Introduction As a former U.S. Navy destroyer sailor from the ’70s and founder of Americans for a Stronger Navy, I’ve seen firsthand how sea power isn’t only about ships—it’s about people, industry, and the trade that keeps America moving. This isn’t a Beltway debate; it touches your grocery bill, your job, and the undersea cables that carry your paycheck.
In this interview, Captain Brent D. Sadler, USN (Ret.), discusses the ideas from his book U.S. Naval Power in the 21st Century: A New Strategy for Facing the Chinese and Russian Threat. He calls this framework naval statecraft. In Washington circles, the same concept is often referred to as maritime statecraft—a term meant to highlight the economic and commercial side of sea power. As Sadler makes clear, the two are essentially the same. What matters is the substance: reconnecting America’s Navy with shipyards, supply chains, and allies.
If we want peace, prosperity, and fewer crises, we must rebuild the muscle behind the flag—logistics, repair, and a maritime workforce. This interview is a practical roadmap. —Bill
Overview Captain Brent D. Sadler, USN (Ret.), argues that America must reconnect military power with economics, industry, and trade—what he calls naval (or “maritime”) statecraft. It’s not a new strategy so much as a return to our roots: the Navy as a warfighter, a shaper of peace, and a protector of commerce. That means rebuilding ships and shipyards, restoring sealift and logistics, re-wiring alliances for industrial capacity, and aligning innovation with both commercial and military needs.
What Is Naval/Maritime Statecraft—and Why It Matters
More than combat: the Navy deters war, protects trade, and shapes the environment in peacetime.
Break the silos: integrate defense, diplomacy, and economics so China can’t “triangulate” between them.
Update the structure: organize like it’s a long competition again—industry, ports, sealift, and policy working together.
Lessons from History
Avoid a “Phony War”: weak industrial bases turn short crises into long wars.
Operate where you may have to fight: know the people, ports, and waters before a crisis.
Today’s Pressing Challenges
Industrial shortfall: workforce gaps, thin supply chains, and insufficient naval architects and yards.
Logistics as Achilles’ heel: too few tankers, dry cargo/ammo ships, and assured fuel storage after Red Hill.
Economic leverage: China’s dominance in shipbuilding, shipping fleets, and port stakes shapes global trade on its terms.
Undersea infrastructure: seabed cables and pipelines are targets; cyber and space resilience are now core to sea power.
A Practical Path Forward
Demand and Shipyards: use smart incentives (e.g., Jones Act demand, allied capital) to expand U.S. yard capacity.
Human Capital: rebuild the trades—welders, pipefitters, naval architects—and grow maritime education pipelines.
Innovation with Purpose: from advanced logistics to modular cargo, small modular reactors, and data-driven supply chains—commercial breakthroughs that also serve military sustainment.
Allied Muscle: tap allied shipping and yards (Japan, South Korea, Europe, Canada) to scale capacity fast and politically sustainably.
Why Americans Should Care Everything from groceries to phones rides ships and undersea cables. If adversaries control ports, fleets, and repair yards—or cut our cables—prices spike, jobs suffer, and crises last longer. Maritime strength keeps daily life predictable.
Implications for the Navy Prioritize logistics ships, fuel resilience, dispersed Pacific access, and contested-environment sustainment. Tie operational concepts to a revitalized industrial base so the fleet you plan is the fleet you can build, crew, repair, and keep at sea.
Implications for Our Allies A stronger U.S. maritime sector reduces dangerous dependence on Chinese shipbuilding and sustains shared deterrence. Joint investment in yards, sealift, and pre-positioned stocks turns alliances into real capacity.
Call to Action Citizens should press leaders—local, state, and federal—to support maritime education, shipyard expansion, and logistics recapitalization. Industry and investors should pursue maritime tech and U.S. waterfront projects. Policymakers should align defense, commerce, and diplomacy to grow capacity at home and with allies.
For readers who want to go deeper, Captain Brent D. Sadler, USN (Ret.), expands on these ideas in his book U.S. Naval Power in the 21st Century: A New Strategy for Facing the Chinese and Russian Threat. It offers a detailed blueprint for how America can reconnect its Navy, industry, and diplomacy in the new era of great power competition.
For deeper dives, 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.
China and Russia are pushing closer to our northern doorstep — and Alaska is the front line.
Introduction
Over the past year, U.S. Coast Guard cutters have repeatedly intercepted foreign “research” ships operating just beyond the 200-mile line off Alaska’s Arctic coast. At the same time, the U.S. Navy has kept up under-ice submarine operations, while Russian aircraft test our air defense zone and Sino-Russian flotillas sail through the Bering Strait.
Map Legend Dashed Red Lines – Patrol routes and foreign vessel tracks monitored by the U.S. Coast Guard near Alaska’s Arctic coast. Solid Blue Lines – Projected Arctic shipping lanes, including the Northern Sea Route (along Russia) and emerging trans-Arctic corridors. Shaded Blue Zone – Exercise Northern Edge 2025 training areas, where U.S. and allied forces conducted joint, multi-domain operations. Black Ship Icons – Locations of recent intercepts of foreign “research” vessels near Utqiaġvik. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) – U.S. waters extending 200 nautical miles from Alaska’s coast, where America exercises sovereign rights over resources.
The takeaway is simple: America’s Arctic is no longer quiet. It’s contested.
Why Americans Should Care Alaska is not a remote outpost. It is our Arctic front yard, rich in resources, with thousands of miles of shoreline and a narrow strait that connects the Pacific to the Arctic. When Chinese “research” vessels map our seabeds or Russian aircraft enter the Air Defense Identification Zone, they’re probing how close they can get to our homeland. What happens off Alaska affects energy security, trade routes, and even the protection of undersea cables that carry the world’s internet traffic.
RAND’s latest study underscores this point. In The Future of Maritime Presence in the Central Arctic Ocean (July 2025), RAND concludes that as sea ice retreats, the Arctic will draw in both Arctic and non-Arctic actors for economic, political, and military gain. They warn that competition will intensify in phases: first commercial, then political, and ultimately strategic. For the U.S., that means maritime presence is not optional — it is essential to prevent rivals from dictating the rules of the Arctic.
Implications for the Navy Day-to-day patrols fall to the Coast Guard, which provides the only regular surface presence in the Arctic. But the Navy’s role is no less critical. Its submarines operate beneath the ice, practicing for deterrence and warfighting in a domain where rivals are gaining ground. The Navy also views Alaska as part of the defense-in-depth of the United States — the first line of detection and deterrence against missile submarines, long-range bombers, and other threats moving south from the Arctic.
This year’s Northern Edge 2025 exercise made that point clear. More than 6,400 U.S. and Canadian service members, 100 aircraft, and seven warships, including USS Abraham Lincoln and her carrier strike group, trained across Alaska. Running alongside Arctic Edge, the exercises brought together INDOPACOM and NORTHCOM to practice joint, multi-domain operations — from the Aleutians to Adak. In other words: Alaska is not just about defending the homeland, it is a launchpad for projecting U.S. power into the Indo-Pacific.
The challenge remains that America’s icebreaker fleet is thin, while Russia operates dozens and China fields new polar-capable vessels. Without recapitalization and greater presence, the U.S. risks falling behind in its own backyard. RAND echoes this warning: presence and infrastructure — from icebreakers to domain awareness — are key to avoiding strategic surprise.
Implications for Our Allies The Arctic is no longer an American issue alone. NATO allies — Canada, Denmark, Norway — all face the same northern pressure. China brands itself a “near-Arctic state” and seeks influence in waters that directly border allied territory. Coordinated exercises like Northern Edge and Arctic Edge are proof that alliances matter. Shared domain awareness and investment in icebreaking and seabed security will be vital. If America steps back, allies are left exposed — and adversaries will fill the gap.
The Bottom Line Alaska’s Arctic waters are an overlooked but critical front in U.S. homeland defense. The Coast Guard may be on point, but the Navy’s presence under the ice and in the chokepoints is just as important. Together, they demonstrate that the U.S. is watching, ready, and committed to protecting its northern approaches.
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.
How one Naval officer’s warning and one strategist’s vision show us the path forward
Introduction
In June 1943, the USS Essex arrived at Pearl Harbor, followed shortly by the USS Yorktown. These weren’t just two more ships—they were harbingers of American naval dominance. By August 1945, the U.S. Navy commanded 6,768 ships, dwarfing every other navy on earth. For a brief, shining moment, America achieved total maritime supremacy.
That moment, as Commander Benjamin Armstrong reminds us in his prescient Proceedings article, was fleeting. More importantly, it wasn’t inevitable. “American naval dominance is not a birthright,” Armstrong writes. “It cannot and should not be assumed in the 21st century.”
The Choice Before Us
Today, we face another inflection point remarkably similar to the one Alfred Thayer Mahan confronted in 1890. Then, as now, America had to choose between maritime greatness and strategic irrelevance.
Mahan saw an America that had grown economically powerful but remained strategically vulnerable. His solution wasn’t just to build ships—it was to educate the American people about why naval power mattered. Through articles in The Atlantic, books that shaped presidents, and tireless public advocacy, Mahan created the intellectual foundation for American naval expansion.
The result?
White Fleet, the Panama Canal, and the naval infrastructure that would prove decisive in two world wars.
History’s Pattern: The Sine Wave of American Naval Power
Armstrong’s analysis reveals a crucial truth: American naval strength has never followed a straight line. Instead, it follows what historian Craig Symonds calls a “sine wave”—peaks and troughs dictated not by strategic logic, but by how Americans view their role in the world.
After the War of 1812, when the Royal Navy had blockaded American ports and burned Washington, Congress appropriated $8 million for naval construction—the largest appropriation to that point. Americans had felt vulnerability firsthand, and they acted.
But by the 1850s, southern politicians saw the Navy as a tool of federal overreach. The fleet shrank. After the Civil War, America turned inward, focusing on western expansion. The Navy withered to just 38 ships by 1886.
Then came the 1890s economic expansion, Mahan’s influence, and renewed American ambition. The Navy grew again, reaching its “Second to None” peak during World War I, only to shrink again during the peace dividend of the 1920s.
The pattern is clear: American naval power rises and falls based on American choices, not strategic necessity.
The 1940 Moment: When America Chose Dominance
The most instructive parallel to today came in June 1940. As German forces overwhelmed France, Chief of Naval Operations Harold Stark requested $4 billion to increase the fleet by 70 percent. Congress didn’t just approve it—they doubled it, appropriating over $8 billion for the Two-Ocean Navy Act.
That wasn’t a military decision or even an executive branch decision. It was the American people, through their representatives, choosing naval dominance. Three years later, that choice manifested as the Essex and Yorktown sailing into Pearl Harbor, beginning America’s brief moment of total maritime supremacy.
Today’s China Challenge: Mahan’s Nightmare Realized
Mahan warned that America’s geographic advantages were temporary. He feared a day when a rising power could challenge American access to global markets and trade routes. That day has arrived.
China launches a new warship every month. We launch one every two years. By 2030, China will field 460 ships to our 290. More troubling, they’re building in contested waters—the South China Sea that carries $3.4 trillion in annual trade, including the supply chains that stock every American store and factory.
This isn’t just a military problem—it’s an economic catastrophe waiting to happen. Every iPhone, every car part, every prescription drug that crosses the Pacific depends on naval power to guarantee safe passage. When China can stop our ships, they can stop our economy.
The Mahan Model for Modern Advocacy
Just as Mahan educated Americans about naval power’s economic importance, we must connect naval dominance to modern prosperity. The tech industry that depends most heavily on Pacific trade should lead this effort—after all, they collectively enabled China’s rise through technology transfer and manufacturing partnerships.
Apple’s entire business model assumes free navigation of sea lanes China now contests. Tesla’s Shanghai factory means nothing if Chinese warships can interdict the ships carrying Tesla vehicles to American ports. Amazon’s global supply chain collapses without the Navy to keep shipping lanes open.
These companies have the resources and self-interest to fund a sustained campaign for naval investment. A small fraction of their cash reserves could support the kind of public education that creates political will for a 500-ship Navy.
The Choice Point: Repeating 1940
Armstrong’s historical analysis points to an uncomfortable truth: “The size and shape of the fleet have ebbed and flowed across history. American naval dominance is not a birthright… American naval dominance is a choice.”
We are at such a choice point now. Like 1940, we face a rising challenger, contested sea lanes, and an American public largely unaware of the stakes. Like 1940, we need both strategic vision and public will.
The strategic vision exists—military leaders have clearly articulated the need for over 500 ships and increased naval spending. What’s missing is the public education and political mobilization that translates vision into funding.
The Path Forward: GDP and Political Will
Currently, America spends roughly 1% of GDP on naval forces. In 1940, when we chose dominance, we spent over 8%. Even achieving a modest increase to 2% of GDP would fund the 500-ship Navy our strategists say we need.
But that requires the American people to make the same choice their grandparents made in 1940: that naval dominance isn’t a luxury, but a necessity.
Like Mahan 130 years ago, we must educate Americans about the connection between naval power and their daily prosperity. We must show them that the choice isn’t between military spending and domestic priorities—it’s between naval investment and economic vulnerability.
Conclusion: The Mahan Moment
Alfred Thayer Mahan changed how Americans thought about naval power through sustained public advocacy. He connected abstract strategic concepts to concrete economic interests. He made the case that naval power wasn’t optional for a trading nation—it was essential.
Commander Armstrong’s warning gives us the historical framework. Mahan’s example gives us the method. China’s challenge gives us the urgency.
The question isn’t whether America can afford naval dominance. The question is whether we can afford to lose it. In 1940, Americans chose wisely. The prosperity and security of the next 50 years depends on whether we choose as wisely today.
American naval dominance isn’t our birthright. But it can be our choice—if we make it while we still can.
Sign up for: Charting the Course: Voices That Matter—a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
Introduction Most people don’t realize it yet. We are already in a quiet w@r. Not with bombs. Not with missiles. But with fentanyl, with financial schemes, and with cyber attacks. These are not random hacks — they are deliberate intrusions aimed straight at America’s lifelines.
Targeting America’s Core Systems They target our banks — draining trust from the financial system. They map our pipelines — threatening the flow of oil and gas that heats our homes. They burrow into our power grids — carrying the ability to shut down American cities. They test our hospitals and emergency networks. They infiltrate our communications — preparing to cut the way America speaks, trades, and defends itself.
And now, they even target our homes and businesses. The devices we plug in. The networks we rely on. Even solar panels and batteries made overseas — carrying hidden back doors that could one day flip a switch against us.
Banks. Grids. Solar.
Why Americans Should Care This is not only about us. Our allies are targeted too. These attacks seek to divide, to weaken the bonds that keep freedom strong. A crisis in one corner of the world can ripple across oceans — and into our own homes.
The Navy and the Nation Our strength rests on both our sailors and our civilian maritime industry. Civilian ships move the goods America needs. Our Navy protects those ships and the sea lanes they travel. Together, they keep our nation alive and our economy moving.
As Rear Admiral Mike Studeman, U.S. Navy (Retired) has said: “The reality is that adversaries have insinuated themselves in our homeland… and continue to exploit our society from the inside out.”
A Call to Action That’s why today I am asking you: Call Congress. Tell them to support our sailors. Find your Representative or Senator at USA.gov. Use your voice. Every call is logged. Every message counts.
Demand that Congress fund emergency shipbuilding. And strengthen the Navy’s fleet.
Conclusion The future of America depends on us — on our sailors, on our civilian maritime, on our citizens, and on a Navy that protects them all.
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.
As a former destroyer sailor from the ’70s, a Navy veteran who served on the Henry B. Wilson (DDG 7), and later a telecom and web technology executive, I don’t take words like “war” lightly. But we need to face facts: the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has already launched a quiet war against America and our allies.
It doesn’t look like Pearl Harbor or Midway. Instead, it comes as millions of cyberattacks, poisoned streets, disinformation campaigns, and infiltrations into our critical infrastructure. The weapons are different, but the intent is the same: weaken America from the inside out until resistance collapses.
Two voices recently captured this reality:
Retired Rear Admiral Mike Studeman, former Commander of the Office of Naval Intelligence, warned: “The reality is that adversaries have insinuated themselves in our homeland and continue to exploit our society from the inside out. This is the quiet and costly national crisis we have insufficiently mobilized to address.”
Another security analyst summarized it bluntly: “Massive list of aggressive actions against the US by China, but two stand out: 1) cyber attacks on critical infrastructure, and 2) subsidizing fentanyl to addict our citizens. The CCP is an existential threat to our democracy and we must treat it as such.”
These aren’t exaggerations. They’re the facts on the ground — and in cyberspace.
Cyber Siege: The First Strike of Modern Conflict
The Hudson Institute’s August 2025 policy memo makes it plain: Taiwan now faces an average of 2.4 million cyberattacks per day. These intrusions target energy grids, logistics, medical systems, and semiconductors. Hudson’s conclusion is chilling: in a crisis, Beijing could disable Taiwan’s systems “without expending a single missile.”
This isn’t theory. It’s the same playbook Russia used against Ukraine in 2022, starting with cyberattacks to degrade command and control. The difference is that Taiwan is at the center of global supply chains, producing 90 percent of the world’s advanced semiconductors. If its networks go dark, the shockwaves would slam every corner of the global economy — including the U.S. Navy’s shipyards and weapons programs.
Fentanyl: War in Our Streets
While Taiwan faces digital siege, America faces chemical siege. CCP-linked networks subsidize the production of fentanyl precursors that end up killing tens of thousands of Americans each year. This is not just crime — it’s a form of warfare. An addicted, divided society is weaker, less resilient, and less able to project power abroad.
Just as cyberattacks aim to paralyze a nation’s systems, fentanyl undermines its people from within. Together, they form a strategy of attrition: weaken the United States until it can no longer lead.
Why Americans Should Care
PRC-backed groups like Volt Typhoon have already penetrated U.S. critical infrastructure in places like San Diego, Norfolk, and Houston.
Our communities are flooded with fentanyl that is subsidized and trafficked through networks linked to China.
Our economic security hangs on supply chains that Beijing can disrupt with a few keystrokes.
The CCP doesn’t need to invade to weaken us. They’re already doing it.
Implications for the Navy A Navy cannot fight if its logistics, communications, and supply lines are compromised. If Taiwan falls prey to a digital siege, our fleets in the Pacific will face an even harder fight — one fought without the semiconductor edge or the industrial resilience we’ve taken for granted.
The Navy will inevitably be tasked with cleaning up the mess: defending supply chains, securing sea lanes, and protecting American infrastructure from further exploitation. That means cyber resilience and industrial revival are as critical to naval readiness as shipbuilding or new destroyers.
Implications for Our Allies Hudson warns of a dangerous ambiguity: there is no Indo-Pacific cyber alliance. Would Japan, South Korea, or Australia respond to a Chinese cyberattack on Taiwan? Would Washington retaliate in kind? The lack of clarity undermines deterrence — and gives Beijing confidence.
We need joint cyber defense drills, clear doctrine, and public-private coordination on resilience — not after a crisis, but now.
Conclusion We are already at war — just not in the way most Americans imagine. The CCP’s cyberattacks, fentanyl subsidies, and influence operations are part of a long game of attrition. Admiral Studeman is right: this is a “quiet and costly national crisis” we’ve failed to mobilize against.
Hudson is right too: resilience is deterrence. America must strengthen its cyber defenses, rebuild its industrial base, and support Taiwan’s ability to withstand a digital siege. At the same time, we must recognize how Silicon Valley’s past choices — offshoring technology and handing Beijing the keys — helped create this vulnerability.
The sooner we admit the war has already begun, the sooner we can rally the Navy, our allies, and the American people to win it.
A Cautionary Tale for U.S. Naval Planners and Taxpayers
Bill Cullifer, Founder
Introduction
For decades, America chased profits by partnering with China — transferring technology and know-how that supercharged Beijing’s rise. Today, we could risk repeating that same mistake: putting quick Silicon Valley paydays ahead of America’s long-term security.
This is not about scoring points against Silicon Valley. It’s about ensuring America does not repeat the mistakes of the past — short-term profits and quick fixes that left China stronger and our Navy weaker — as someone who has seen these dynamics firsthand.
For those who have followed our work at Americans for a Stronger Navy, you know we believe America’s security, economy, and way of life depend on having the most capable fleet in the world. But capability isn’t measured in dollars spent or headlines about “innovation” — it’s measured in performance, reliability, and the safety of our sailors.
The latest reporting from Reuters makes clear we are falling catastrophically short, and that should alarm every American. Yes, bad news sells — but in this case, the bad news matters, because it reveals deeper failures in how America develops and fields naval technology — failures with life-and-death consequences.
When “Move Fast and Break Things” Breaks Lives
Recent tests off the California coast read like a Silicon Valley nightmare at sea. In one, a drone vessel stalled dead in the water while another smashed into its side, vaulting over the deck before crashing back into the sea. In another, a support boat capsized when the autonomous craft it was towing suddenly accelerated, throwing its captain into the ocean.
These aren’t beta test glitches. They’re life-threatening failures happening while China builds the largest navy in the world — and they’re funded by your tax dollars.
Testing vs. Accountability
Some will argue that testing is supposed to reveal problems — that dramatic failures are part of the process. They’re absolutely right that we need aggressive testing, not risk-aversion that slows innovation. But there’s a crucial difference between finding software bugs and throwing captains into the ocean. The same Silicon Valley companies that conduct exhaustive beta testing and gradual rollouts for consumer apps seem content to discover basic safety flaws during live Navy tests with human crews.
We’re not calling for less testing or slower innovation — we’re calling for the same rigorous pre-deployment standards these companies apply to their consumer products. If they can test a new iPhone feature through multiple phases before it reaches users, they can ensure autonomous boats won’t suddenly accelerate and capsize support vessels.
The Billion-Dollar Boondoggle
Defense startups with multi-billion-dollar valuations churn out drones by the dozen. Contractors take in hundreds of millions for autonomy software and systems that still stall, crash, and misfire. The culture of “fail fast” has migrated from app stores to the high seas — and our sailors are paying the price.
Bottom line: venture capitalists and defense contractors are getting rich while the Navy struggles to field systems that won’t sink, crash, or kill our crews.
History’s Warning — Don’t Hand China the Keys
We’ve been here before. In the late Cold War, the Navy realized that simply matching the Soviets ship-for-ship in Europe wasn’t enough. Leaders like John Lehman pushed a bold maritime strategy — using U.S. carrier groups to threaten the Soviet flanks, forcing Moscow to defend everywhere at once. That clarity of purpose built political support for a 600-ship Navy and helped secure the peace.
Today, by contrast, we risk drifting into the opposite: building expensive systems without a clear strategy, while China launches warships at breakneck pace. If Taiwan falls, Beijing won’t just seize an island — it will gain a springboard into the Central Pacific, threatening the Philippines, Guam, Hawaii, and the global sea lanes our prosperity depends on. That is the equivalent of handing China the keys to the Pacific.
The Tech Transfer Trap
For decades, Silicon Valley helped fuel China’s rise — chasing profits through partnerships, supply chains, and research deals that handed Beijing advanced technologies. That short-sightedness supercharged the very military now challenging America at sea. And today, the same ecosystem is cashing Pentagon checks while delivering half-finished products to the U.S. Navy.
Silicon Valley’s Responsibility
Palantir CEO Alex Karp recently said Silicon Valley must “fight for America.” We agree. But fighting for America means more than signing billion-dollar contracts — it means delivering technology that works, that protects sailors’ lives, and that strengthens deterrence in the Pacific. Anything less is not fighting for America; it’s profiting while our fleet falls behind.
We’ve seen how this plays out before: decades of short-sighted deals and technology transfers helped supercharge China’s rise. The result? Beijing got stronger, American taxpayers footed the bill, and now our Navy struggles with half-finished systems at sea. If Silicon Valley truly wants to defend America, it must also own its share of responsibility — and prove it by getting this right.
More Than Money — Lives and Liberty
This isn’t some procurement squabble over cost overruns. Every software glitch puts crews in mortal danger. Every failed deployment leaves the Pacific more vulnerable and our allies questioning American resolve. Every wasted dollar is one not spent on the ships, submarines, and systems actually needed to secure trade routes, defend allies, and deter Beijing.
Just look at Scarborough Shoal, where Chinese vessels recently rammed and water-cannoned Philippine boats in defiance of international law. Or the swarms of “maritime militia” Beijing deploys daily to choke off its neighbors’ fishing grounds and shipping routes. These are not distant hypotheticals — they are live-fire tests of American resolve. While our drones crash into each other off California, China is rewriting the rules of the Pacific, one confrontation at a time.
While executives celebrate unicorn valuations in Silicon Valley, Chinese naval forces are conducting increasingly aggressive patrols in the South China Sea. While venture capitalists debate which startup deserves their next hundred million, China launches new warships at a pace that would have impressed World War II shipbuilders.
Demand Better — Or Lose Everything
America doesn’t need more press releases about “revolutionary defense innovation.” It needs results. Innovation is vital — America must harness Silicon Valley’s ingenuity — but innovation without accountability isn’t strength, it’s surrender. We are not calling for less innovation — we are calling for better innovation that delivers results worthy of the stakes.
We need accountability that goes beyond pausing contracts after people nearly die. We need a defense industrial base that prioritizes mission success over market valuations.
Don’t expect the mainstream press to frame this correctly — they’ll blame the Navy. But this isn’t on the sailors, the admirals, or the Navy’s acquisition officers working with the systems they’re given. This is on the defense contractors and tech companies who took taxpayer money promising cutting-edge capability and delivered dangerous prototypes instead.
America’s Naval Advantage — If We Seize It
Make no mistake: America still holds the cards to dominate the seas for decades to come. We have the world’s most innovative tech sector, the deepest capital markets, and the most experienced naval force on the planet. What we need is to stop letting Silicon Valley treat the U.S. Navy like a beta testing ground while they perfect their systems.
The same ecosystem that built the internet, revolutionized computing, and put rovers on Mars can absolutely build the world’s most capable autonomous naval fleet — if we demand they bring their A-game instead of their rough drafts. When SpaceX decided to take astronauts seriously, they revolutionized spaceflight. When Silicon Valley takes sailors seriously, they’ll revolutionize naval warfare.
This isn’t about stifling innovation — it’s about unleashing it properly. The companies cashing these Pentagon checks have proven they can build reliable, game-changing technology when their reputation depends on it. Now their reputation should depend on keeping our sailors safe and our Navy superior.
Most of all, we need Americans to demand better — because the alternative to demanding excellence isn’t just wasted money or embarrassing headlines. It’s watching China’s growing fleet face no credible opposition in the waters that secure our prosperity. But that’s not inevitable. America can still build the world’s most dominant navy — we just need to stop accepting second-rate work from first-rate companies.
The stakes are nothing less than our security, our economy, and our future. It’s time to make waves.
That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter—a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
Introduction Thanks to Tom’s Hardware for spotlighting the latest chapter in U.S.–China tech tensions. Their reporting underscores a key point: America’s security is tied to technology policy. And those who warned about selling cutting-edge chips to Beijing in the first place—the so-called “China hawks”—are now watching these events unfold with an all-too-knowing smile.
What Happened China recently ordered its top tech companies to halt purchases of Nvidia’s H20 AI chips. This comes after U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Washington’s goal was to make China “addicted” to U.S. technology. While blunt, his remark struck a nerve, evoking the painful history of the Opium Wars and China’s “Century of Shame.”
The Hawks Were Right For years, U.S. lawmakers and analysts skeptical of Beijing’s intentions argued that selling advanced U.S. chips—even at a “watered down” level—would only fuel China’s ambitions. They warned that the short-term profits were not worth the long-term risk: once Chinese firms learned from U.S. technology, they would double down on building domestic alternatives and reduce their reliance on America. That is exactly what we are witnessing now.
At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we have been sounding the alarm on this same pattern. Just as the hawks predicted, the policies of short-term gain have fed into long-term vulnerabilities. Our mission is to ensure the American public understands these risks and rallies behind a stronger Navy — one prepared for the challenges of tomorrow.
China’s Long-Term Drive for Self-Reliance It’s important to note that this isn’t simply a reaction to Lutnick’s remark or recent export bans. For more than a decade, Beijing has been methodically working to reduce exposure to Western technology:
Made in China 2025 (2015) — A state-led plan to dominate sectors like semiconductors, AI, robotics, and aerospace by producing up to 70% of key components domestically.
Semiconductors & Chips — Massive state investment in SMIC and the “Big Fund” to build a homegrown chip industry, with Huawei rolling out its own Kirin processors despite U.S. sanctions.
Cybersecurity & Data — Laws mandating that Chinese data be stored on Chinese servers, cutting Western firms out of core infrastructure.
“Dual Circulation” (2020) — Xi Jinping’s policy to insulate China’s economy from foreign shocks by prioritizing domestic supply chains and technology independence.
These moves show that dependency on U.S. technology was never going to be permanent. Beijing’s strategy has always been to learn, copy, and ultimately replace. The hawks knew it, and the evidence proves them right.
Why It Matters
Economic Competition: Nvidia initially saw huge demand for the H20. But Chinese regulators are now pushing data centers to buy 50% of their chips from domestic firms.
Historical Sensitivities: Lutnick’s “addiction” remark may have been casual in the U.S., but it hit raw nerves in Beijing—feeding nationalist backlash and accelerating decoupling.
Strategic Leverage: Technology is today’s high ground. If America cedes it, it cedes the ability to shape global security and commerce.
Implications for the U.S. Navy The Navy’s edge rests on secure, reliable, advanced technology—from AI-driven analysis to unmanned systems. If China achieves independence from U.S. tech, the leverage America once had diminishes, narrowing our technological superiority at sea. Hawks warned this might happen—and now it’s becoming reality.
Implications for Our Allies Allies across Asia and Europe rely on U.S. technology, but if Beijing succeeds in exporting homegrown chip alternatives, it could create cracks in the U.S.-led alliance system. China wouldn’t just compete militarily—it would compete by shaping the world’s tech ecosystem.
Why Americans Should Care This isn’t just about Nvidia stock or quarterly earnings. It’s about whether America’s long-term security is sacrificed for short-term profit. The hawks who cautioned against empowering Beijing were pointing to this very moment. If China wins the tech race, it strengthens its military, weakens alliances, and challenges the Navy’s ability to keep the seas free and open.
Conclusion Tom’s Hardware’s reporting shines a spotlight on a dangerous dynamic: America risks repeating past mistakes. Selling technology to Beijing may fill order books, but it also fuels the very rival we’re preparing to deter. The hawks warned us, and their concerns are looking more prescient by the day.
👉 Learn more and join the conversation at StrongerNavy.org
That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter—a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
A Comprehensive Series by Americans for a Stronger Navy
By Bill Cullifer, Founder – Americans for a Stronger Navy
Introduction: Why We’re Launching This Series on Scarborough Shoal
What is Scarborough Shoal?
At first glance, it’s just a triangle-shaped reef in the South China Sea, roughly 120 nautical miles west of Luzon, Philippines. No buildings. No runway. No flag.
Scarborough Shoal, courtesy of the U.S. Navy.
But don’t let its humble appearance fool you.
Scarborough Shoal is one of the most contested flashpoints in the Indo-Pacific. This seemingly minor cluster of rocks and reefs sits at the heart of one of the world’s most vital sea lanes — and could very well be the next spark in a global conflict.
What Prompted This Series
We didn’t choose Scarborough Shoal at random. This series was prompted by a disturbing escalation in Chinese maritime aggression in the South China Sea — specifically at Scarborough Shoal, a small reef with outsized strategic consequences.
Recent satellite photo of Scarborough Shoal showing Chinese vessels surrounding the reef, with overlay graphics indicating vessel positions and types
Recent events that brought this to a head include:
A Chinese cutter and guided-missile destroyer collided during a botched blockade attempt of Philippine Coast Guard vessels ten nautical miles off Scarborough Shoal in August 2025.
USS Higgins (DDG-76) sailed within 12 nautical miles of Scarborough Shoal conducting a Freedom of Navigation Operation (FONOP) — the first known U.S. military operation in at least six years in these specific waters.
Chinese Coast Guard harassment of Philippine resupply missions.
Dumping of concrete blocks — a likely signal of future construction.
Swarming of the area by Chinese maritime militia vessels.
The Scarborough Shoal is quickly becoming a litmus test for Chinese expansionism and U.S. resolve.
Why Now: The Wake-Up Call
Scarborough Shoal lies just 120 nautical miles off the Philippine coast — well within their Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) — and even closer to America’s red lines. When China seized de facto control of the shoal in 2012, the U.S. stood back. Many viewed this as a strategic failure of deterrence.
Now, the world is witnessing the possibility of militarization of the reef — and direct confrontation with a U.S. ally. That makes this more than a regional issue. It’s a crisis in the making.
The 2012 Standoff: A Turning Point
In April 2012, Philippine authorities attempted to arrest Chinese fishermen operating illegally in the shoal. Chinese maritime surveillance ships intervened. A tense standoff ensued, lasting weeks. The U.S. brokered a deal: both sides would withdraw.
The Philippines kept its word. China didn’t.
Instead, China took control of Scarborough Shoal, effectively barring Filipino access ever since. They now patrol it with coast guard cutters, militia fishing boats, and surveillance drones — sometimes even water cannons. Construction may follow.
A Geopolitical Tinderbox in the Sea
The South China Sea is home to trillions of dollars in annual global trade. It’s also flush with resources: fish, gas, oil, and geostrategic leverage. China claims nearly all of it under its so-called “Nine-Dash Line” — a sweeping assertion that ignores international law and overrides the rights of Southeast Asian nations like the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia.
Scarborough Shoal, or Bajo de Masinloc as the Filipinos call it, lies within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ), as defined under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration definitively ruled that China’s sweeping claims in the South China Sea had no legal basis under international law.
China’s response? They ignored the ruling entirely and doubled down on their aggression.
My Perspective: This Isn’t Just a Reef
As a former Navy destroyer sailor from the 1970s, I understand how seemingly minor naval flashpoints can quickly spiral. I launched Americans for a Stronger Navy to bridge the gap between what’s happening on the water and what the American public knows.
When I began Americans for a Stronger Navy, I did so because I believed — and still believe — that Americans are not being told the full story.
Scarborough Shoal isn’t on the nightly news — but it should be.
This reef is about more than rocks and water. It’s about:
Sovereignty
International law
Access to critical trade routes
Maintaining a rules-based order
The failure of deterrence
The rise of maritime bullying
The fragility of global trade
And the uncomfortable question: Will America act, or will we retreat?
Why Americans Must Pay Attention
Most Americans have never heard of Scarborough Shoal, but they should. Here’s why it matters to you:
Over $3 trillion in trade passes through the South China Sea annually.
China is testing the boundaries of international law and Western will.
Scarborough is a potential trigger point for a wider conflict — even WWIII.
The U.S. Navy may be forced to act, and our sailors are on the front line.
Success here emboldens China’s tactics elsewhere — Taiwan Strait, East China Sea.
Control of Scarborough supports China’s broader Belt and Road Initiative and maritime silk road ambitions.
If you think a shoal doesn’t matter, consider this: $3.4 trillion in global trade flows through the South China Sea every year. China is attempting to rewrite the rules of international waters. And the U.S. Navy — your Navy — is the thin blue line standing in the way.
Coming Up in This Series
The history of Scarborough Shoal and how we got here
The 2012 U.S.-brokered standoff and its long-term impact
The 2016 international arbitration ruling and China’s defiance
China’s maritime militia and “gray zone” tactics
The importance of fishing rights, seabed minerals, and cable networks
Allied response frameworks: QUAD, AUKUS, and Philippines mutual defense commitments
The implications for the U.S., our allies, and our Navy
Economic warfare potential and leverage tactics
Technology, surveillance, and intelligence dimensions
WWIII scenarios — and what they could look like
Congressional and policy tools available (or missing)
What Americans know (or don’t) about this growing threat
Each post will build context and momentum — helping readers understand why this small reef could shape the future of American security strategy in Asia and beyond.
Join the Mission
Understanding Scarborough Shoal is understanding a fault line in today’s global order. This series isn’t just about sounding the alarm — it’s about equipping Americans with insight, history, and facts so we can rally support, demand accountability, and avoid miscalculation.
If we don’t understand where the storm is brewing, we won’t know when to take shelter — or when to stand our ground.
Scarborough Shoal may seem far away. But the values at stake — sovereignty, freedom of navigation, and deterrence — are right at our doorstep.
Not to inflame. Not to fearmonger. But to educate, illuminate, and inspire action.
Please follow along, share with others, and help us shine a spotlight on one of the most important — and most underreported — strategic flashpoints of our time.
Stay with us. Read. Share. Talk about it.
Because understanding this reef might just help us prevent the next war.
A Final Thought
If a reef you’ve never heard of could spark the next major war — dragging America and its sailors into the fight — doesn’t that make it worth understanding?
Let’s chart the course together.
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 U.S. Navy has quietly achieved a significant milestone in maritime defense with the operational deployment of cutting-edge counter-drone systems aboard the USS Bainbridge. Recent photographs taken on July 27, 2025, during NATO’s Neptune Strike exercise in the Ionian Sea, show the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer equipped with new Raytheon Coyote interceptor launchers—marking the first confirmed installation of these advanced systems on a U.S. Navy destroyer.
A Strategic Response to Evolving Threats
This development represents more than just a technological upgrade; it’s a direct response to the changing nature of maritime warfare. The Navy’s decision to equip destroyers with Coyote and Anduril Roadrunner-M counter-drone systems stems from harsh lessons learned in recent conflicts, particularly the Red Sea operations against Houthi drone attacks.
The cost-effectiveness issue has been stark: Navy ships were using multimillion-dollar Standard Missiles to intercept drones costing mere thousands of dollars. As one defense analyst noted, this created an unsustainable economic equation that threatened to drain naval missile magazines against relatively inexpensive threats.
Technical Capabilities and Advantages
The Coyote system brings several key advantages to naval defense:
Loitering Capability: Unlike traditional missiles that follow a direct intercept path, Coyote interceptors can loiter in designated areas, providing persistent coverage and the ability to engage multiple threats dynamically.
Cost-Effective Defense: Each Coyote interceptor costs significantly less than traditional surface-to-air missiles, making them ideal for countering low-cost drone swarms.
Flexible Deployment: The system’s ability to be launched from standard sonobuoy canisters provides installation flexibility across various naval platforms.
The companion Roadrunner-M system offers additional capabilities, including the revolutionary ability to return to base for reuse if not deployed against a target—a feature that further improves cost-effectiveness.
Operational Context and Deployment
The USS Bainbridge is one of three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers currently assigned to the Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group, alongside the USS Winston S. Churchill and USS Mitscher. This strike group represents a testing ground for these new defensive capabilities, with the Churchill serving as the air defense commander—a role increasingly important as the Navy’s aging Ticonderoga-class cruisers are phased out.
The timing of this deployment is significant. The photograph was taken during a helicopter, board, search, and seizure drill as part of NATO exercises, demonstrating that these systems are being tested in realistic, multilateral maritime scenarios.
Broader Strategic Implications
This development signals several important shifts in U.S. naval strategy:
Magazine Depth Enhancement: These systems provide destroyers with additional interceptor capacity without consuming precious missile magazine space reserved for larger threats.
Scalable Defense Architecture: The ability to deploy both expendable (Coyote) and reusable (Roadrunner) interceptors provides commanders with flexible response options based on threat assessment.
Rapid Fielding Priority: The Navy’s decision to rush these systems to operational deployment indicates the urgency with which they view the drone threat
Technology Partners and Innovation
The partnership between established defense contractors and newer companies is noteworthy. While Raytheon provides the proven Coyote platform with its track record in hurricane research and military applications, Anduril Industries brings innovation with the Roadrunner series, representing a new generation of autonomous air defense systems.
Anduril’s Roadrunner platform introduces concepts like vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) capability and high-G maneuverability, features that could revolutionize ship-based air defense by enabling interceptors to engage threats from multiple vectors.
Looking Forward
The USS Bainbridge installation represents just the beginning of what appears to be a broader transformation of naval air defense. With the Army already planning to purchase thousands of Coyote interceptors and the Navy moving to equip multiple destroyer platforms, we’re witnessing the emergence of a new defensive paradigm.
This evolution reflects the reality of modern naval warfare, where traditional high-end threats coexist with asymmetric challenges from inexpensive but numerous drone platforms. The success of these systems in operational deployment will likely influence similar adaptations across allied navies facing comparable threats.
As maritime operations continue to evolve, the integration of these counter-drone systems aboard frontline destroyers like the Bainbridge marks a critical adaptation—one that balances technological sophistication with economic sustainability in an era of emerging threats.
Illustration of the AIRCAT Bengal MC, the world’s most advanced autonomous naval vessel.
Introduction
The recent unveiling of the AIRCAT Bengal MC marks one of the most significant leaps in naval technology in recent years. Developed by Eureka Naval Craft in collaboration with Greenroom Robotics and ESNA Naval Architects, this 36-meter Surface Effect Ship (SES) blends cutting-edge speed, payload capacity, modularity, and autonomous operation. Capable of operating both crewed and uncrewed, the Bengal MC is designed to execute a wide range of missions—from launching Tomahawk cruise missiles to serving as a drone mothership—at a fraction of the cost of traditional warships. For a Navy seeking to maximize agility and lethality while controlling costs, the Bengal MC may represent a new model for maritime dominance.
Advanced Design and Capabilities
At the heart of the Bengal MC’s innovation is its SES hull, a hybrid between a hovercraft and a catamaran, which reduces drag and allows speeds exceeding 50 knots. It can carry up to 44 tons—enough for two 40-foot ISO modules—while maintaining a 1,000 nautical-mile operational range. This enables deployment to distant theaters without frequent refueling.
Mission versatility is a hallmark of the Bengal MC. Configurable for troop transport, landing support, electronic warfare, mine-laying or counter-mine operations, reconnaissance, and high-speed logistics, its modular construction allows the ship to be tailored for the task at hand. It’s equipped to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles and Naval Strike Missiles, providing a level of firepower that traditionally required much larger, more expensive ships.
Autonomy and Operational Flexibility
Powered by Greenroom Robotics’ Advanced Maritime Autonomy Software (GAMA), the Bengal MC is fully capable of autonomous operation, while still offering human-in-the-loop oversight. This system was validated through the Patrol Boat Autonomy Trial, ensuring reliability in complex maritime environments. Its ability to operate autonomously means it can be deployed into high-risk zones without putting sailors directly in harm’s way, while crewed missions remain an option for complex operations.
Efficiency and Strategic Value
The Bengal MC is also designed for fuel efficiency and reduced operating costs, making it an attractive option for navies needing maximum capability per dollar spent. Its ability to replace or augment larger surface combatants with smaller, faster, more adaptable ships could reshape the way the U.S. Navy and allied forces plan their fleets. This is particularly critical in the Indo-Pacific, where speed, reach, and survivability are vital.
Why Americans Should The Bengal MC
represents a shift toward a leaner, faster, more lethal Navy—one that can respond quickly to threats without waiting for a carrier strike group to arrive. In an era where peer adversaries like China are rapidly expanding and modernizing their fleets, the U.S. must adopt innovative solutions to maintain maritime dominance. This is about more than ships; it’s about safeguarding trade routes, deterring aggression, and ensuring that America retains freedom of movement on the seas.
Implications for the Navy
For the U.S. Navy, the Bengal MC offers an opportunity to expand distributed maritime operations with high-speed, missile-capable platforms that are less expensive to build and operate. The autonomy package reduces crew demands, freeing personnel for other critical missions. In contested environments, these vessels can serve as fast-moving strike platforms, reconnaissance nodes, or logistic links—roles that support and extend the reach of larger fleet assets.
Implications for Our Allies
For U.S. allies in AUKUS, NATO, and key Indo-Pacific partnerships, the Bengal MC offers an interoperable, high-performance platform that can be rapidly integrated into joint operations. Nations like Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Vietnam, Thailand, and the Philippines—facing their own maritime security challenges—could use this vessel to augment their fleets without the heavy investment required for traditional destroyers or frigates. Greater allied adoption would strengthen collective maritime defense and create a shared technological advantage over adversaries.
Conclusion
The AIRCAT Bengal MC is more than a new ship—it’s a potential blueprint for the future of naval warfare. Fast, flexible, and autonomous, it demonstrates how advanced engineering and smart design can produce a strategic asset that meets the demands of modern maritime security. If the U.S. and its allies choose to embrace this model, it could mark a turning point in the race for naval superiority in the 21st century.
Learn More and Get Involved
At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we believe in highlighting technologies and strategies that strengthen our maritime advantage. Our mission is to educate, engage, and rally support for a Navy that can meet tomorrow’s challenges head-on. Sign up for the FREE newsletter and join our educational series.
