Charting the Course Archives - Americans for a Stronger Navy

October 4, 2025October 4, 2025

While We Fight Each Other at Home, China Prepares — And Time Is Running Out

Introduction

China set 2027 as their military readiness target – that’s 18 months away. Let me tell you something Americans need to hear, even if it makes you uncomfortable: China is laughing out loud and I can hear it from here, and they’re squeezing harder every day.

I’m not being dramatic. I’m being honest. As a former Navy sailor who spent his civilian career in telecom and web technologies, I understand both the military realities and the technological dependencies that have put us in this position. After two years of research—cross-checking military testimony, intelligence reports, and independent defense analyses—I can tell you we’re running out of time to fix this mess.

The Brutal Truth About 2027

China has set a goal to be militarily ready for war with the United States by 2027. That’s not some distant threat—that’s 18 months away. While we’ve been arguing about what he said and she said etc, they’ve been building the world’s largest navy and positioning themselves to strangle us economically, electronically and militarily.

Here’s what keeps me up at night: they don’t need to sink our ships to defeat us. They can just stop selling us the parts to build new ones.

How China is putting on the squeeze

They Control What We Need to Fight
Rare earth minerals for our missile guidance systems? China controls 80% of global processing.

Semiconductors for our weapons platforms? We outsourced that to Asia decades ago.

Critical components for naval systems? Good luck building ships without Chinese suppliers.

They Own Our Information Flow

TikTok shapes what our kids think about America and China

They manufacture the phones and devices we use to communicate

Their algorithms determine what information Americans see about military threats

They Hold Our Economy Hostage

Wall Street pension funds are invested in Chinese markets

Silicon Valley’s revenue depends on Chinese manufacturing and consumers
Our entire supply chain runs through Chinese factories

The Kicker? The same Silicon Valley companies that handed China our technological advantages now control how Americans get information. Try posting about Chinese military threats on Facebook—watch your reach get throttled. Discuss naval readiness on social media—suddenly you’re “violating community standards.”

They don’t just have us by the blank—they’re controlling the conversation about it.

Don’t Take My Word For It — Listen to the Experts

Over the past 24 months, Americans for a Stronger Navy has been mapping a story few citizens have ever been shown: how China’s campaign against the United States unfolded, who knew what and when, and what it will take to pull back from the brink. We didn’t start with opinions — we started with evidence. Here’s what the experts have been saying for years, and how their warnings fit together.

Strategic Intent and Military Buildup

Admiral James Lyons Jr., former commander of the Pacific Fleet, went on Fox News in 2013 and said what few in Washington wanted to hear: “We’re in our second Cold War with another communist totalitarian regime.” He warned that China has “built the navy specifically to go against the United States Navy” and that their anti-ship ballistic missiles are “not geared to go against the Bangladesh navy.” When a fleet commander speaks that bluntly on national television, that’s not politics — that’s professional judgment.

Brigadier General Douglas P. Wickert has shown how far that judgment has proven correct. In the Gobi Desert, China has built full-scale mock-ups of Taiwan’s Taichung International Airport and a “one-for-one silhouette of the Ford-class aircraft carrier” for target practice. They are not hiding their intentions. They are practicing to sink our ships and invade our allies.

The scale of China’s buildup is staggering: “They have 230 times the shipbuilding capacity of the United States in terms of shipyard infrastructure and potential output.. “Just one shipyard in China last year alone, in 2024, built more tonnage of ships than the U.S. did since the end of World War II.” One shipyard outproduced our entire nation’s post-WWII shipbuilding in a single year.

👉 Subscribe and Follow Along
This is just Part 1 of a three-part series. In Part 2: Political Warfare and the Silent Invasion, I’ll break down how China’s campaign has already reached into our own institutions — through espionage, influence operations, and economic coercion.

Key Takeaway: The fight isn’t just “over there.” It’s already here, shaping what Americans see, hear, and believe.

Don’t miss it — subscribe and follow the series at StrongerNavy.org.

September 28, 2025September 28, 2025

Why China’s Cyber Warfare Capabilities Make a Stronger Navy More Critical Than Ever

China’s cyber warfare escalation proves the need for a stronger Navy. For two years, we’ve warned that adversaries were already inside our homeland; today’s revelations confirm it and raise the stakes. Cyber defenses matter, but only forward-deployed ships provide the physical presence, analog resilience, and immediate deterrence that malware can’t erase. As we argue at home, Beijing prepares—time is running out to rally behind our sailors, our civilian maritime industry, and the shipbuilding surge America needs.

The Vindication No One Wanted
This morning’s New York Times revelation should serve as a wake-up call, but for those paying attention, it reads like an inevitable conclusion. Despite CIA Director William Burns confronting China’s Minister of State Security in May 2023 with evidence of malicious code embedded in America’s critical infrastructure, China ignored the warnings and escalated operations.

As we’ve written before: “Most people don’t realize it yet. We are already in a quiet war. Not with bombs. Not with missiles. But with fentanyl, with financial schemes, and with cyber attacks.”

Today’s reporting proves we were right. The question is: why did it take a CIA director’s secret mission and a massive intelligence failure for mainstream media to acknowledge the obvious?

Silicon Valley’s Role in America’s Vulnerability
Before we talk solutions, we must address culpability. Silicon Valley—the same industry that promised to “connect the world”—has systematically created the vulnerabilities that China now exploits.

Supply Chain Sellout: Manufacturing moved to China, transferring critical knowledge of hardware vulnerabilities.
Backdoor Bonanza: Even solar panels and batteries carry hidden back doors that could one day flip a switch against us.
Data Harvesting: Social media platforms collected massive datasets, much of which inevitably found its way into Chinese intelligence.
Infrastructure Integration: Cloud services created single points of failure that adversaries can exploit across sectors simultaneously.

Executives got rich while selling America’s digital sovereignty. They dismissed security concerns as “protectionism” and prioritized market access over national security. Where is the accountability?

The Secret Meeting That Changed Nothing
The Times reveals that Burns’ confrontation with Chen Yixin was professional but meaningless. When presented with evidence of cyber intrusions, China’s intelligence chief “gave nothing away.”

China’s real response came later: Salt Typhoon—a massive, yearslong intrusion targeting “nearly every American” and dozens of countries. This was not diplomacy failing. It was China demonstrating that cyber warfare is a strategic pillar, not a negotiable issue.

As Rear Admiral Mike Studeman warned: “The reality is that adversaries have insinuated themselves in our homeland… and continue to exploit our society from the inside out.”

Why Naval Power Matters More After Cyber Escalation
Cyber warfare doesn’t eliminate the need for naval power—it makes it more critical.

The Infrastructure Hostage Crisis
We warned that adversaries target our banks, pipelines, and power grids. Today’s reporting confirms it. But there’s one thing they can’t hack: ships already forward-deployed.

The Communications Blackout
Modern naval operations rely on networks China has proven it can disrupt. The solution isn’t cybersecurity alone—it’s having more ships already in position when networks go dark.

The Logistics Nightmare
China can disrupt ports, fuel, and supply chains simultaneously. Forward-deployed naval power bypasses these vulnerabilities.

The Taiwan Test Case
China’s cyber strategy aims to create an impossible choice: accept aggression or risk massive retaliation against U.S. infrastructure. But this calculation changes with a larger forward-deployed fleet:

Ships on station can’t be cyber-attacked out of position
Redundant communications across multiple vessels mitigate disruption
Immediate response capability denies China consolidation time
A visible presence deters aggression before it begins

The Call to Action
We’ve argued for 24 months that the future of America depends on our sailors, our civilian maritime industry, and a Navy that protects them both. Today’s revelations make this argument irrefutable.

Every day Congress delays emergency shipbuilding, China gains ground. Every month without new investment deepens our vulnerability. Call your representatives. Demand they fund emergency naval expansion now.

Beyond China
Russia, Iran, and North Korea are studying these techniques. Naval power provides what cyber defenses cannot: physical presence immune to digital attack.

Ships can’t be deleted by malware. Naval gunfire doesn’t require Wi-Fi. Sailors can’t be hacked out of existence.

Silicon Valley’s Reckoning Day
Congress must investigate how U.S. tech companies:

Facilitated Chinese access to critical technologies
Ignored warnings in favor of market access
Enabled mass data collection for foreign intelligence
Built cloud infrastructures that created systemic single points of failure

Executives who sold out American sovereignty should be held to the same scrutiny as defense contractors.

The Validation We Didn’t Want
Being right about China’s cyber warfare escalation brings no satisfaction. We would rather have been wrong. Instead, today proves China is pursuing cyber warfare and naval expansion simultaneously. America must respond with both—better cybersecurity and a stronger Navy.

Conclusion: The Time for Half-Measures is Over
For 24 months, we’ve warned that America faces adversaries already inside our homeland. Today proves they didn’t waste those 24 months—they dug in deeper.

The question is no longer whether we can afford emergency naval expansion. The question is whether we can afford another 24 months of delay.

That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
Let’s roll.

September 24, 2025September 24, 2025

The Bashi Channel: Connecting the Dots in the U.S.–China Rivalry

Introduction
Over the last few months, we’ve reported on a series of developments that highlight the rising stakes in the Indo-Pacific:

China’s destruction of the environment at Scarborough Shoal
The revival of Subic Bay in the Philippines as a center of allied shipbuilding and logistics
The British carrier HMS Prince of Wales sailing through the South China Sea alongside U.S. partners .

Each of these stories pointed to a contest for control of the waterways, ports, and infrastructure that sustain both military power and the global economy.

Today, we turn to the Bashi Channel—a narrow strip of water between southern Taiwan and the northern Philippines that may be the least known, but most decisive, chokepoint in the region. If Scarborough Shoal shows us the contest over reefs and fishing rights, and Subic Bay demonstrates the value of allied ports, the Bashi Channel reveals why geography itself remains the ultimate factor in global power.

A Geography Lesson with Global Stakes
The Bashi Channel is less than 90 miles wide. Yet it connects Taiwan’s largest port, Kaohsiung—which handles over 60% of the island’s cargo—with the Pacific Ocean. In an invasion scenario, China would rely on Kaohsiung as a logistics hub, while the United States and allies would race to resupply Taiwan through bases in the Philippines and Japan. That makes the Bashi not just a strait, but a lifeline.

Building on What We’ve Reported

At Subic Bay ([read here][subic-link]), we saw how new shipyards and bases allow U.S. forces to operate closer to Taiwan. The Bashi Channel explains why: northern Luzon and the Batanes islands are the staging ground for resupply lines directly into Taiwan’s southern flank.
At Scarborough Shoal ([read here][scarborough-link]), we documented China’s attempts to normalize control through coercion. The same pattern is at play here—Chinese live-fire drills in 2022 pushed further south, right into the Bashi, to test how far they can go without pushback.
When the British carrier transited the South China Sea ([see coverage][carrier-link]), it demonstrated allied commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific. The Bashi Channel is where that commitment will be tested in practice.

The Digital Dimension
As we’ve stressed in earlier posts, undersea cables are the invisible arteries of the modern world. Between 97% and 99% of all international data traffic travels through them, and the Bashi Channel is one of the most congested corridors. If cables here were cut, Americans would feel it instantly—in internet outages, stalled financial transactions, and disrupted supply chains. The stakes are no longer abstract; they’re personal.

Why Americans Should Care
The Bashi Channel matters for the same reasons Subic Bay and Scarborough Shoal matter: because adversaries see them as pressure points against America. A disruption here could raise prices at U.S. gas pumps, slow down the internet in our homes, and challenge the freedom of movement that underpins our prosperity. Ignoring this geography doesn’t make the threat go away—it just leaves us less prepared.

Implications for the Navy
For the U.S. Navy, this isn’t just about patrolling a waterway. It’s about ensuring freedom of movement for allies, safeguarding undersea cables, and keeping logistics flowing in the event of conflict. Ships, submarines, and surveillance aircraft operating in and around the Bashi Channel aren’t just defending Taiwan—they are defending the arteries of the global economy.

Implications for Our Allies
The Philippines, Japan, and Australia all depend on the Bashi Channel for security and trade. As we saw in Subic Bay’s revival, Manila’s choices are central to allied strategy. If political winds shift in the Philippines, America’s ability to project power and protect cables through the Bashi could be compromised. That makes alliances more than symbolic—they’re the difference between deterrence and vulnerability.

Conclusion
Scarborough Shoal, Subic Bay, and now the Bashi Channel all point to one truth: the contest in the Indo-Pacific is about control of the chokepoints that sustain trade, communication, and freedom itself. Geography cannot be changed, but strategy can. For generations to come, the Bashi Channel will remain a pivot in the U.S.–China confrontation.

That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter—a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.

Let’s roll.

September 16, 2025September 16, 2025

Mapping China’s Grip: The Islands, Reefs, and Bases Reshaping the South China Sea

Introduction

This post is part of Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — our ongoing educational series at Americans for a Stronger Navy examining the strategic threats facing the U.S. Navy and why they matter to every American. In this installment, we focus on China’s maritime buildup. China isn’t just making claims — it’s building infrastructure, militarizing reefs, and transforming sea features into forward bases. This map-driven guide walks you through where China has control, what they’ve built, and why it matters for U.S. strategy, regional allies, and global maritime security

Map & Visuals

Use one or more of the mapped images above to show:
- China’s “Nine-Dash Line” claim
- Areas with Chinese military build-up (Subi, Mischief, Fiery Cross, etc.)
- Overlapping exclusive economic zones (EEZs) claimed by the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, etc.

Key Chinese-Controlled Features
Here are the major reefs, atolls, and islands China controls or heavily influences. For each, we’d provide location, current state (military infra, runways, radars), and why it’s strategically important.

Feature	Militarization (Yes / No)	What’s Built / Recent Activity	Strategic Importance
Subi Reef	Yes	Runway, radars, missile systems, hardened shelters	Forward base; near Thitu Island; high capability to surveil / interdict
Mischief Reef	Yes	Airstrip, hangars, radar, anti-ship missile systems	Major Chinese hub; within Philippines’ EEZ
Fiery Cross Reef	Yes	Similar infrastructure; airstrip, radar, etc.	Power projection over Spratlys; enhances range
Gaven Reefs	Yes	Support buildings, radar / comms sites	Part of island chain to extend Chinese reach
Cuarteron Reef	Yes	Build-up like hangars, radar	Controls access routes; supports larger operations
Scarborough Shoal	De facto control	Coast guard, militia presence; possible construction; blocks Filipino access	Symbolic and strategic choke point; EEZ stakes
Paracel Islands	Yes	Many features; garrisons, military infrastructure	Proximity to mainland China; strategic flank toward Vietnam / Philippines

Why This Map Matters

Mapping shows how much of the Spratly / Paracel archipelagos are now “ militarized territory”
It reveals how close China’s bases are to other countries’ claimed waters (especially the Philippines)
Visual clarity helps Americans see this is not abstract — it’s real geography being altered, with legal, military, and economic implications

U.S. Strategic Implications

Presence: Where and how the U.S. Navy can operate
Deterrence: What it takes to make these bases costly for Beijing to use aggressively
Alliances: How neighboring countries feel and what they do (e.g. Philippines’ diplomatic protests, joint patrols)

Call to Action
Let the map sharpen our resolve. Knowing the terrain is step one. Step two is educating, advocating, and ensuring our Navy, our Congress, and our allies are equipped for what’s next.

Closing Thought
Geography doesn’t shift overnight — but power can. When maps are redrawn, either by diplomacy or force, everyone involved must choose whether to respond or concede. That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
Let’s roll.

September 12, 2025September 12, 2025

A Clear Pretext for Occupation: Philippines Pushes Back on China’s Nature Reserve Claim

Philippine Officials Raise the Alarm
Top Philippine defense and maritime officials have condemned China’s recent declaration of a “nature reserve” at Scarborough Shoal, calling it a “clear pretext for occupation.” This bold response comes in reaction to Beijing’s move to designate the disputed shoal—known locally as Bajo de Masinloc and internationally ruled to be within the Philippine EEZ—as a Chinese national marine reserve.

Philippine officials aren’t mincing words. Former Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio, former Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, and Coast Guard Commodore Jay Tarriela are among those warning that the “reserve” designation masks a broader strategy: to lock down access, increase Chinese presence, and project power deep into Southeast Asia’s maritime heart.

Part 1 — Broken Promises and Growing Risks
In 2012, after a tense naval standoff, the U.S. brokered a deal: both China and the Philippines would withdraw their ships from Scarborough Shoal. The Philippines complied. China didn’t. The U.S. didn’t press the issue. The result? Beijing solidified its control and sent a message that international mediation wouldn’t be enforced.

Part 2 — International Law Ignored
In 2016, an international tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines, stating clearly that China had no legal claim to Scarborough Shoal. Beijing ignored the decision, accelerating militarization and disrupting Filipino fishing. Once again, global rule of law was challenged—and left unenforced.

Part 3 — The “Nature Reserve” Play
Now, in 2025, China has unveiled a new maneuver: using environmental language to advance military and political objectives. The creation of the “Huangyan Island National Nature Reserve” is being widely viewed as part of a creeping campaign to normalize Chinese administrative control.

Despite the label, this is not about conservation. China has repeatedly blocked Filipino fishermen, driven out environmental research vessels, and deployed maritime militia under the radar. Calling this a “preserve” is like calling a fortress a flower garden.

Why Americans Should Care

Strategic Sea Lanes: The South China Sea is a maritime superhighway. If China controls it, they can control access to vital markets and resources.
U.S. Credibility Is on the Line: American influence is measured by what we protect—not just what we promise.
Civic Responsibility: Understanding how foreign policy, trade, and defense intersect isn’t just for experts. It’s for every American who relies on secure energy, stable prices, and a functioning global order.
Environmental Lawfare: Americans should be wary of tactics that exploit noble causes—like conservation—to advance authoritarian control.

Implications for the Navy
The U.S. Navy has long played a vital role in ensuring freedom of navigation and stabilizing flashpoints. But gray zone tactics like these require more than just ships—they require intelligence, strategy, and public support. The Navy cannot succeed without a civilian base that understands the stakes.

Implications for Our Allies
This isn’t just a Philippine problem. What happens at Scarborough sends ripples across the Pacific. Taiwan, Vietnam, Japan, Australia—all are watching to see whether the U.S. will back its allies when it counts. So are our adversaries.

Call to Action
The future of maritime freedom—and American leadership—may hinge on places like Scarborough Shoal. When China tests the limits, Americans need to respond—not just with ships, but with awareness and resolve.

That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.

Let’s roll.

September 9, 2025September 9, 2025

Broken Promises and Growing Risks: The Scarborough Standoff Reignites

How a 2012 Diplomatic Misfire Sparked a Decade of Chinese Defiance

The Current Flashpoint

Scarborough Shoal is back in the headlines — and with it, so are the warnings.

In September 2025, a Chinese vessel rammed a Philippine resupply boat near the shoal. In response, the U.S. Navy sailed a destroyer directly through the contested waters. The confrontation was brief, but the message was unmistakable: tensions are rising, and the risks are multiplying.

For many Americans, this reef barely registers. But this isn’t just a dust-up between distant nations. It’s a test of American resolve — and a moment that traces directly back to 2012.

2012: A Standoff Mishandled

That year, China and the Philippines faced off at Scarborough Shoal in a tense maritime standoff over fishing rights and territorial claims. The United States stepped in as a broker, aiming to de-escalate. Both nations were expected to withdraw their vessels.

Only one did.

The Philippines pulled back. China did not. And the United States — despite brokering the deal — failed to enforce the agreement or respond meaningfully.

To this day, Chinese ships remain at Scarborough Shoal, effectively taking control. This incident became a turning point in Beijing’s maritime aggression — and a chilling message to U.S. allies in Asia.

Why It Mattered Then — And Still Does

The 2012 failure sent a signal: U.S. guarantees could be questioned.

Philippine public trust eroded. Within a few years, President Duterte pivoted toward China, prioritizing economic deals over alignment with the U.S.

Meanwhile, China accelerated its militarization of the South China Sea — building artificial islands, expanding its maritime militia, and flexing its growing naval power.

What started as a fishing rights dispute became a global credibility crisis.

Now, a Decade Later…

Today’s confrontation is more than a replay. It’s a test of whether the U.S. has learned anything since 2012.

This time, the U.S. Navy showed up. But questions linger:

Will American resolve hold under pressure?
Can alliances like AUKUS and the U.S.-Philippine Mutual Defense Treaty deter escalation?
And do Americans even understand how this reef connects to larger global stakes?

We’ve been here before. We got it wrong then. The consequences are still unfolding.

Why Americans Should Care

Scarborough Shoal isn’t just a reef. It’s a litmus test — for American credibility, regional stability, and the rule of law at sea.

If the U.S. fails to hold the line here, what message does that send to Taiwan, our allies, or our adversaries?

This series breaks it down in plain language — so Americans understand what’s at stake before it’s too late.

What’s Next in the Series

In the next post, we’ll dive into the 2016 international tribunal ruling, how China ignored it, and why this defiance matters not just for the Philippines, but for the future of international order.

Missed the first post? Read it here.

Join the Mission

This post is part of Charting the Course: Voices That Matter, our national education initiative.

We’re connecting the dots between today’s maritime flashpoints and tomorrow’s strategic risks — and making the case for a stronger Navy, an informed public, and a unified voice.

Visit StrongerNavy.org to follow the series and learn more.

Let’s roll.

September 9, 2025September 9, 2025

Allies, Scale, and America’s Navy: A Conversation We Can’t Delay

U.S. and allied navies sailing in formation

Introduction

Giving Credit Where It’s Due
Kurt Campbell and Rush Doshi recently argued in the New York Times that America alone cannot match China’s growing scale — economically, technologically, or militarily — and that our strength depends on “allied scale.” They are right to say this out loud, and they deserve credit for raising the issue. Campbell has long been a voice for rebalancing U.S. strategy toward Asia, and Doshi has studied China’s grand strategy in depth. Their track records show they’ve been sounding the alarm.

Why We’re in This Position
It’s fair to ask: if they saw this coming, why didn’t America adjust sooner? The truth is, Campbell and Doshi were not sitting in the chairs with the ultimate levers. Campbell’s call for a pivot to Asia faced headwinds from wars in the Middle East and competing budget priorities. Doshi, until recently, was in academia, warning of China’s rise but without a policymaker’s authority. They were raising the right concerns, but Washington’s attention was elsewhere. That’s not about pinning blame on individuals — it’s about recognizing how easy it is for America to be distracted.

The Larger Point
The conversation they are starting in public now is one America needs to have candidly. China’s scale in shipbuilding, technology, and manufacturing is a strategic challenge unlike any we have faced before. Campbell and Doshi are right that alliances matter — losing India, Japan, or Europe to Chinese influence would change the balance overnight. But alliances alone aren’t enough. America must also invest in its own naval strength and rebuild the industrial base that sustains it.

My Role in This Conversation
I am two years into this effort with Americans for a Stronger Navy. My job is not to dictate policy but to help Americans understand the facts. It is up to the American people to decide. What I can do is publish what’s happening, provide context, and advocate on behalf of my shipmates — so that when the time comes, they have the resources they need, where and when they need them.

Why Americans Should Care
If we don’t get this right, it’s not only the Navy that will feel the consequences. Our supply chains, our economy, and our security all ride on free and open seas. Campbell and Doshi are right to remind us that “quantity has a quality all its own.” China has the quantity. America must respond with both quality and scale — and it will take both allies abroad and buy-in at home to meet that challenge.

September 7, 2025September 7, 2025

Naval (Maritime) Statecraft: Brent Sadler on Rebuilding America’s Maritime Power

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.

Let’s roll.

September 3, 2025September 3, 2025

American Naval Dominance: Not a Birthright, But a Choice We Must Make Again

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.

Let’s Roll.

September 2, 2025September 2, 2025

Adversaries Inside Our Homeland: A Call to Strengthen the U.S. Navy

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.

Let’s Roll.