray Powell (SeaLight maritime transparency initiative) • Ely Ratner (The Marathon Initiative; former ASD for Indo-Pacific Security Affairs)
Why Americans Should Care A stable Indo-Pacific underwrites U.S. jobs, supply chains, and everyday commerce—from energy prices to the goods on our shelves. When the rules at sea are bent or broken, our economy feels it. This isn’t distant geopolitics; it’s about freedom of the seas, the arteries of global trade that American families rely on. That’s why this debate is one of the most consequential for American prosperity and security.
Key Themes to Watch For • Escalation by inches: How “salami-slicing” and constant pressure attempt to create a new normal in the South and East China Seas and around Taiwan. • Energy as a pressure point: Taiwan’s thin LNG reserves and what resilience looks like (stockpiles, diversified imports, hardened infrastructure). • Information advantage: Why assertive transparency—exposing incidents quickly and credibly—helps free societies push back. • Allies matter: How Japan, Australia, the Philippines, and others factor into deterrence—and what coordinated posture and planning should look like. • U.S. resolve: The need to signal costs early, test Beijing’s risk tolerance, and align policy, industry, and public support at home.
Implications for the Navy The Navy operates on the front line of these challenges every day. Sustained gray-zone pressure demands presence, readiness, logistics, and shipyard capacity—and public understanding of why those investments matter. Deterrence at sea is cheaper than crisis later.
Implications for Our Allies Allies are stepping up, but coordination is the difference between piecemeal responses and collective deterrence. Shared planning, interoperable command and control, resilient bases, and joint information efforts are how we keep the peace.
What We’ll Do Next For convenience, we’ll post clean sectioned clips—opening statements and the strongest Q&A exchanges—so you can grab the segments you need. If you’re a supporter with video skills, volunteer editors are welcome to help accelerate the turnaround.
How You Can Help Americans for a Stronger Navy exists to educate, connect the dots, and build civic support for the fleet our economy and security require. If you find this valuable, share the video and invite a friend to subscribe. Public engagement is the missing link.
That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late. Let’s roll.
An Open Letter to Silicon Valley and the American People
Bill Cullifer, Founder
If you’re confused by all this, you’re not alone. By “this,” I mean the tangle of headlines, policies, and talking points that have defined America’s relationship with China for the past decade — tariffs and trade wars, tech bans and chip controls, speeches about “decoupling,” and endless debates between the so-called hawks and doves in Washington. There’s a lot to unpack. The truth is, most Americans are burnt out. After years of rising prices, supply chain chaos, and political talk about tariffs and trade wars, people are tired of trying to figure out who’s right, who’s bluffing, and who’s actually working for them. They hear about new restrictions on chips, debates over TikTok, or tariffs on Chinese steel — but they don’t always see how any of it helps put food on the table or keeps the country safe.
Here’s the reality: for years, Washington and Wall Street were divided into two camps. The “China doves” believed that trade, investment, and partnership would bring peace—that if we did business together, China would grow more open and the world would grow more stable. The “China hawks”, on the other hand, warned that the Chinese Communist Party was using that same economic engagement to build leverage, dominate industry, and prepare for confrontation.
The tariffs you’ve heard about—the ones that started during the Trump administration and carried through in various forms—were part of that battle. They weren’t just about steel, aluminum, or semiconductors. They were about whether America would keep surrendering its manufacturing and shipbuilding capacity to a regime that has made no secret of its ambitions in the Pacific.
Most Americans didn’t pick a side. They were too busy working, paying taxes, and hoping someone in Washington would finally get it right. But the truth is, both parties let this happen. We were told that engagement meant peace—when in reality, it built dependency. And now, the same country we helped enrich is threatening our allies, our trade routes, and our future.
That’s why voices like Shyam Sankar’s matter. Over the past week, the Palantir CTO and Hudson Institute trustee laid out a hard truth that America can no longer ignore. In his essay “Why the China Doves Are Wrong,” he calls out a generation of business and technology leaders who misread Beijing’s intentions. These so-called “doves” believed engagement and profit could buy peace. They were wrong.
Sankar singles out Nvidia’s CEO, Jensen Huang, who recently said the future “doesn’t have to be all us or them; it could be us and them.” Sankar’s answer is clear: the Chinese Communist Party doesn’t believe that. Its rise depends on America’s decline—and our own money, technology, and industrial retreat helped make that possible.
He’s right. For decades, U.S. capital and know-how flowed into China, building the very industrial and military capacity that now threatens the free world. America’s overreliance on Chinese supply chains—from semiconductors to shipyards—has turned interdependence into a weapon aimed back at us.
Rebuilding our domestic base—our factories, shipyards, and maritime strength—isn’t nostalgia. It’s national security. Sankar’s warning echoes what many of us have been saying for years: hard power and industrial resilience are the foundation of peace.
At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we believe this isn’t just a policy debate. It’s a call to every citizen. This moment demands that Americans—not just policymakers—take responsibility, stand together, and act before it’s too late.
The Tide Is Turning
For years, Americans for a Stronger Navy has been saying what Shyam Sankar just put into print: we didn’t lose ground to China overnight—it happened one contract, one shipment, one investment at a time. When someone from inside Silicon Valley finally says it out loud, it means the conversation is shifting.
This isn’t about pointing fingers. It’s about facing facts. The same innovation hubs that built the digital future also hollowed out America’s industrial core. And now, even the insiders see it: the CCP isn’t looking for balance—it’s looking for dominance. Sankar’s words confirm what we’ve been warning all along.
Sankar didn’t pull punches. He wrote:
“The U.S. is partially to blame for turning China into a juggernaut. American companies have invested vast sums over decades to build China’s industrial base. … Chinese military contractors securitize weapons contracts in global capital markets, meaning that American pension funds and 401(k) investors have financed missiles aimed at U.S. ships.”
That’s the uncomfortable truth. We financed the very threat we now face. While many Americans were working hard and trusting their savings to grow, their own retirement dollars were indirectly funding China’s military expansion.
This isn’t a partisan issue or a Wall Street issue—it’s an American issue. And fixing it means facing it head-on.
Call to Silicon Valley and the Financial Sector
If there’s one thing Americans know how to do, it’s rebuild. We did it after the Great Depression, after World War II, and after every storm that’s hit this country. But this time, the rebuilding must start with those who helped hollow out the core—our own financial and tech elites.
Silicon Valley didn’t mean to weaken America. Wall Street didn’t set out to fund our rivals. But good intentions don’t excuse bad outcomes. The truth is, while innovators were chasing the next big breakthrough, and investors were chasing the next big return, our shipyards rusted, our supply chains moved offshore, and our industrial base became dependent on the very system now aligned against us.
That’s why this open letter isn’t just a warning—it’s an invitation. We need the same creativity, drive, and innovation that built the digital world to help rebuild the physical one. The next frontier isn’t in code; it’s in steel, in sensors, in shipyards, and in the men and women who keep the seas open and the nation free.
We’re calling on America’s tech and finance leaders to put their talent and capital back to work here at home—where it matters most. Invest in shipbuilding. Partner with maritime innovators. Reimagine logistics, automation, and infrastructure. Help America regain the ability to build, move, and defend.
Because the same companies that helped wire the world now have a moral obligation to help secure it. And if we do this right, we won’t just restore our strength—we’ll rebuild trust between Main Street, Wall Street, and the American people.
Closing: The Hard Truth and the Hope
The American people have every right to feel weary. We’ve been told for decades that global integration would make the world safer, that cheap goods would make us richer, and that innovation alone would keep us ahead. But somewhere along the way, we lost sight of something simple and sacred—the idea that America must be able to stand on her own.
Shyam Sankar reminded us that while our leaders talked about partnership, the Chinese Communist Party was planning for dominance. And he’s right—we built part of that machine. But now we have a chance to build something better: a stronger, more united, and more self-reliant America.
That’s why this isn’t just a letter to policymakers—it’s a letter to all of us. To the shipbuilder and the software engineer. To the machinist and the venture capitalist. To every citizen whose pension, paycheck, or passion helped shape this nation. The future of American power depends on our willingness to face what’s broken and fix it together.
Rebuilding our shipyards and restoring our maritime strength isn’t about preparing for war—it’s about securing peace. It’s about ensuring that no foreign power can hold our economy, our sailors, or our future hostage. It’s about remembering that deterrence isn’t aggression—it’s readiness.
So yes, Americans are tired. We’ve been misled, overextended, and divided. But fatigue is not failure—it’s a signal. A signal that it’s time to get serious, to get focused, and to get back to work.
That’s what Americans for a Stronger Navy stands for—peace through strength, transparency through accountability, and unity through shared responsibility. Together, we can rebuild the strength that keeps us free.
This post is part of Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — our ongoing educational series at Americans for a Stronger Navy examining the strategic threats facing the U.S. Navy and why they matter to every American. In this installment, we focus on China’s maritime buildup. China isn’t just making claims — it’s building infrastructure, militarizing reefs, and transforming sea features into forward bases. This map-driven guide walks you through where China has control, what they’ve built, and why it matters for U.S. strategy, regional allies, and global maritime security
Map & Visuals
Use one or more of the mapped images above to show:
China’s “Nine-Dash Line” claim
Areas with Chinese military build-up (Subi, Mischief, Fiery Cross, etc.)
Overlapping exclusive economic zones (EEZs) claimed by the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, etc.
Key Chinese-Controlled Features Here are the major reefs, atolls, and islands China controls or heavily influences. For each, we’d provide location, current state (military infra, runways, radars), and why it’s strategically important.
Coast guard, militia presence; possible construction; blocks Filipino access
Symbolic and strategic choke point; EEZ stakes
Paracel Islands
Yes
Many features; garrisons, military infrastructure
Proximity to mainland China; strategic flank toward Vietnam / Philippines
Why This Map Matters
Mapping shows how much of the Spratly / Paracel archipelagos are now “ militarized territory”
It reveals how close China’s bases are to other countries’ claimed waters (especially the Philippines)
Visual clarity helps Americans see this is not abstract — it’s real geography being altered, with legal, military, and economic implications
U.S. Strategic Implications
Presence: Where and how the U.S. Navy can operate
Deterrence: What it takes to make these bases costly for Beijing to use aggressively
Alliances: How neighboring countries feel and what they do (e.g. Philippines’ diplomatic protests, joint patrols)
Call to Action Let the map sharpen our resolve. Knowing the terrain is step one. Step two is educating, advocating, and ensuring our Navy, our Congress, and our allies are equipped for what’s next.
Closing Thought Geography doesn’t shift overnight — but power can. When maps are redrawn, either by diplomacy or force, everyone involved must choose whether to respond or concede. That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late. Let’s roll.
Philippine Officials Raise the Alarm Top Philippine defense and maritime officials have condemned China’s recent declaration of a “nature reserve” at Scarborough Shoal, calling it a “clear pretext for occupation.” This bold response comes in reaction to Beijing’s move to designate the disputed shoal—known locally as Bajo de Masinloc and internationally ruled to be within the Philippine EEZ—as a Chinese national marine reserve.
Philippine officials aren’t mincing words. Former Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio, former Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, and Coast Guard Commodore Jay Tarriela are among those warning that the “reserve” designation masks a broader strategy: to lock down access, increase Chinese presence, and project power deep into Southeast Asia’s maritime heart.
Part 1 — Broken Promises and Growing Risks In 2012, after a tense naval standoff, the U.S. brokered a deal: both China and the Philippines would withdraw their ships from Scarborough Shoal. The Philippines complied. China didn’t. The U.S. didn’t press the issue. The result? Beijing solidified its control and sent a message that international mediation wouldn’t be enforced.
Part 2 — International Law Ignored In 2016, an international tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines, stating clearly that China had no legal claim to Scarborough Shoal. Beijing ignored the decision, accelerating militarization and disrupting Filipino fishing. Once again, global rule of law was challenged—and left unenforced.
Part 3 — The “Nature Reserve” Play Now, in 2025, China has unveiled a new maneuver: using environmental language to advance military and political objectives. The creation of the “Huangyan Island National Nature Reserve” is being widely viewed as part of a creeping campaign to normalize Chinese administrative control.
Despite the label, this is not about conservation. China has repeatedly blocked Filipino fishermen, driven out environmental research vessels, and deployed maritime militia under the radar. Calling this a “preserve” is like calling a fortress a flower garden.
Why Americans Should Care
Strategic Sea Lanes: The South China Sea is a maritime superhighway. If China controls it, they can control access to vital markets and resources.
U.S. Credibility Is on the Line: American influence is measured by what we protect—not just what we promise.
Civic Responsibility: Understanding how foreign policy, trade, and defense intersect isn’t just for experts. It’s for every American who relies on secure energy, stable prices, and a functioning global order.
Environmental Lawfare: Americans should be wary of tactics that exploit noble causes—like conservation—to advance authoritarian control.
Implications for the Navy The U.S. Navy has long played a vital role in ensuring freedom of navigation and stabilizing flashpoints. But gray zone tactics like these require more than just ships—they require intelligence, strategy, and public support. The Navy cannot succeed without a civilian base that understands the stakes.
Implications for Our Allies This isn’t just a Philippine problem. What happens at Scarborough sends ripples across the Pacific. Taiwan, Vietnam, Japan, Australia—all are watching to see whether the U.S. will back its allies when it counts. So are our adversaries.
Call to Action The future of maritime freedom—and American leadership—may hinge on places like Scarborough Shoal. When China tests the limits, Americans need to respond—not just with ships, but with awareness and resolve.
That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
Overview The United States is increasing its forward military presence near China by deploying Marine forces aboard the expeditionary sea base ship USS Miguel Keith. This afloat platform extends the reach of the Marine Rotational Force-Darwin (MRF-D), based in northern Australia, across the contested island chains of the western Pacific. This move underscores Washington’s commitment to countering Beijing’s growing influence and military footprint in the Indo-Pacific.
The Island Chain Strategy At the heart of this deployment lies the U.S. island chain strategy: three north-south defensive lines stretching across the Pacific. By leveraging allied territory and naval access points, the U.S. can project power, deter aggression, and defend against potential Chinese military action. The second island chain, where the USS Miguel Keith is homeported in Saipan, plays a pivotal role in supporting operations deeper into the Pacific.
Why This Matters Operating from a sea base offers the Marines flexibility and unpredictability. Unlike fixed land bases, the Miguel Keith allows U.S. forces to maneuver rapidly across archipelagic terrain and forward locations ashore, complicating adversary planning. This is especially important at a time when Chinese forces are building out anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities designed to push U.S. forces farther from contested waters.
Recent Exercises The deployment follows recent exercises across the first and second island chains:
Exercise Alon 25 in the Philippines (August 15–29).
Exercise Super Garuda Shield 25 in Indonesia (August 25–September 4).
These multinational drills reinforced cooperation with allies, improved readiness, and signaled a unified front in the region.
Implications for the Navy The Navy’s role in enabling sea-based expeditionary operations is central. With amphibious ships like the USS New Orleans temporarily out of service due to fire damage, expeditionary sea bases provide a critical stopgap. They allow Marines and sailors to continue distributed operations, demonstrating the Navy’s adaptability in keeping forward presence credible.
Implications for Our Allies For Australia, the Philippines, and Indonesia, U.S. deployments reinforce security guarantees. The Marines’ message, as articulated by Colonel Jason Armas, was clear: America and its allies “stand ready to maneuver, sustain and fight as one force.” This is reassurance at a time of rising Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea and beyond.
Why Americans Should Care This is not simply a faraway deployment. The Pacific is a lifeline for U.S. trade, energy, and global communications infrastructure. Securing these waters ensures that Americans at home continue to benefit from stable supply chains and open sea lanes. A failure to hold the line in the Pacific would ripple into our economy and national security alike.
Closing Call As the U.S. strengthens its presence in the Indo-Pacific, the question is not whether we can afford to maintain this posture, but whether we can afford not to. A stronger Navy and Marine Corps presence ensures deterrence, protects trade, and preserves peace.
That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
