A Quarter Millennium of Service On October 13, 1775, the Continental Congress resolved to establish a swift sailing vessel armed with carriage guns to defend American commerce from British forces. From that moment, the United States Navy was born. Two and a half centuries later, the Navy remains at the heart of American security and prosperity.
This week, despite a government shutdown that has paused some ceremonies, the Navy will celebrate its 250th birthday in Philadelphia — the city where both the Navy and Marine Corps trace their roots. Ships will parade on the Delaware River, bands will play, and the public will tour vessels new and old, from USS Arlington to the historic battleship New Jersey. Flyovers, displays, football, and fireworks will honor the sailors who have stood the watch in times of peace, crisis, and war.
Heritage and Resilience The Navy’s legacy is rich with examples of ingenuity and determination. We’ve told the story of USS R-14, whose crew in 1921 literally sailed their submarine home when fuel ran out. We’ve revisited Midway, where pilots flew through chaos and confusion to deliver a decisive victory. We’ve remembered Cold War destroyer sailors who carried out missions day after day with little fanfare but enormous consequences.
These stories remind us that the Navy’s strength lies not only in steel, but in sailors — their resilience, creativity, and courage.
Doing More With Less Today, we ask much of those sailors. The U.S. Navy remains the most powerful in the world by tonnage and capability, but it is no longer the largest by sheer numbers. Our adversaries are building at speed, while we face strained shipyards, aging infrastructure, and stretched resources.
As Vice Adm. John Gumbleton said ahead of the 250th celebrations, the heritage of “mighty warships and service members who sailed proudly at sea” continues today. But heritage and resilience are not enough without investment. Our sailors are doing more with less — and that cannot remain the strategy for America’s future.
Why Americans Should Care The oceans are lifelines of trade, energy, and security. A strong Navy keeps those lifelines secure and deters those who would threaten them. Philadelphia may be the birthplace of the Navy, but the mission it carries belongs to all Americans.
A Call to Action Happy 250th, U.S. Navy. We honor your past, salute your sailors, and celebrate your legacy. But the best way to mark this anniversary is to ensure the next 250 years are just as strong. That means supporting shipbuilding, revitalizing industry, and giving our sailors the tools they need to prevail.
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.
Introduction: Why This Matters At Americans for a Stronger Navy, our mission is clear: give sailors the tools they need to succeed. That means more than ships and weapons — it means clarity and consistency in U.S. foreign policy. When Washington wavers, it is sailors and Marines who carry the burden, often forward-deployed thousands of miles from home.
The Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Foreign Policy Tracker shows just how uneven America’s global posture has become. Some areas are trending positive — energy exports, alliances in Europe, international organizations. Others, especially the Indo-Pacific, are trending negative. That inconsistency has real-world consequences for the Navy: sailors are asked to project strength even as policy shifts under their feet.
A Real-Time Example: The October 7th Hearing Tomorrow, the Senate Subcommittee on East Asia, the Pacific, and International Cybersecurity Policy will hold a hearing titled “Combating the People’s Republic of China’s Illegal, Coercive, Aggressive, and Deceptive Behavior in the Indo-Pacific.”
The witnesses bring distinct perspectives that reflect the challenges highlighted in the Tracker:
Craig Singleton (Foundation for Defense of Democracies) – A former diplomat, Singleton warns that mixed signals on Taiwan, arms sales, and technology exports embolden Beijing. Policy inconsistency undermines deterrence and puts sailors in greater danger.
Ray Powell (SeaLight Foundation, Stanford) – A retired Air Force colonel, Powell tracks China’s “gray zone” tactics: swarming, harassment, and incremental pressure in the South China Sea. These confrontations fall hardest on sailors at sea, who face constant risks of escalation.
Dr. Ely Ratner (The Marathon Initiative) – A strategist focused on great-power competition, Ratner emphasizes the long view: rebuilding U.S. alliances, revitalizing shipbuilding, and sustaining naval power for decades, not just years.
Why Americans Should Care The Indo-Pacific isn’t just a faraway chessboard. The sea lanes carry the goods Americans buy every day, from electronics to energy. If Beijing dominates those waters, costs will rise at home, jobs will be at risk, and U.S. influence will shrink abroad. Add to this China’s cyber intrusions, intellectual property theft, and influence operations, and the challenge is already reaching into American life.
Implications for the Navy The Navy is America’s frontline deterrent. Singleton’s warnings highlight that sailors need more than weapons — they need policy clarity. Powell’s findings show how Beijing’s small-scale harassment tactics wear down ships and crews. Ratner’s perspective reminds us that without sustained investment in industry and alliances, our Navy risks being stretched to the breaking point.
Implications for Allies and Partners Allies like Japan, the Philippines, and Australia want to see American resolve, not hesitation. Mixed signals make them question whether the U.S. will stand firm, driving them to hedge or make side deals with Beijing. A strong and steady Navy reassures allies and keeps coalitions intact.
The Navy’s Burden From trade wars to canceled arms sales, from cyber threats to gray-zone skirmishes, the Navy carries the weight of America’s foreign policy. The Foreign Policy Tracker shows the global picture, and tomorrow’s hearing will shine a light on one theater where the stakes are highest: the Indo-Pacific.
Watch the Hearing The hearing begins October 7, 2025, at 2:30 p.m. ET. Follow it here: Senate Foreign Relations Committee – Hearing Link. We’ll be listening closely and will share a follow-up with key takeaways.
Conclusion At the end of the day, hearings and trackers matter because they remind us of one thing: our sailors and Marines deserve the tools, support, and clear direction needed to keep America safe.
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 mission is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
China set 2027 as their military readiness target – that’s 18 months away. Let me tell you something Americans need to hear, even if it makes you uncomfortable: China is laughing out loud and I can hear it from here, and they’re squeezing harder every day.
I’m not being dramatic. I’m being honest. As a former Navy sailor who spent his civilian career in telecom and web technologies, I understand both the military realities and the technological dependencies that have put us in this position. After two years of research—cross-checking military testimony, intelligence reports, and independent defense analyses—I can tell you we’re running out of time to fix this mess.
The Brutal Truth About 2027
China has set a goal to be militarily ready for war with the United States by 2027. That’s not some distant threat—that’s 18 months away. While we’ve been arguing about what he said and she said etc, they’ve been building the world’s largest navy and positioning themselves to strangle us economically, electronically and militarily.
Here’s what keeps me up at night: they don’t need to sink our ships to defeat us. They can just stop selling us the parts to build new ones.
How China is putting on the squeeze
They Control What We Need to Fight Rare earth minerals for our missile guidance systems? China controls 80% of global processing.
Semiconductors for our weapons platforms? We outsourced that to Asia decades ago.
Critical components for naval systems? Good luck building ships without Chinese suppliers.
They Own Our Information Flow
TikTok shapes what our kids think about America and China
They manufacture the phones and devices we use to communicate
Their algorithms determine what information Americans see about military threats
They Hold Our Economy Hostage
Wall Street pension funds are invested in Chinese markets
Silicon Valley’s revenue depends on Chinese manufacturing and consumers Our entire supply chain runs through Chinese factories
The Kicker? The same Silicon Valley companies that handed China our technological advantages now control how Americans get information. Try posting about Chinese military threats on Facebook—watch your reach get throttled. Discuss naval readiness on social media—suddenly you’re “violating community standards.”
They don’t just have us by the blank—they’re controlling the conversation about it.
Don’t Take My Word For It — Listen to the Experts
Over the past 24 months, Americans for a Stronger Navy has been mapping a story few citizens have ever been shown: how China’s campaign against the United States unfolded, who knew what and when, and what it will take to pull back from the brink. We didn’t start with opinions — we started with evidence. Here’s what the experts have been saying for years, and how their warnings fit together.
Strategic Intent and Military Buildup
Admiral James Lyons Jr., former commander of the Pacific Fleet, went on Fox News in 2013 and said what few in Washington wanted to hear: “We’re in our second Cold War with another communist totalitarian regime.” He warned that China has “built the navy specifically to go against the United States Navy” and that their anti-ship ballistic missiles are “not geared to go against the Bangladesh navy.” When a fleet commander speaks that bluntly on national television, that’s not politics — that’s professional judgment.
Brigadier General Douglas P. Wickert has shown how far that judgment has proven correct. In the Gobi Desert, China has built full-scale mock-ups of Taiwan’s Taichung International Airport and a “one-for-one silhouette of the Ford-class aircraft carrier” for target practice. They are not hiding their intentions. They are practicing to sink our ships and invade our allies.
The scale of China’s buildup is staggering: “They have 230 times the shipbuilding capacity of the United States in terms of shipyard infrastructure and potential output.. “Just one shipyard in China last year alone, in 2024, built more tonnage of ships than the U.S. did since the end of World War II.” One shipyard outproduced our entire nation’s post-WWII shipbuilding in a single year.
👉 Subscribe and Follow Along This is just Part 1 of a three-part series. In Part 2: Political Warfare and the Silent Invasion, I’ll break down how China’s campaign has already reached into our own institutions — through espionage, influence operations, and economic coercion.
Key Takeaway: The fight isn’t just “over there.” It’s already here, shaping what Americans see, hear, and believe.
China’s cyber warfare escalation proves the need for a stronger Navy. For two years, we’ve warned that adversaries were already inside our homeland; today’s revelations confirm it and raise the stakes. Cyber defenses matter, but only forward-deployed ships provide the physical presence, analog resilience, and immediate deterrence that malware can’t erase. As we argue at home, Beijing prepares—time is running out to rally behind our sailors, our civilian maritime industry, and the shipbuilding surge America needs.
The Vindication No One Wanted This morning’s New York Times revelation should serve as a wake-up call, but for those paying attention, it reads like an inevitable conclusion. Despite CIA Director William Burns confronting China’s Minister of State Security in May 2023 with evidence of malicious code embedded in America’s critical infrastructure, China ignored the warnings and escalated operations.
As we’ve written before: “Most people don’t realize it yet. We are already in a quiet war. Not with bombs. Not with missiles. But with fentanyl, with financial schemes, and with cyber attacks.”
Today’s reporting proves we were right. The question is: why did it take a CIA director’s secret mission and a massive intelligence failure for mainstream media to acknowledge the obvious?
Silicon Valley’s Role in America’s Vulnerability Before we talk solutions, we must address culpability. Silicon Valley—the same industry that promised to “connect the world”—has systematically created the vulnerabilities that China now exploits.
Supply Chain Sellout: Manufacturing moved to China, transferring critical knowledge of hardware vulnerabilities.
Backdoor Bonanza: Even solar panels and batteries carry hidden back doors that could one day flip a switch against us.
Data Harvesting: Social media platforms collected massive datasets, much of which inevitably found its way into Chinese intelligence.
Infrastructure Integration: Cloud services created single points of failure that adversaries can exploit across sectors simultaneously.
Executives got rich while selling America’s digital sovereignty. They dismissed security concerns as “protectionism” and prioritized market access over national security. Where is the accountability?
The Secret Meeting That Changed Nothing The Times reveals that Burns’ confrontation with Chen Yixin was professional but meaningless. When presented with evidence of cyber intrusions, China’s intelligence chief “gave nothing away.”
China’s real response came later: Salt Typhoon—a massive, yearslong intrusion targeting “nearly every American” and dozens of countries. This was not diplomacy failing. It was China demonstrating that cyber warfare is a strategic pillar, not a negotiable issue.
As Rear Admiral Mike Studeman warned: “The reality is that adversaries have insinuated themselves in our homeland… and continue to exploit our society from the inside out.”
Why Naval Power Matters More After Cyber Escalation Cyber warfare doesn’t eliminate the need for naval power—it makes it more critical.
The Infrastructure Hostage Crisis We warned that adversaries target our banks, pipelines, and power grids. Today’s reporting confirms it. But there’s one thing they can’t hack: ships already forward-deployed.
The Communications Blackout Modern naval operations rely on networks China has proven it can disrupt. The solution isn’t cybersecurity alone—it’s having more ships already in position when networks go dark.
The Logistics Nightmare China can disrupt ports, fuel, and supply chains simultaneously. Forward-deployed naval power bypasses these vulnerabilities.
The Taiwan Test Case China’s cyber strategy aims to create an impossible choice: accept aggression or risk massive retaliation against U.S. infrastructure. But this calculation changes with a larger forward-deployed fleet:
Ships on station can’t be cyber-attacked out of position
Redundant communications across multiple vessels mitigate disruption
Immediate response capability denies China consolidation time
A visible presence deters aggression before it begins
The Call to Action We’ve argued for 24 months that the future of America depends on our sailors, our civilian maritime industry, and a Navy that protects them both. Today’s revelations make this argument irrefutable.
Every day Congress delays emergency shipbuilding, China gains ground. Every month without new investment deepens our vulnerability. Call your representatives. Demand they fund emergency naval expansion now.
Beyond China Russia, Iran, and North Korea are studying these techniques. Naval power provides what cyber defenses cannot: physical presence immune to digital attack.
Ships can’t be deleted by malware. Naval gunfire doesn’t require Wi-Fi. Sailors can’t be hacked out of existence.
Silicon Valley’s Reckoning Day Congress must investigate how U.S. tech companies:
Facilitated Chinese access to critical technologies
Ignored warnings in favor of market access
Enabled mass data collection for foreign intelligence
Built cloud infrastructures that created systemic single points of failure
Executives who sold out American sovereignty should be held to the same scrutiny as defense contractors.
The Validation We Didn’t Want Being right about China’s cyber warfare escalation brings no satisfaction. We would rather have been wrong. Instead, today proves China is pursuing cyber warfare and naval expansion simultaneously. America must respond with both—better cybersecurity and a stronger Navy.
Conclusion: The Time for Half-Measures is Over For 24 months, we’ve warned that America faces adversaries already inside our homeland. Today proves they didn’t waste those 24 months—they dug in deeper.
The question is no longer whether we can afford emergency naval expansion. The question is whether we can afford another 24 months of delay.
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.
The nuclear-powered guided-missile submarine USS Ohio recently arrived at Subic Bay in the Philippines, underscoring America’s commitment to allies and to a free and open Indo-Pacific. Capable of launching up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles, Ohio is one of the most formidable strike platforms in the U.S. arsenal. Its appearance follows the deployment of China’s newest aircraft carrier, CNS Fujian, which has been conducting tests near Hainan Island.
The port call at Subic Bay—once the U.S. Navy’s largest overseas base—comes at a time when maritime disputes between China and the Philippines have escalated, especially around contested waters in the South China Sea.
Why This Matters The U.S. Navy’s submarine force remains one of the most credible deterrents against Chinese naval ambitions. Analysts note that American submarine capability is seen as the primary threat vector for the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). While China invests heavily in anti-submarine warfare, the U.S. maintains the advantage in stealth, firepower, and global reach.
By positioning Ohio at Subic Bay, the U.S. highlights the strategic role of the Philippines within the First Island Chain—a defensive line stretching from Japan through Taiwan and the Philippines into the South China Sea. This network of alliances forms the geographic anchor of American naval strategy in the Pacific.
Implications for the Navy For the U.S. Navy, forward deployment of submarines in contested waters provides:
Flexible strike capability: Rapid response to crises with precision-guided weapons.
Special operations support: Stealth platforms for insertion of SEALs or Marine units.
Strategic messaging: Visible reassurance to allies and a reminder to Beijing that the U.S. retains unmatched undersea dominance.
The routine but highly symbolic visit to Subic Bay reflects a balance between operational necessity and diplomatic signaling. Whether or not Ohio conducts exercises with the Philippine Navy, its very presence strengthens deterrence.
Implications for Our Allies For the Philippines, hosting Ohio marks another step in strengthening defense ties with Washington after years of uncertainty. For Australia—where Ohio also made a port call earlier this year—the deployment aligns with AUKUS ambitions to enhance collective submarine capability. Together, these moves demonstrate that the U.S. Navy is not acting alone, but rather as part of a broader coalition determined to counter coercion and preserve maritime freedom.
Why Americans Should Care The South China Sea is not a distant problem—it is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. Roughly one-third of global trade, including vital energy supplies and consumer goods bound for American shores, flows through these waters. If China were to dominate or restrict access, the ripple effects would hit American families and industries directly.
Maintaining a credible U.S. Navy presence in the Indo-Pacific is about more than military balance—it is about protecting the lifelines of our economy and ensuring peace through strength.
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.
Each of these stories pointed to a contest for control of the waterways, ports, and infrastructure that sustain both military power and the global economy.
Today, we turn to the Bashi Channel—a narrow strip of water between southern Taiwan and the northern Philippines that may be the least known, but most decisive, chokepoint in the region. If Scarborough Shoal shows us the contest over reefs and fishing rights, and Subic Bay demonstrates the value of allied ports, the Bashi Channel reveals why geography itself remains the ultimate factor in global power.
A Geography Lesson with Global Stakes The Bashi Channel is less than 90 miles wide. Yet it connects Taiwan’s largest port, Kaohsiung—which handles over 60% of the island’s cargo—with the Pacific Ocean. In an invasion scenario, China would rely on Kaohsiung as a logistics hub, while the United States and allies would race to resupply Taiwan through bases in the Philippines and Japan. That makes the Bashi not just a strait, but a lifeline.
Building on What We’ve Reported
At Subic Bay ([read here][subic-link]), we saw how new shipyards and bases allow U.S. forces to operate closer to Taiwan. The Bashi Channel explains why: northern Luzon and the Batanes islands are the staging ground for resupply lines directly into Taiwan’s southern flank.
At Scarborough Shoal ([read here][scarborough-link]), we documented China’s attempts to normalize control through coercion. The same pattern is at play here—Chinese live-fire drills in 2022 pushed further south, right into the Bashi, to test how far they can go without pushback.
When the British carrier transited the South China Sea ([see coverage][carrier-link]), it demonstrated allied commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific. The Bashi Channel is where that commitment will be tested in practice.
The Digital Dimension As we’ve stressed in earlier posts, undersea cables are the invisible arteries of the modern world. Between 97% and 99% of all international data traffic travels through them, and the Bashi Channel is one of the most congested corridors. If cables here were cut, Americans would feel it instantly—in internet outages, stalled financial transactions, and disrupted supply chains. The stakes are no longer abstract; they’re personal.
Why Americans Should Care The Bashi Channel matters for the same reasons Subic Bay and Scarborough Shoal matter: because adversaries see them as pressure points against America. A disruption here could raise prices at U.S. gas pumps, slow down the internet in our homes, and challenge the freedom of movement that underpins our prosperity. Ignoring this geography doesn’t make the threat go away—it just leaves us less prepared.
Implications for the Navy For the U.S. Navy, this isn’t just about patrolling a waterway. It’s about ensuring freedom of movement for allies, safeguarding undersea cables, and keeping logistics flowing in the event of conflict. Ships, submarines, and surveillance aircraft operating in and around the Bashi Channel aren’t just defending Taiwan—they are defending the arteries of the global economy.
Implications for Our Allies The Philippines, Japan, and Australia all depend on the Bashi Channel for security and trade. As we saw in Subic Bay’s revival, Manila’s choices are central to allied strategy. If political winds shift in the Philippines, America’s ability to project power and protect cables through the Bashi could be compromised. That makes alliances more than symbolic—they’re the difference between deterrence and vulnerability.
Conclusion Scarborough Shoal, Subic Bay, and now the Bashi Channel all point to one truth: the contest in the Indo-Pacific is about control of the chokepoints that sustain trade, communication, and freedom itself. Geography cannot be changed, but strategy can. For generations to come, the Bashi Channel will remain a pivot in the U.S.–China confrontation.
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.
Dan Wang’s recent interview on Interesting Times with Ross Douthat offers an intriguing argument: that China, as an “engineering state” may outbuild, out-innovate, and outlast the United States. I respect Wang’s analysis — but I believe it overstates China’s strengths, underestimates America’s, and risks mistaking curated facades for lasting power.
I speak from experience. I served as a Cold War-era Navy destroyer sailor, worked in telecommunications at AT&T, helped set standards for web technologies, and founded Americans for a Stronger Navy. In 2008, I traveled to Beijing as a guest expert at the World Wide Web Conference. That visit — on the eve of the Olympics — revealed the gap between projection and reality.
Facades and Reality
Wang contrasts Shanghai’s clean subways and manicured parks with New York’s noisy infrastructure. I saw another reality. Behind Beijing’s gleaming new airport, residential homes were bulldozed to make way for Olympic tourism. Poverty was hidden, smog choked the skies, and the environmental cost of China’s rapid growth was impossible to ignore. Having served in Hong Kong in the 1970s, I could compare its then-crystal skies with Beijing’s haze in 2008 — a stark reminder that much of China’s “progress” is extraction, not sustainability.
Systematic Extraction
My telecom and security background made me see what others missed. The building across from our Hilton bristled with antennas pointed at us. Government “observers” monitored our sessions. The million-dollar fee to host the conference wasn’t just business — it was leverage.
More troubling were the Western executives — many half my age, fresh from Silicon Valley — using unsecured phones and laptops in this environment. I spoke with a young GM engineer who had developed a novel windshield wiper. He admitted openly that it would be copied and sold back to his own company at lower cost. Yet corporate pressure compelled him to manufacture in China anyway. Days later, flying home through London, I read an FBI advisory warning Olympic visitors not to bring their cell phones. That confirmed every operational concern I had seen firsthand.
The Population Trap
Wang points to China’s vast numbers of engineers and competing firms as proof of superiority. But scale alone does not equal strength. With 1.4 billion people, China naturally produces more engineers than America’s 330 million. The question is quality and innovation, not headcount. At the World Wide Web Conference, Chinese capabilities often lagged global standards. The proliferation of thousands of solar companies reflects size, not necessarily superior organization or creativity.
Naval Realities
Wang worries that China could quickly overwhelm Taiwan and that America’s Navy might not respond effectively. My perspective as a Navy veteran is different. Amphibious assaults across a strait are among the most complex operations in warfare. China’s navy, for all its growth, remains untested in major combat, dependent on land-based missiles with finite range, and lacking the blue-water experience U.S. forces have honed through decades of global deployment. To suggest America cannot meet this challenge underestimates both our power projection and the operational realities that matter at sea.
America’s Resilience
Perhaps Wang’s greatest omission is the resilience factor. History shows America’s ability to respond decisively when existential threats become clear: after Pearl Harbor, in the space race following Sputnik, and after 9/11. The same will be true in the face of today’s strategic competition.
Even China’s own people signal doubts about their system’s sustainability. Wang himself notes the “brain drain”: wealthy families buying homes in Irvine and Vancouver, entrepreneurs relocating to Singapore, tens of thousands crossing the Darién Gap to reach America. They are voting with their feet — and their futures.
A Balanced View
I do not dismiss Wang entirely. He is right to criticize U.S. naiveté in assuming economic engagement would democratize China. He is right that corporations prioritized profits over national resilience. But his analysis is filtered through carefully curated experiences and misses the darker realities: surveillance, forced extraction, environmental costs, and intellectual property theft.
Don’t Bet Against America
China has built dazzling infrastructure and manufacturing scale. But a system built on control, imitation, and exploitation is brittle. America’s advantages remain decisive: our Navy, our innovation ecosystem, our demographics, and above all our proven resilience.
Dan Wang is correct about one thing: this is a long competition. But if history is a guide, the nation that adapts, mobilizes, and earns the trust of its people and partners will prevail. That nation is not China. Don’t bet against America.
In a major development, the United Kingdom is considering deploying troops to the South China Sea under a new Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) with the Philippines. This move, announced by the Philippine Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr., comes as China intensifies its claims over virtually the entire South China Sea—threatening the sovereignty of key regional allies.
A VFA would give the UK legal grounds to base forces in the Philippines for training, cooperation, and potential conflict readiness. It marks a new chapter in Britain’s Indo-Pacific posture and could eventually bring British troops within 200 kilometers of Taiwan—a critical flashpoint in the U.S.-China rivalry.
Why This Matters
The South China Sea is more than a disputed body of water—it’s a global trade superhighway and a strategic military corridor. A British military presence adds to a growing list of nations pushing back on China’s coercion and militarization of the region.
If finalized, this deal would place the UK alongside the U.S., Japan, Australia, and France in holding joint access agreements with the Philippines. It reinforces a growing international coalition determined to uphold freedom of navigation and resist revisionist claims that threaten peace in the Indo-Pacific.
Background on the Philippines’ Strategic Role
The Philippines’ northernmost islands in the Batanes chain are only 120 miles from Taiwan. These islands have become a focal point for U.S.-Philippines joint drills—including the recent deployment of the U.S. Marine Corps’ NMESIS “ship-killer” missile system.
As tensions rise over Taiwan and Chinese interference at sea escalates, the Philippines is building deeper defense ties not just with the United States, but also with regional and global allies.
Implications for the U.S. Navy
A stronger allied presence in the region could bolster logistics, interoperability, and rapid response capability—all crucial for countering China’s area-denial strategies. It also eases the burden on the U.S. Navy by increasing multinational deterrence capacity.
The move may encourage other NATO and European partners to follow suit, diversifying the military footprint in the Pacific and reinforcing the global rules-based order.
Implications for Our Allies
For Japan, Australia, and South Korea—nations already aligned with the Philippines and the U.S. in multilateral exercises—Britain’s involvement signals a maturing trilateral-plus framework. As these alliances deepen, they collectively raise the cost of aggression and ensure no single country bears the burden alone.
Why Americans Should Care
Every product you rely on—from cars to phones to food—moves through global sea lanes, and much of that commerce passes through the South China Sea. If those lanes are choked, the ripple effects would hit every American household.
A stronger presence of allied nations protects those trade routes, deters aggression, and reassures nations on the front lines of Chinese expansionism that the world is watching—and prepared to act.
This isn’t just about Britain and the Philippines. It’s about defending peace, stability, and freedom of the seas.
Closing Note:
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.
For more than two years, I’ve been writing about the Navy, America’s role in the Pacific, and the choices our leaders face. What I’ve learned is simple: policies that sound abstract in Washington — like “strategic ambiguity” — land hard on the decks of U.S. Navy ships and in the lives of everyday Americans.
As a former destroyer sailor, I see the burden ambiguity places on today’s fleet. And as a citizen, I see the confusion it creates for the American public and the Congress that reflects their will. RAND and other respected voices have warned of the risks, but too often the public doesn’t hear the full story. That’s why I’m weighing in directly.
The Policy of Ambiguity Since 1979, U.S. policy toward Taiwan has rested on “strategic ambiguity.” Washington avoids clear promises, keeping adversaries guessing but leaving options open. It worked for decades, deterring Beijing without emboldening Taipei. But under President Trump’s return to office, ambiguity is back in sharper form — and it carries consequences.
Trump’s Ambiguity and Taiwan’s Uncertainty President Trump has made it clear he will not commit publicly to Taiwan’s defense. When asked, he replied: “I never comment on that. I don’t want to ever put myself in that position.” That is strategic ambiguity in its rawest form.
Even more striking is his transactional framing: “Taiwan should pay us for defense … We’re no different than an insurance company. Taiwan doesn’t give us anything.” Rather than signaling clarity of purpose, this remark underscores uncertainty. For naval planners, it adds complexity. For the American public, it raises questions about whether Taiwan is seen as an ally or a customer.
Clarity in the South China Sea, Ambiguity in the Strait Contrast that with Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s recent words on Scarborough Shoal: “Beijing claiming Scarborough Reef as a nature preserve is yet another coercive attempt to advance sweeping territorial and maritime claims in the South China Sea at the expense of its neighbors, including by preventing Filipino fishermen from accessing these traditional fishing grounds.”
Here, the U.S. drew a firm line. But in the Taiwan Strait, ambiguity still rules. The Navy now faces a dual challenge: enforcing clarity in one theater while operating under uncertainty in another.
Why Americans Should Care Taiwan’s leaders know the stakes. As Mainland Affairs Council Minister Chiu Chui-cheng warned: “If Taiwan were to be taken over by China by force, it will trigger a domino effect, undermine the regional balance of power, and directly threaten the security and prosperity of the United States.”
RAND research reinforces that point: Taiwan’s ability to resist depends heavily on the speed, clarity, and credibility of U.S. support. Delay or hesitation in Washington could tip the balance, not only for Taiwan’s survival but for America’s security and economic stability.
Ambiguity also creates a chain reaction at home: Public → Voters → Congress → Navy. When the public struggles to understand why Taiwan matters, voters hesitate to back costly commitments overseas. And when voter sentiment wavers, Congress hesitates to fully fund the Navy’s needs. Ambiguity at the top becomes confusion on Main Street, which turns into hesitation on Capitol Hill — all of it compounding the burden on sailors at sea.
Implications for the Navy Strategic ambiguity translates into an enormous burden for the Navy. Without knowing if or when the order to act will come, the fleet must prepare for every possibility:
Breaking a blockade.
Resupplying Taiwan.
Responding to missile strikes.
Countering a full-scale invasion.
RAND findings emphasize that even as Taiwan strengthens its defenses and increases spending, U.S. naval power remains indispensable. Only the Navy has the forward presence, logistics, and strike capacity to counter China’s military pressure. Ambiguity at the top means complexity at sea.
Implications for Our Allies Mixed U.S. signals ripple outward. Allies like Japan and Australia watch Washington’s every move. If America is clear about Scarborough Shoal but vague about Taiwan, they are left to wonder where the next line will be drawn. RAND analysts describe Taiwan as facing “strategic anxiety” with its primary security partner — a sentiment likely shared across the Indo-Pacific.
The Bottom Line Strategic ambiguity may give presidents room to maneuver, but it burdens the Navy with complexity and leaves Americans confused about what is truly at stake. Taiwan’s security — and the stability of the Indo-Pacific — depend on clarity of purpose, credible deterrence, and above all, a strong Navy.
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.
New satellite images released this month show just how far China has gone to entrench itself militarily in the South China Sea. On Subi Reef—a once-submerged shoal that lies far outside China’s legal maritime claims—Beijing has built a full-blown fortress.
We’re talking about:
A 10,000-foot runway capable of launching fighter jets and bombers
Radar domes, missile systems, and hardened aircraft shelters
A deepwater port designed to host military resupply and forward-deployed forces
Communications and surveillance arrays capable of watching everything from the Philippines to Vietnam
This is no routine development. It’s an armed island outpost, built in defiance of international law, smack in the middle of one of the world’s most vital shipping corridors.
Why Americans Should Care
Some may look at this and think: “So what? That’s half a world away.” But here’s why it matters:
Trade flows through here. Over 30% of the world’s maritime trade—around $3.5 trillion annually—transits the South China Sea. That includes oil, food, tech, and the microchips in your phone.
Allies are at risk. The Philippines, a U.S. treaty ally, is within spitting distance of Subi Reef. China has already harassed Filipino vessels near Thitu Island, which lies just 12 nautical miles away.
The U.S. Navy is being challenged. These island bases are not for defense. They’re forward-operating platforms designed to deny access to American forces, intimidate our allies, and project Chinese power deep into the Pacific.
This isn’t just regional bullying—it’s strategic dominance by cement and steel.
What the U.S. Navy Is Up Against
Back in 2015, President Xi Jinping told President Obama he wouldn’t militarize these reefs. Less than a decade later, that pledge lies in ruins, just like China’s empty promises to Hong Kong.
The satellite photos don’t lie. China is building fortresses. We’re arguing about ship counts.
Former U.S. Indo-Pacific Commander Admiral John Aquilino said it plainly:
“They can fly fighters, bombers, plus all those offensive capabilities of missile systems. They threaten all nations who operate in the vicinity and all the international sea and airspace.”
This is a new kind of warfighting posture—a blend of gray-zone tactics, artificial island militarization, and legal warfare.
Implications for the Navy
Our Navy doesn’t just need to “keep pace”—it needs to regain strategic initiative in this critical region. That means:
Maintaining a strong forward-deployed presence
Supporting allied maritime forces with training, resources, and joint patrols
Investing in new platforms, undersea warfare, and AI-driven ISR
Holding the line on freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs) to demonstrate resolve
These reefs aren’t about fishing rights—they’re about who controls Asia’s future.
Implications for Our Allies
Beijing’s message is clear: “We’re not leaving. What are you going to do about it?” If we abandon the rules of the sea, smaller nations like Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines will be forced to bow—or arm themselves.
In the vacuum of leadership, fear grows. But if the U.S. Navy stands strong—with support from the American people—freedom still has a fighting chance.
Final Thought
Subi Reef isn’t just an island. It’s a symbol. A symbol of what happens when unchecked ambition meets apathy.
Americans must understand: this matters. It’s not just about China. It’s about supply chains. Peace. Power. Stability. Your economic future.
Let’s wake up—before the tides turn too far against us.
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.
