When Americans hear about Venezuela, they tend to think in humanitarian terms—migration, political repression, economic collapse. But that framing misses the point. Venezuela is not just a tragedy. It’s a test case for how power works in the modern world.
And power today is not primarily exercised by invading countries. It is exercised by controlling access.
Naval strategist Brent Sadler calls this naval statecraft: the use of maritime power not to occupy territory, but to shape outcomes by controlling sea lanes, ports, trade routes, and strategic flows.
That may sound academic. It isn’t.
Oil moves by tanker. Food moves by ship. Weapons move by ship. Data moves across undersea cables. Whoever controls maritime access controls leverage over markets, pricing, and political behavior.
That is why Venezuela matters.
The country holds the largest proven oil reserves on earth. Those reserves don’t just sit in the ground—they move through ports, shipping routes, refineries, and insurance markets. If you influence those arteries, you influence global energy prices.
This is how power works now.
China, Russia, and Iran understand this. That’s why they don’t primarily project influence through armies anymore. They do it through ports, infrastructure loans, logistics hubs, shipping contracts, and maritime footholds.
This isn’t ideological. It’s commercial.
It’s about controlling the plumbing of globalization.
Most Americans still think about war in 20th-century terms: tanks crossing borders, armies seizing capitals, long occupations. Iraq and Afghanistan showed us the limits of that model—astronomical cost, endless entanglement, poor return on investment.
Naval power offers a different approach.
You don’t need to own the house to control the driveway.
Naval statecraft lets a country shape outcomes without rebuilding foreign societies, policing local politics, or stationing troops for decades. It raises the cost of destabilizing behavior. It disrupts illicit flows. It protects trade. It limits rivals’ reach.
No nation-building. No permanent occupation. No trillion-dollar quagmires.
Just leverage.
That matters to Americans because the modern economy is maritime. Roughly 90% of global trade moves by sea. Energy markets are maritime. Supply chains are maritime. Even the internet relies on undersea cables.
When those systems destabilize, Americans feel it—in fuel prices, grocery bills, insurance costs, and lost jobs.
The Navy doesn’t just protect territory. It protects flows.
And flows are what modern economies run on.
The public debate still frames U.S. foreign policy as a binary choice: invade or disengage. But the events in Venezuela show that this is a false choice.
Naval statecraft offers a third option.
It allows the U.S. to protect its interests without trying to govern other nations. It shapes incentives instead of regimes. It deters without occupying.
It is not warmongering. It is cost control.
It is not militarism. It is market stability.
And it has domestic benefits.
A credible naval presence requires ships, ports, dry docks, logistics networks, and skilled labor. That means long-term industrial jobs, capital investment, and manufacturing capacity—things America has been hollowing out for decades.
Naval power is not just a security asset. It is an economic one.
When rival powers build ports in the Western Hemisphere, they aren’t doing charity work. They’re building leverage. They’re shaping future trade behavior. They’re embedding themselves into supply chains.
Naval statecraft is how you counter that without turning every dispute into a war.
It is power with restraint. It is influence without occupation. It is competition without catastrophe.
And it may be the most important strategic concept Americans have never been taught.
Two U.S. Navy destroyers just spent weeks tracking, shadowing, and supporting the seizure of a runaway oil tanker in the North Atlantic.
This was not a combat mission. It was not a press event. It was not symbolic.
It was enforcement.
USS Bulkeley (DDG-84) and USS Paul Ignatius (DDG-117) helped support an operation that ultimately boarded and seized a Russian-flagged tanker that had been actively evading authorities across thousands of miles of open ocean.
This is what maritime power looks like in 2026. And most Americans never see it.
What Happened The vessel—initially named Bella 1—was operating as part of what U.S. officials describe as a “dark fleet,” a network of tankers designed to evade sanctions through deceptive practices.
Over the course of its escape, the tanker: • Changed its name • Reflagged as Russian • Painted a new national tricolor on its hull • Altered its identity • Evaded a U.S. naval blockade • Attempted to disappear into the Atlantic
After weeks of pursuit, U.S. forces—supported by Navy destroyers, Coast Guard assets, special operations forces, and allied surveillance—seized the vessel in waters between the UK and Iceland.
The UK provided support. NATO was not involved.
This was a multinational, multi-domain enforcement operation.
Not war. Not peace. Enforcement.
Why This Matters Sanctions do not enforce themselves.
Every time a government announces new sanctions, it implies something most people never think about:
Someone has to physically enforce them.
That means: • Ships • Crews • Surveillance • Boarding teams • Legal frameworks • Sustainment • Allies • Weeks of continuous presence
Sanctions without maritime power are just words on paper.
The Rise of the Dark Fleet So-called “dark fleet” vessels use identity laundering to move oil, weapons, and sanctioned goods across the world.
They: • Reflag repeatedly • Change names • Operate under shell companies • Transmit false data • Disable tracking systems • Exploit legal gray zones
This is modern maritime gray-zone warfare.
And the U.S. Navy is now its primary counterforce.
Attrition Isn’t Just Combat A Navy captain once wrote: “Wars at sea are wars of attrition.”
What most people miss is that attrition doesn’t only happen during wars.
A reader recently reached out with a thoughtful question. After seeing renewed debate around the Jones Act — including critiques from respected analysts and commentators — they wanted to understand how that debate fits with our advocacy for the SHIPS Act and the recently proposed Strategic Seas Act.
It’s a fair question. And it reflects a broader challenge: America’s maritime conversation has become fragmented, emotional, and often disconnected from strategic reality.
Here’s the clearest way to understand it.
The Core Issue Isn’t One Law — It’s the System
America’s maritime problem did not emerge because of one bad law or one bad decision. It emerged because policy, industry, workforce, logistics, and security drifted out of alignment over decades.
The Jones Act, the SHIPS Act, and the Strategic Seas Act each address different layers of that system. Confusing them — or pitting them against one another — obscures the real challenge.
What the Jones Act Actually Does (and Does Not Do)
The Jones Act governs domestic coastwise and inland shipping — cargo moved between U.S. ports along rivers, coasts, and internal waterways.
Its intent is to preserve:
A U.S. maritime workforce
Domestic shipbuilding and repair capacity
U.S. control over domestic trade routes
It does not regulate international or blue-water shipping.
Critics are right about one thing: the Jones Act did not prevent the collapse of America’s international commercial fleet. That collapse happened outside its scope — driven by tax policy, financing disadvantages, flag-of-convenience practices, and long-term neglect.
That critique is legitimate. But it’s also incomplete.
Why the Jones Act Debate Isn’t Decisive
For years, serious naval professionals and analysts have debated whether the Jones Act is a national security asset or a liability. That debate is not new, and it has often been conducted in good faith.
What has changed is the strategic environment.
Recent analysis has reminded us of a hard truth: wars at sea are wars of attrition. Losses come fast. Ships, crews, and shipyards lost early in a conflict cannot be replaced in time to affect the outcome.
That means no maritime policy — Jones Act included — can be judged solely by cost or efficiency in peacetime. The real question is whether the overall system can absorb loss and sustain combat before a war begins.
What the SHIPS Act Is Designed to Fix
The SHIPS Act addresses a failure the Jones Act was never designed to solve: the collapse of U.S.-flag international shipping and sealift capacity.
Its focus includes:
Rebuilding a viable U.S.-flag fleet in international trade
Expanding and stabilizing the pool of credentialed U.S. mariners
Strengthening sealift capacity the Navy depends on in wartim
Restoring American relevance in global maritime commerce
This is where America’s absence has become a strategic vulnerability — and where reform is long overdue.
Why We Proposed the Strategic Seas Act
Even rebuilding ships and mariners is no longer enough.
Modern global commerce and advanced technologies create maritime security risks at scale — from congested sea lanes and port dependencies to undersea cables and logistics chokepoints. When those risks materialize, the burden falls almost entirely on the U.S. Navy and the American taxpayer.
The Strategic Seas Act starts from a simple principle: strategic risk should be managed and shared, not externalized.
It focuses on:
Accountability for maritime risk creation
Protection of ports, shipyards, sea lanes, and undersea infrastructure
Aligning commercial innovation with maritime and naval security
Closing the gap between private gain and public security cost
This is not about shipping rates. It’s about national responsibility in a contested maritime world.
Why We Don’t Lead With the Jones Act Debate
The Jones Act debate often becomes ideological. The most urgent maritime failures today are strategic and systemic.
Our priority is:
Whether America can move and sustain forces at scale
Whether we have the mariners to crew ships in crisis
Whether our industrial base can repair and regenerate under pressure
That doesn’t make the Jones Act irrelevant. It makes it one part of a much larger system.
Why Americans Should Care
Most Americans never see ships — but their food, fuel, medicine, data, and livelihoods move by sea. When maritime policy fails, the consequences show up quietly: fragile supply chains, higher prices, longer crises, and greater military risk.
Maritime strength is not abstract. It shapes daily life.
Implications for the Navy
The Navy cannot surge ships, mariners, or shipyards after a war starts. Civilian maritime capacity is not separate from naval readiness — it underpins it. Planning without industrial and workforce reality invites failure.
Implications for Our Allies
Allies measure credibility by endurance. A stronger U.S. maritime system reduces dangerous dependence on adversaries and turns alliances into real, usable capacity — not just promises.
Closing Thought
The real question isn’t whether one maritime law should be defended or repealed.
The question is whether the United States intends to remain a serious maritime nation — prepared before the first shot is fired, not scrambling after ships are lost.
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.
Americans Support a Strong Navy — and Expect Readiness to Match
While public debate and media commentary continue, Americans for a Stronger Navy looks under the hood — at what Americans are actually saying and feeling when asked directly about naval strength and readiness.
The 2025 Reagan National Defense Survey offers a rare opportunity to move past headlines and examine public sentiment itself. Rather than reacting to daily news cycles, this analysis focuses on the underlying signals Americans are sending about national security, deterrence, and the role of naval power in an increasingly uncertain world.
What Americans Are Saying
The survey shows strong and durable support for military strength. Eighty-seven percent of Americans believe military superiority matters, and seventy-one percent believe global peace depends on American strength. A majority believe the United States maintains superiority at sea.
Naval power remains central to how Americans think about deterrence, stability, and global leadership. This support is not tied to a single region or conflict. It reflects a broader expectation that the United States should retain the capability to protect its interests, allies, and maritime commerce.
The Confidence Gap
Alongside that support, the data reveals unease. Only forty-nine percent of Americans believe the U.S. military could win a major war overseas, and just forty-five percent believe it can effectively deter foreign aggression.
This gap does not reflect opposition to the military. It reflects concern about whether readiness, capacity, and sustainability are keeping pace with the responsibilities Americans expect the Navy to carry. The difference between support and confidence is one of the most important signals in the survey.
Capacity Matters — and Americans Know It
Two findings stand out. Sixty-eight percent of Americans support increased investment in shipbuilding and manufacturing. Ninety-four percent believe the United States needs greater domestic manufacturing capacity.
Americans appear to understand something fundamental: naval strength is not defined solely by ships at sea, but by the industrial systems that build, repair, crew, and sustain them over time. Shipyards, skilled workers, suppliers, dry docks, and logistics networks are not abstract concepts. They are the difference between plans on paper and forces that are ready when needed.
What the Survey Reveals About Deterrence
The survey also sheds light on how Americans view deterrence in practice, particularly in the Indo-Pacific.
When asked about Taiwan, seventy-seven percent of Americans say it is important for the United States to help defend the island against Chinese aggression. If China were to invade Taiwan, sixty percent say they would support committing U.S. forces to Taiwan’s defense, up from forty-eight percent the prior year. Majorities also support additional measures designed to deter aggression and strengthen regional stability, including deploying more U.S. military assets to the region, sending additional military equipment to Taiwan, imposing economic sanctions, and establishing air and maritime control measures.
These responses do not reflect a desire for conflict. They reflect an expectation that deterrence must be credible. Americans appear to understand that commitments only matter if the United States has the capacity to back them up.
Deterrence at sea is not abstract. It depends on available ships, trained crews, maintained platforms, secure logistics, and resilient industrial support. When Americans express support for defending allies and preserving stability in the Indo-Pacific, they are implicitly expressing expectations about readiness — and about whether U.S. sailors have the tools they need to do their jobs effectively and safely.
From Public Sentiment to Public Support
Americans for a Stronger Navy is politically neutral. We do not support parties or candidates. But we are not neutral on readiness.
Our role is to articulate what Americans are saying and feeling — and, when appropriate, to state clearly when legislation aligns with those expressed expectations.
Based on the survey data and the readiness challenges it highlights, Americans for a Stronger Navy supports the SHIPS for America Act. This support is grounded in alignment, not politics.
Why We Support the SHIPS Act
The SHIPS for America Act does not dictate naval strategy or force employment. Its relevance lies in strengthening the foundations naval readiness depends on.
It addresses shipbuilding and repair capacity by expanding and stabilizing the yards that build and maintain naval vessels. It supports maritime workforce development by growing the skilled labor base the Navy cannot surge in a crisis. It strengthens industrial resilience and surge capacity by reinforcing the commercial and auxiliary maritime sector that supports naval logistics and sealift. And it promotes long-term sustainability by reducing boom-and-bust cycles that drive cost overruns, schedule delays, and readiness shortfalls.
What This Endorsement Is — and Is Not
Our support for the SHIPS Act is not partisan. It does not imply endorsement of every provision, and it does not replace the need for oversight, accountability, or debate.
It reflects a judgment that strengthening the maritime industrial base aligns with what Americans are asking for — and is necessary to close the confidence gap the survey reveals. If Americans expect deterrence to be credible, then policy should strengthen the capacity that makes deterrence real.
The Signal Americans Are Sending
The survey does not prescribe policy, but it does define expectations.
Americans are saying they value naval strength, deterrence over conflict, readiness that matches responsibility, and domestic capacity that sustains credibility. When expectations and outcomes align, confidence grows. When they drift apart, trust erodes.
Our role is to surface that signal clearly. The data speaks. Alignment is the challenge.
Naval Advocacy Group Calls for “Strategic Seas Act” Requiring Tech Companies Profiting from China to Fund Fleet Modernization
December 31, 2025 — Americans for a Stronger Navy today released new data showing the U.S. Navy is projected to commission only 2 ships in 2025, marking the steepest decline in naval shipbuilding in modern history and creating a critical gap in America’s ability to counter China’s rapidly expanding fleet.
The analysis reveals a stark 10-year trend: from 2015 to 2025, the Navy averaged just 8 ships commissioned per year — falling far short of the 12 ships per year required to meet strategic goals. This represents a shortfall of approximately 40 fewer ships over the decade, occurring precisely as China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy has become the world’s largest naval force.
“We’re watching American naval power erode in real time,” said Bill Cullifer, founder of Americans for a Stronger Navy. “The 2025 commissioning rate of just 2 ships isn’t a budget blip — it’s a strategic crisis that threatens our ability to maintain freedom of navigation in the Pacific and protect the very trade routes that make Silicon Valley’s global business model possible.”
The Taxpayer-Funded Tech Paradox
The organization notes a troubling disconnect: many of Silicon Valley’s most profitable companies were built on taxpayer-funded research from DARPA, the National Science Foundation, and Department of Defense programs — yet now generate billions in revenue from China while the Navy that protects their supply chains faces resource constraints.
“American taxpayers funded the fundamental research that created Google, GPS, the internet, smartphone AI, and semiconductor breakthroughs,” Cullifer said. “These companies now generate enormous profits from Chinese markets, yet contribute nothing directly to the naval forces that secure the Pacific shipping lanes their business depends on.”
The Strategic Seas Act: A Solution
Americans for a Stronger Navy is calling for Congress to pass a “Strategic Seas Act” that would require technology companies with significant China operations to contribute a modest percentage of those revenues to a dedicated Naval Modernization and Maintenance Fund.
Key provisions would include:
Companies with over $5 billion in annual China revenue contribute 2% to the fund
Revenues earmarked specifically for ship repair backlogs, shipyard modernization, and Pacific Fleet readiness
Projected to generate billions annually based on current tech sector China operations
Estimated to fund 4-6 additional ship commissionings per year, substantially closing the strategic gap
“This isn’t a tax — it’s a user fee,” Cullifer explained. “If you’re generating billions moving products and data across the Pacific, you should help pay for the destroyers and submarines that keep those sea lanes open. If you’re profiting from China’s market, you should help fund our ability to compete with China’s military.”
Bipartisan Issue Gaining Momentum
The proposal has gained interest across the political spectrum, appealing to defense hawks concerned about Chinese military expansion, economic populists focused on corporate responsibility, and fiscal conservatives seeking efficient solutions to readiness gaps.
“This issue transcends party politics,” said Cullifer. “Whether you’re concerned about China as a strategic competitor, frustrated by corporate tax avoidance, or worried about return on taxpayer investment in R&D, the answer is the same: those who profit most from the Pacific trade system should contribute to its protection.”
By The Numbers
U.S. Navy Ship Commissioning (2015-2025):
2015: 11 ships
2016: 11 ships
2018: 10 ships
2020: 8 ships
2022: 6 ships
2024: 3 ships
2025: 2 ships (confirmed)
Strategic Requirement: 12 ships per year 10-Year Average: ~8 ships per year Cumulative Shortfall: ~40 ships
Call to Action
Americans for a Stronger Navy is calling on Congress to:
Hold hearings on the naval shipbuilding crisis and its implications for Pacific deterrence
Commission a GAO study examining the relationship between taxpayer-funded tech R&D, corporate profits from China operations, and naval readiness gaps
Introduce and pass the Strategic Seas Act in the 119th Congress
Ensure 2026 defense authorization bills include dedicated funding to address the ship commissioning shortfall
“China is building a fleet designed to push the U.S. Navy out of the Western Pacific,” Cullifer concluded. “We built Silicon Valley with taxpayer dollars. Silicon Valley profits from Pacific trade. It’s time Silicon Valley helps us maintain the naval power that makes their business model possible. This isn’t just fair — it’s strategically essential.”
About Americans for a Stronger Navy
Americans for a Stronger Navy (StrongerNavy.org) is a non-partisan advocacy organization dedicated to ensuring the United States maintains the naval capabilities required to protect American interests, support allies, and preserve freedom of navigation in an era of great power competition.
For full data, graphics, and supporting documentation, visit StrongerNavy.org/shipbuilding-crisis
EDITOR’S NOTE: High-resolution graphics showing ship commissioning trends, comparative data with Chinese naval expansion, and the taxpayer investment in Silicon Valley technologies are available upon request.
Hello friends. Bill Cullifer here with Americans for a Stronger Navy.
As we close out this year and gather with the people we care about, I want to take a moment to share something important with you. We’ve just completed a comprehensive review of America’s naval and maritime posture in twenty twenty-five. What we found is complicated. There is good news, troubling news, and some revelations that demand attention.
This is not another white paper filled with jargon. It’s a clear-eyed assessment of where we actually stand, what our competitors are doing, and what stands in the way of American maritime renewal.
Watch our short video below for a visual recap of the key findings:
https://x.com/i/status/2003462404315987976
Let me start with the good news, because it matters. Despite everything else, the U.S. Navy did what it always does. It showed up.
Our sailors and Marines maintained global presence across multiple theaters. They responded to crises in the Red Sea, deterred aggression in the Pacific, and supported allies worldwide. Ship captains and crews performed with the professionalism Americans expect, even while operating aging ships and dealing with stretched maintenance schedules.
Leadership also spoke with urgency. Secretary of the Navy John Phelan captured the crisis perfectly when he said, “A decade to deliver capability is the equivalent of fielding a twenty fifteen iPhone today, already obsolete.”
Navalists and key voices in Congress continued pushing for shipbuilding reform, the SHIPS Act, and workforce development. They have not given up — and neither should we. So we still have talent, commitment, and awareness. But awareness alone is not a strategy.
That leads to the harder truth. Twenty twenty-five left Americans and our allies asking the same question again and again: What is U.S. strategy?
For the first time in years, two congressionally mandated documents failed to appear. The China Military Security Developments Report — missing. The Navy Long-Range Shipbuilding Plan — missing.
Congress was left writing budgets without the strategic guidance it is legally entitled to receive. Allies grew uncertain. Adversaries grew bolder.
Policy signals also contradicted each other. There were trial balloons about groupings that would include both the United States and China. Approvals of advanced AI chip sales to Beijing. Envoys sent to Moscow while tensions remained high. And a National Security Strategy that appeared to sideline Europe.
The result was strategic ambiguity. Friends worried. Competitors took notes.
At the same time, despite all the urgent rhetoric about industrial mobilization, America did not see new shipyards opening. We did not see expanded dry docks under construction. We did not see welding sparks flying from California to Virginia.
As one observer put it, “We talked about shipbuilding more than we did shipbuilding.” China built more than two hundred ships this year. We built a handful.
Now here is what really changed the conversation in twenty twenty-five. The most significant military development was not theoretical — it was operational.
China and Russia conducted coordinated naval and air operations in the Philippine Sea, the exact waters the U.S. Navy plans to defend in a future conflict. China surged a carrier group with real flight operations. Russian long-range bombers entered the same battlespace.
They are operating today the way we keep saying we will operate tomorrow.
And here is what surprised even us. The biggest obstacle to American maritime renewal is not foreign competition — it is American corporate lobbying.
Bloomberg revealed that U.S. retail and shipping interests spent millions lobbying against funding our own shipyards. These corporations want U.S. Navy protection of the sea lanes, but they oppose investing in American shipbuilding because they profit from Chinese-built ships.
Let that sink in.
There is also a structural problem most Americans never hear about. The Navy no longer fully controls its own future. Civilian budget offices and corporate lobbies now shape more naval policy than the uniformed Navy and Marine Corps.
One naval officer summarized it perfectly: “We no longer build the Navy the Navy needs. We build the Navy the accountants will tolerate.” That is not a recipe for maritime power.
So what do we do? Naval expert Brent Sadler has identified a clear solution: We need a Maritime Advisor to the President — one empowered official coordinating the Navy, MARAD, OMB, Commerce, and industry. Someone whose job is to think about American sea power every single day.
America is not outmatched. We are under-mobilized.
Our twenty-five page report explains how we got here, what twenty twenty-five revealed, and what must happen in twenty twenty-six if we’re serious about remaining a maritime power. You can request it at StrongerNavy.org by clicking Contact Us. We’ll send it to you right away.
The adversaries are watching. The allies are calculating. And the American people deserve to know what is at stake.
Let’s make twenty twenty-six the year we finally close the gap between words and action. From all of us at Americans for a Stronger Navy, happy holidays — and fair winds.
The 2027 Countdown: What the Pentagon’s Delayed China Report Reveals
Bill Cullifer, Founder
Hello friends, and fellow supporters of America’s Navy. Bill Cullifer here with Americans for a Stronger Navy.
On December 23rd, the Pentagon released its annual China Military Power Report. This assessment had been missing all year while Congress debated budgets. Now that it’s here, we understand the delay. The report contains the most direct warning yet: China expects to be able to fight and win a war over Taiwan by the end of 2027. That’s less than three years away.
Why Taiwan Matters to You
As Elbridge Colby, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, wrote in TIME Magazine:
“Defending far-off Taiwan and our allies… is rooted in a practical, hard-nosed assessment of what is in Americans’ concrete economic and political interests. It is about defending Americans’ security, liberties, and prosperity from a very real, and in terms of China’s gigantic scale, unprecedented danger.”
Your Phone. Your Car. Your Hospital Equipment.
Taiwan produces 60% of the world’s advanced semiconductors. A Chinese blockade or invasion would cost the global economy at least one trillion dollars per year.
What the Pentagon Report Reveals
Nuclear Expansion: Stockpile reached 600+ in 2024, on track to exceed 1,000 by 2030.
Space Surveillance: 359+ satellites now track U.S. ships in near real-time.
Cyber Weapons: Operations like Volt Typhoon have burrowed into U.S. power grids for wartime sabotage.
Taiwan Pressure: 3,067 air incursions in 2024—nearly double the previous year.
The Timeline Should Terrify You
The Western Pacific is becoming a “Kill Zone.” As one naval officer put it: “We no longer build the Navy the Navy needs. We build the Navy the accountants will tolerate.”
America is not outmatched; we are under-mobilized. The decisions we make in 2025 determine whether deterrence holds in 2027. Visit StrongerNavy.org to request your copy of our 2025 U.S. Navy Year in Review.
Thank you for caring about America’s maritime strength.
Fair winds and following seas,
Bill Cullifer Founder, Americans for a Stronger Navy StrongerNavy.org
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.
Six Frigates: Why America Chose Sea Power — and Why That Choice Still Matters
Ian W. Toll’s Six Frigates: The Epic History of the Founding of the U.S. Navy should be required reading for anyone who believes America’s naval strength simply “happened” or that today’s debates about shipbuilding, cost, and purpose are somehow new.
They aren’t.
This book tells the story of how a young, divided, cash-strapped republic made a deliberate decision to build a Navy — not for glory, not for empire, but for survival, commerce, and credibility in a dangerous world.
Reading it today, the parallels are impossible to miss.
What the Book Is Really About
On the surface, Six Frigates recounts the creation of the first six capital ships authorized by the Naval Act of 1794. But at its core, the book is about civic will.
Toll shows that the U.S. Navy was born amid fierce political resistance, public skepticism, regional rivalries, and intense arguments over cost and necessity. Many Americans feared a standing Navy would drag the nation into foreign wars or empower a central government at the expense of liberty.
Nothing about this debate feels distant.
“The debate was never just about ships — it was about what kind of nation America would become.” — Ian W. Toll
From the beginning, sea power was a choice — not a given.
Notable Quotes That Still Matter Today
Toll repeatedly underscores a truth early Americans learned the hard way:
“A nation that depended on commerce could not afford to remain defenseless at sea.”
American sailors were seized, trade was disrupted, and diplomacy without strength proved ineffective.
Another passage feels especially relevant now:
“Naval power was expensive, controversial — and delay was more dangerous still.”
That sentence could be written today about shipbuilding delays, fragile supply chains, and readiness gaps without changing a word.
And perhaps the most important civic reminder in the book:
“The frigates represented an investment not just in ships, but in skills, infrastructure, and national confidence.”
The founders weren’t just building hulls. They were building a maritime nation.
Why Americans Should Care
This book makes one thing unmistakably clear: the founders did not stumble into sea power. They argued their way into it.
They debated cost, foreign entanglements, corruption, and waste. And then they acted — because they understood that refusing to decide was itself a decision.
Today, Americans benefit daily from secure sea lanes, global trade, and deterrence at sea. Yet public understanding of how fragile that system is has faded.
Six Frigates reminds us that civic engagement is not optional when it comes to national security. The Navy exists because Americans once paid attention.
Implications for the Navy
One of the book’s strongest lessons is that shipbuilding takes time — and delay carries strategic risk.
The original frigates faced cost overruns, workforce shortages, material constraints, and political interference. None of that stopped the effort, because leaders understood that maritime strength could not be created on demand.
“Ships could not be conjured by urgency alone. They required patience, discipline, and sustained public support.”
That lesson applies directly to today’s challenges: a smaller fleet, stressed shipyards, and a public often disconnected from the maritime foundations of American power.
What Has Changed — and What Hasn’t
Technology has changed. The scale of global competition has changed. The oceans have not.
America remains a maritime nation, dependent on trade, energy flows, undersea cables, and allied sea lanes. Adversaries understand this and are building accordingly.
What has not changed is the central truth Six Frigates makes clear: sea power depends on informed citizens willing to support long-term decisions — even when they are politically uncomfortable.
Final Reflection
Six Frigates is not a call for militarism. It is a warning against complacency.
It shows that the U.S. Navy was born not from inevitability, but from hard choices made by leaders who understood the world as it was — not as they wished it to be.
As America approaches its 250th anniversary, this book offers a timely reminder: the Navy belongs to the American people, and its strength ultimately reflects public understanding, engagement, and resolve.
That responsibility didn’t end in 1794.
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.
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.
