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.
by Bill Cullifer, founder, Americans for a Stronger Navy.
For the past two years, I’ve been writing, listening, and learning from shipmates, analysts, and experts across the country. My message has stayed the same: the United States is facing a maritime crisis that threatens our economic strength, our national security, and our ability to deter aggression in the years ahead. I don’t say that lightly. I say it as a former destroyer sailor who knows how much we depend on strong ships, trained crews, and an industrial base that supports both.
That’s why Jim Vinoski’s analysis in Forbes matters. Vinoski isn’t a political pundit or a defense insider. He’s a manufacturing executive turned industry journalist who has spent a career inside the real economy—factory floors, production lines, supply chains, and the industrial workforce that keeps America moving. When someone with his background says, “America’s shipbuilding has collapsed,” it hits with credibility.
Vinoski highlights the uncomfortable truth: America once produced nearly 90 percent of the world’s ships. Today, we produce just 0.2 percent. Fewer than five oceangoing vessels a year. China produces more than 1,000. That gap alone should concern every American, because the global economy—and our national security—run on ships.
His piece also includes powerful insights from Captain Brent Sadler, U.S. Navy (Retired), whose work many of you know. Sadler has been sounding the alarm for years, and he doesn’t sugarcoat the problem. Decades of underinvestment, deferred maintenance, and industrial decline have left us with a shrinking fleet, an overworked Navy, and an industrial base that can’t respond at the speed the world now demands.
Sadler warns that without a major shift in national focus, we are waving “our weaknesses like red bloody meat in front of a very hungry lion.” It’s a blunt truth in a moment that requires blunt truth. China’s naval buildup is accelerating. Russia is becoming more active globally. And while our sailors continue to perform miracles at sea, the system behind them is stretched to the breaking point.
There is good news, too. Vinoski points to places like the Port of Brownsville—large, underdeveloped, and full of potential for new maritime industry—and to allied partners like Hanwha Philly Shipyard, bringing advanced shipbuilding technology and workforce development from South Korea. These are the green shoots we must build on if we’re serious about turning this crisis into a recovery.
We can’t afford to be passive. Not anymore. The American people deserve to know the truth. And we need their engagement, their voices, and their insistence that the Navy matters—not as an abstract budget line, but as the backbone of the global system that keeps food on our shelves, goods in our stores, fuel in our tanks, and our allies secure.
This is why Americans for a Stronger Navy exists. To educate. To connect the dots. To rally civic engagement around the simple idea that America cannot remain a global leader without maritime strength.
Key Takeaways
America’s shipbuilding capacity has collapsed. Less than five major vessels a year is not sustainable for a global superpower.
China is outbuilding us by orders of magnitude. Over 1,000 ships a year, with more coming.
The U.S. Navy fleet is shrinking. We stand at 296 ships today and are projected to fall to around 280 by 2027—the lowest point in modern history.
Experts now say we need 575 ships to meet global demands. That’s far beyond the old 355-ship target.
Industrial capacity and workforce shortages are the limiting factors. Not demand. Not missions. Capacity.
Why Americans Should Care
The world’s economy runs on the ocean. Ninety percent of global trade moves by sea. If China dominates global shipping, global shipbuilding, and global sea lanes, then China dominates the flow of goods that power American life.
Everything from fuel and fertilizer to electronics and food relies on a secure maritime system. Without a strong Navy to safeguard those lanes, and without the shipbuilding base to sustain it, Americans become more vulnerable to global shocks and geopolitical manipulation.
A stronger Navy isn’t just a military issue. It’s a kitchen-table issue.
Implications for the Navy
A shrinking fleet means fewer ships to deter adversaries, fewer ships to respond to crises, and fewer ships to maintain persistent presence where it matters. Readiness suffers. Sailors carry the burden. And adversaries see opportunity.
Without more ships—and the industrial power to build and maintain them—the Navy cannot meet its responsibilities, no matter how hard our sailors work.
Implications for Our Allies
Our allies depend on the United States to keep sea lanes open, stabilize regions, and deter aggression. When we fall behind in shipbuilding, they feel the pressure too.
The bright spot is that allies like South Korea, Japan, and Greece bring enormous shipbuilding capability. Partnerships like Hanwha Philly Shipyard show what’s possible when we combine American needs with allied industrial strength.
Allied cooperation must be part of the solution.
The Path Forward
America must rebuild shipbuilding capacity, expand the maritime workforce, modernize shipyards, and accelerate public-private partnerships. We must also restore awareness—because no strategy succeeds without public support.
This is not about panic. It’s about preparation. It’s about leadership. And it’s about bringing Americans back into the conversation about what keeps their country strong.
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.
This week, one of our own — Captain Thomas Edwin Scheurich Sr., a U.S. Navy aviator from Norfolk, Nebraska — finally returns home after more than five decades listed as missing in action. On November 14, 2025, he will be laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery with full military honors
The End of a Long Wait
For 57 years, Captain Scheurich’s name stood among the missing. A dedicated Naval Aviator, he was lost on a night mission over Vietnam on March 1, 1968. For over half a century, his family waited, remembered, and honored his memory with unwavering strength.
The notification this past May that his remains had been identified brought not just closure, but the sacred opportunity to welcome him home with the honor he has always deserved—a moment for the nation to formally thank a hero.
The Price of Freedom
Captain Scheurich represents the very best of naval service: courage under fire, dedication to mission, and unwavering commitment to shipmates and country. He flew into harm’s way, fully aware of the risks involved.
At just 34 years old, he gave everything. He never came home to see his children grow, to meet his grandchildren, to build boats or play his banjo in the years that should have been his. He made the ultimate sacrifice for the liberties we enjoy today.
To the Scheurich Family: We Never Forgot To the Scheurich family: your father, grandfather, and loved one embodied the warrior spirit that has protected this nation for generations. His sacrifice was not in vain. Because of sailors like Captain Scheurich, America remained free. And because of families like yours, who carried on with grace and strength, we never forgot what was owed to those who did not return.
As we work every day to ensure today’s Navy has the resources, readiness, and support it needs, we are constantly reminded why this mission matters:
It matters because of sailors like Captain Scheurich.
It matters because the watch must continue.
It matters because freedom is never free—it is earned by those willing to stand in the gap.
Welcome home, Captain Scheurich. Your courage endures. Your sacrifice will never be forgotten.Fair winds and following seas, sir. With profound respect and gratitude, Americans for a Stronger Navy
As a crewman aboard the guided missile destroyer Henry B. Wilson (DDG-7) in the mid-1970s, and with family members tragically scarred from the ravages of war, Veterans Day has always carried deep meaning for me. It’s a day to pause—not just to thank—but to truly remember. To remember those who served, those captured or killed, and those who still stand the watch today.
Why This Matters
Growing up in the 1950s and ’60s shaped how my generation understood service. We played with G.I. Joe action figures modeled after real Medal of Honor recipients. We watched John Wayne storm the beaches in black-and-white war films. We practiced duck-and-cover drills beneath our school desks, Cold War tension seeping into our childhood games.
But today’s America looks different. More than half of our population was born after 1980—long after the draft ended, after Vietnam, after the Cold War. For many Americans under 45, military service is something distant, something other families do. Only about 7% of living Americans have served in uniform. The connection between civilian and sailor, between hometown and ship, has quietly frayed.
That disconnect matters more than ever.
Service Without Fanfare
For many who wore the uniform, service wasn’t about recognition. It was about duty. For some, like the sailors of the Vietnam era, there were no parades waiting when they came home. For others, like my shipmates during the Cold War, their battles were fought in the shadows—quiet missions, constant vigilance, and readiness that helped keep the peace. And for those who have served through the long years in the Middle East and beyond, their courage continues the legacy of those who came before.
Every generation of sailors shares the same bond—service, sacrifice, and love of country.
A Navy of Many Missions
The U.S. Navy has always been more than ships and sailors—it’s a reflection of America’s strength, innovation, and resolve. Across decades, each generation of naval service has carried its own unique challenges.
Vietnam Era: From the blue-water carriers and destroyers offshore to the brown-water patrols on the Mekong Delta, Navy men and women served in every corner of the conflict. Aircraft carriers launched thousands of sorties into hostile skies. River patrol boats navigated treacherous waterways where the enemy could be anywhere. Many came home quietly. Some never did. Too many were forgotten.
Cold War Service: During the tense decades that followed, our ships sailed the world’s seas not to fight—but to deter. We tracked Soviet submarines beneath the Arctic ice. We escorted convoys through contested waters. We maintained an unbroken presence that reminded adversaries of America’s reach. It was a different kind of war—one measured in vigilance rather than victories—but no less vital to our nation’s freedom.
Middle East and Modern Conflicts: From the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea, from the Horn of Africa to the South China Sea, today’s sailors face danger in new forms—terrorism, piracy, cyber warfare, and constant deployments that stretch families to the breaking point. They serve aboard destroyers, submarines, carriers, and expeditionary units—standing between chaos and stability, often far from home, always ready.
The POW/MIA Legacy
No tribute is complete without remembering those who never returned—and those who survived against impossible odds.
Some Did Make It Home—But Paid a Heavy Price
Captain Charlie Plumb, a Navy fighter pilot from Kansas who flew F-4 Phantoms off the USS Kitty Hawk, completed 74 successful combat missions over North Vietnam. On his 75th mission—just five days before the end of his tour—he was shot down over Hanoi. He spent the next 2,103 days as a prisoner of war. Nearly six years in an 8-by-8-foot cell. Torture. Isolation. Yet Plumb became a lifeline to his fellow POWs through underground communications, serving as chaplain and inspiration when hope seemed impossible. He came home. He continued flying for the Navy for decades, retiring as a Captain after 31 years of service. His survival reminds us that some battles don’t end when the guns fall silent—they continue in the hearts and minds of those who endured.
Others Waited Decades to Come Home
Captain Thomas Edwin Scheurich Sr., a Naval Aviator from Norfolk, Nebraska, was designated missing in action following a night mission on March 1, 1968. For 57 years, his name stood among the missing. His wife Eileen raised their four children without him. His family grew—grandchildren he would never meet, milestones he would never witness. But they never forgot. On May 23, 2025, the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency notified his family that his remains had been identified and recovered. This Veterans Day week—November 14, 2025—Captain Scheurich will be laid to rest with full military honors at Arlington National Cemetery.
He was 6’4″ tall and somehow squeezed his whole family into a tiny blue Austin-Healey Sprite. He taught himself banjo and accordion, played in a Dixieland band, and built a boat from scratch. He lived life to its fullest. His journey ended far too soon at age 34.
Captain Plumb made it home. Captain Scheurich finally came home. But thousands of their brothers and sisters never will.
These stories remind us: some debts can never be fully repaid. But they can be remembered. They must be remembered.
Welcome home, Captain Scheurich. Your courage endures. Your sacrifice will never be forgotten.
Why Americans Should Care
Freedom doesn’t sustain itself—it depends on those willing to protect it. Whether in Da Nang or the Persian Gulf, in the Pacific or the Arctic, the spirit of America’s sailors remains constant.
These men and women come from every corner of our country—from farming towns and inner cities, from both coasts and everywhere in between. They stand the watch, often without thanks, but always with pride. They miss birthdays and holidays. They sacrifice time with children who grow up in their absence. They do this so the rest of us don’t have to.
As citizens, we owe them more than gratitude—we owe them understanding, support, and the tools they need to succeed. We owe them a Navy that’s ready, maintained, and respected. We owe them leaders who remember that ships don’t sail themselves, and that every capability gap puts sailors at risk.
Let’s Roll
On this Veterans Day, let us honor every sailor—past and present. From the jungles of Vietnam to the carrier decks of today’s fleet, from the Cold War’s silent service to the visible wars of the 21st century, they’ve carried America’s strength across the seas.
That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter—a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
The watch continues. The mission endures. And America’s sailors deserve our unwavering support.
Silicon Valley builds the networks. The Navy protects them. Invest to keep them both secure.
Bill Cullifer, Founder
Sometimes the search for clarity keeps me up long past midnight. That was the case at 3 a.m. this week when I came across a RAND report titled Economic Deterrence in a China Contingency. I hoped it might explain how America could keep the peace without firing a shot. It did—and it didn’t. RAND’s conclusion is clear: economic tools help, but they work only when anchored to credible strength, industrial capacity, and alliances that hold.
Why Americans Should Care RAND’s analysis shows that sanctions alone can’t deter China from acting against Taiwan. Even coordinated multilateral efforts might shave a few points off China’s GDP, but they won’t change its core objectives. Unilateral U.S. measures could even harm our own economy. That means deterrence isn’t about paperwork or tariffs—it’s about preparation, partnerships, and public will.
When the lanes of trade and data stay open, the world stays stable. If those lanes close, the cost lands on every American household.
Implications for the Navy For navalists, the message is unmistakable: economic deterrence rides on sea power. If sanctions are to work, allied fleets must protect the supply lines and chokepoints that keep global commerce moving. RAND calls for better modeling of economic impacts; I’d add that we also need better modeling of shipbuilding, repair, and readiness.
Our destroyers, carriers, and submarines aren’t just tools of war—they’re instruments of economic freedom. They guard the lanes.
Implications for Our Allies RAND emphasizes that sanctions mean little without unified action. The same applies to maritime strength. Japan, Australia, and the U.K. can’t afford hesitation; unity is deterrence. Coordinated naval presence across the Indo-Pacific signals resolve more effectively than any embargo ever could.
A Call to Silicon Valley This is where the RAND findings connect directly to our call for America’s tech industry. The report warns that markets adapt faster than governments—and that the private sector will make or break national resilience. That’s a polite way of saying: Silicon Valley, you’re in this fight whether you know it or not.
We’re not asking for militarization of innovation. We’re asking for civic responsibility: secure the code, protect the data, and strengthen the digital lanes that mirror the sea lanes our sailors defend. The Navy protects what you build. Now America must invest to keep both secure.
The Bottom Line Peace depends on readiness. RAND’s economists proved it with data; our sailors prove it every day with sweat and steel. The future will be written not only in shipyards and naval bases, but also in design labs and data centers.
That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter—a 24-part educational series explaining how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
A major announcement this week marks a breakthrough in naval innovation. Blue Water Autonomy, a Boston-based defense startup, confirmed on November 5 that it has successfully tested its long-range autonomous ship technology on the waters off Massachusetts — a first for U.S. industry.
The company shared new images and data from sea trials, demonstrating that its medium-sized drone warship systems can operate reliably in open-ocean conditions, a critical milestone as the Navy looks to expand its reach in the Pacific. A full-scale 150-foot prototype is planned for 2026, advancing the goal of deploying uncrewed ships capable of long-range operations alongside traditional fleets.
Why It Matters
China’s shipyards continue to outproduce America’s by wide margins, while U.S. shipbuilding struggles with delays, labor shortages, and cost overruns. Blue Water Autonomy’s success offers a glimpse of what’s possible when innovation meets urgency. These modular vessels are designed to carry sensors, radars, and missile payloads across more than 6,000 nautical miles, from California to Taiwan and back — a range that redefines how the U.S. could project power across the Indo-Pacific.
Implications for the Navy
The Navy’s future battle force calls for 381 crewed ships and 134 uncrewed vessels, but reaching those numbers requires new approaches. By designing ships that can be mass-produced quickly at smaller shipyards, Blue Water Autonomy’s model could help offset the strain on America’s overstretched industrial base. With a Navy contract already in hand and potential full-scale production in Louisiana shipyards next year, the company’s success represents a tangible step toward restoring U.S. maritime advantage through technology and industrial reform.
Why Americans Should Care
Every advancement in autonomy brings the same truth into sharper focus: deterrence is cheaper than war. Building smarter, more flexible fleets keeps sailors safe, strengthens deterrence, and ensures America remains a global maritime leader. Blue Water Autonomy’s announcement isn’t just about a new vessel — it’s about rebuilding the capacity and confidence of a nation that must once again lead at sea.
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.
America’s prosperity rides on open sea lanes and the rule of law. China’s distant-water fishing (DWF) armada and gray-zone tactics put both at risk—from industrial-scale illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing to militia-enabled “enforcement” around disputed waters. Recent studies converge on two points: (1) the problem is broader than fish; (2) deterrence through presence, enforcement, and allied capacity is cheaper than crisis or war. (RAND Corporation)
What the Evidence Shows (Key Findings)
Largest fleet, outsized IUU footprint. China fields thousands of DWF vessels active across the Indo-Pacific and Latin America. Analysts document repeated IUU patterns, transshipment opacity, and vessel “darkness” (AIS off). Heritage’s new issue brief details how these logistics networks can intersect with other illicit trades. Treat this as a credible risk pathway, not proof that fentanyl precursors are already moving on trawlers. (The Heritage Foundation)
Fishing–militia–coast guard nexus = gray-zone leverage. RAND shows how militia-backed swarms and lawfare help create “facts in the water,” coercing neighbors below the threshold of war and undermining a rules-based order—especially around Second Thomas Shoal. Presence operations alone are “necessary but insufficient.” (RAND Corporation)
Crime convergence at sea. Cross-sector research warns that IUU fishing correlates with forced labor, money laundering, and smuggling—illicit markets that transnational criminal organizations exploit. Global Financial Integrity’s 2025 report quantifies the scale of profits across ten crime markets and flags illegal fishing as a persistent revenue stream in weak-governance corridors. (Global Financial Integrity)
Enforcement tools exist—and work when used. NOAA has expanded port-state controls: denying U.S. port privileges to vessels from negatively certified nations and engaging bilaterally under the Moratorium Protection Act. These measures raise operational costs for serial offenders and their backers. (NOAA Fisheries)
Partners need capacity, data, and doctrine. Stimson’s roadmaps emphasize fusing civilian and maritime-security tools (MDA sensors, legal alignment, port controls) and building partner constabulary forces for day-to-day enforcement in Southeast Asia’s hot spots. (Stimson Center)
Why Americans Should Care
This touches food security (legal fishermen undercut), economic security (coercion distorts trade), and sovereignty (testing U.S. and allied EEZs). It also burdens our sailors and Coast Guardsmen who are asked to manage gray-zone friction without the industrial base or shipyard throughput they need. We’re fiscal conservatives about this: spend smart, fix shipyards, and back people. Deterrence is cheaper than war—but it isn’t free. (RAND Corporation)
What the Studies Recommend (Action Plan We Support)
Make presence purposeful—and persistent. RAND advises pairing routine naval presence with tactics that impose costs for gray-zone coercion: tighter public attribution, allied broadcasting of incidents, and treaty updates that reflect gray-zone realities (e.g., with the Philippines). We endorse presence that cues law-enforcement actions—not photo ops. (RAND Corporation)
Supercharge Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA). Stimson calls for fusing RF/AIS/EO data to target dark vessels and suspicious rendezvous, then sharing the common operating picture with partners in near-real time. Invest where it bites: chokepoints near allied EEZs and U.S. territories. (Stimson Center)
Harden ports—follow the money. NOAA’s port-denial authorities should be used early and often, with public case files that stigmatize offenders and their beneficial owners. Link port denials to targeted sanctions and AML actions that disrupt crewing agencies, processors, and shell companies bankrolling IUU fleets. (NOAA Fisheries)
Scale partner enforcement. Expand shiprider agreements, small-craft patrol capacity, and prosecutor-to-prosecutor cooperation so cases don’t die in court. Stimson’s Southeast Asia roadmap offers a practical menu; implementers need training, maintenance money, and spares—not only hulls. (Stimson Center)
Plan for crime convergence. GFI’s findings argue for joint task forces that treat IUU as part of a larger illicit-trade ecosystem. Prioritize investigations that tie illegal catch to labor abuse, laundering, and smuggling flows. Measure success by disrupted networks, not boardings alone. (Global Financial Integrity)
Message clearly: rules, not rhetoric. RAND recommends more transparent, real-time communications about unlawful behavior and legal basis for actions (UNCLOS, tribunal rulings). That helps allies hold the line and inoculates the public against lawfare narratives. (RAND Corporation)
Implications for the Navy (and Coast Guard)
Navy: Provide the high-end backstop and integrated MDA, deter coast-guard intimidation with credible presence, and be ready to surge when gray-zone friction escalates. Use deployments to exercise allied response playbooks and media transparency. (RAND Corporation)
Coast Guard: Lead day-to-day maritime law enforcement, port-state controls, and shiprider operations. Expand training and case-building with partner constabularies so interdictions translate into convictions. (NOAA Fisheries)
Industrial base: Presence is math. Clear maintenance backlogs, add dry-dock capacity, and streamline parts pipelines so the fleet isn’t deterred by its own yard schedules. (Multiple studies note presence without readiness is a hollow signal.) (RAND Corporation)
What We’re Asking For (Smart, Doable Steps)
Fund allied-linked MDA projects that feed actionable leads to patrol craft—not dashboards that gather dust. (Stimson Center)
Expand port-denial designations and pair them with targeted financial actions against owners and processors tied to IUU. (NOAA Fisheries)
Grow shiprider programs and small-boat sustainment budgets in the Philippines, Vietnam, and Indonesia to raise the daily cost of IUU and harassment. (Stimson Center)
Update alliance documents to reflect gray-zone realities and publicize unlawful incidents fast and with evidence. (RAND Corporation)
Invest in U.S. shipyards and people so presence is persistent, credible, and sustainable. (RAND Corporation)
Our Commitment
Americans for a Stronger Navy exists to educate, connect, and mobilize the public. We believe civic engagement—not insider talk—closes the readiness gap. If you care about safe seas, fair trade, and peace through strength, this is your fight too.
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.
Overview Most Americans haven’t heard of the Bashi Channel—the narrow stretch of water between Taiwan’s southern tip and the northern Philippines—but it’s now one of the most consequential pieces of ocean on Earth. If China ever moves on Taiwan, this is where the attempt to break out to the Pacific—and the effort to stop it—will collide.
The Geography of Power The Bashi Channel is one of only two deep-water exits from China’s coastal seas into the open Pacific (the other is the Miyako Strait near Okinawa). Control Bashi and you can bottle up much of the PLAN inside the First Island Chain. Lose it and Beijing gains a southern flank on Taiwan and room to maneuver against U.S. and allied forces.
Logistics Decide Outcomes Just north of the Channel sits Kaohsiung, Taiwan’s largest port and logistical heart. Fuel, bulk cargo, spare parts, and food flow through it. Any attacker would try to seize Kaohsiung and secure sea lanes through Bashi; any defender would fight to keep those routes open. No fuel, no fight.
The Philippines Is Now the Front Line Across the Channel, the Batanes island group (fewer than 20,000 residents) has become a literal gate across the southern mouth of Bashi. U.S. and Philippine forces are training there to practice sea denial—airlifting in mobile, ground-based anti-ship systems like NMESIS (Naval Strike Missile, >300 km range) and integrating longer-range fires such as the U.S. Army’s Typhon launcher. The idea is simple: make the Channel too dangerous for hostile warships to enter.
How China Sees It Beijing has repeatedly pushed carrier groups through Bashi to practice breaking into the Philippine Sea. At the same time, it leans on gray-zone pressure against Manila—harassment and intimidation below the threshold of open conflict—to pry the Philippines away from the alliance network that makes “closing the gate” possible. If the Philippines holds firm, the gate stays shut.
The Hidden Front: Undersea Cables Nearly all trans-Pacific data—finance, commerce, command-and-control—moves via undersea cables, and a heavy share of those routes choke near the Bashi Channel. In a crisis, cable cuts can delay response, blind decision-makers, and sow confusion long before the first headline. Protecting, monitoring, and rapidly repairing these cables is now part of credible deterrence.
Why Americans Should Care This isn’t “over there.” It’s about whether an authoritarian power can veto freedom of navigation, commerce, and connection in the Western Pacific. It’s about your bank traffic, our allies’ confidence in U.S. commitments, and whether we can prevent a war instead of clean up after one. People in Batanes already live with the consequences—panic buying when exercises begin, evacuation planning for 200,000 Filipino workers in Taiwan. Deterrence is not abstract for them. It shouldn’t be for us.
Implications for the Navy • Presence over slogans. You can’t surge trust or access. Forward naval and Marine forces, pre-positioned stocks, and real relationships with Manila are non-negotiable. • Magazines over posters. Deterrence here is fuel, reloads, spares, repair yards, and enough long-range anti-ship weapons to make break-out math ugly. • Industrial base over intent. Plans assume ships on station, subs forward, Marines supplied, and damage repaired fast. That takes hulls, welders, parts, and allied capacity—not just strategy documents. • Cables over headlines. Fund seabed awareness, rapid cable repair, and legal authorities to protect critical undersea infrastructure alongside allies. • Allies over ego. Japan blocks Miyako; the Philippines helps close Bashi; the U.S. backstops both. Invest accordingly.
What We Must Do Now • Harden and expand access in Northern Luzon and Batanes, with resilient logistics and fuel. • Accelerate delivery and co-production of long-range precision fires and maritime ISR with Manila and Tokyo. • Grow sealift, tenders, and expeditionary repair so forces can persist without fixed bases. • Fund cable-security programs: mapping, patrol, autonomy, and repair ships. • Communicate clearly to the American public why this matters—and what success looks like: peace through strength, not war by neglect.
Closing Geography doesn’t change—but power can. The Bashi Channel is the toll gate between the South China Sea and the Pacific. The Philippines sits in the booth. The United States stands beside them. China wants the gate open. Our job is to make sure it stays free—and too costly to force.
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.
