Category: Charting the Course

Charting the Course: Navigating the Future of American Naval Power’ a podcast series that dives into the past, present, and future of the U.S. Navy and its impact on the world.

Posted on

The War on Warriors: What We Can Learn About the China Threat

A Book Review from Americans for a Stronger Navy

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

A Note on Staying in Our Lane

Pete Hegseth’s 2024 The War on Warriors has ignited fierce debate across America. As I write this, decorated veterans like Senator Mark Kelly and Pete Hegseth—both men who’ve served with distinction—are in public conflict.

Americans for a Stronger Navy is not going to adjudicate those battles.

What started as an effort to understand Pete Hegseth’s perspective through his book and interviews evolved into something else entirely. As I watched his past interviews and listened to the three-hour conversation with Shawn Ryan, I found myself repeatedly pulled back to our core mission: the urgent need for a Navy capable of deterring China and defending American interests.

While I agree with many of Hegseth’s principles about building a stronger fighting force and improving resources for veterans, I also recognize that his book and interviews reflect a specific moment in time—the period leading up to and following publication. The debates they’ve sparked are important, and good people disagree on the solutions.

But while we debate internally, China doesn’t pause its carrier production.

Our lane is clear: advocating for the naval power necessary to protect America’s future. While others debate military culture, we’re compelled to focus on what both Shawn Ryan and Pete Hegseth spent significant time discussing in their three-hour interview: the existential threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party.

Our veterans deserve better care than they’re receiving. When the VA is failing the warriors who already served, spending defense dollars on elective procedures while vets wait months for basic care is unconscionable. This isn’t a cultural position—it’s a resource management position. Every dollar matters when China is building carriers faster than we can.

With that stated, let’s focus on what should unite all Americans regardless of political persuasion: “China has us by the balls,” says Hegseth. And by our best estimates, we’re running out of time to do something about it.

The Strategic Reality

The most critical parts of the Hegseth-Ryan interview aren’t about DEI or pronouns. They’re about strategic vulnerability to an adversary that’s been playing the long game while we’ve been distracted.

Here’s Pete Hegseth’s unvarnished assessment:

“When they’ve already got us by the balls economically, with our grid, culturally, with elite capture going on around the globe, microchips, everything—why do they want Taiwan? They want to corner the market completely on the technological future. We can’t even drive our cars without the stuff we need out of China these days. They have a full-spectrum, long-term view of not just regional but global domination, and we have our heads up our asses.”

Here’s the short 50 second YouTube clip, watch it for yourself.

Let’s break down what “by the balls” actually means:

Economic Leverage: Our Grid is Their Weapon

China produces all of our electrical transformers, solar panels, and wind turbines. Not most. All. They’re already embedded in our power grid infrastructure. FBI Director Christopher Wray has publicly confirmed Chinese operatives have pre-positioned malware in our electrical grid and water treatment facilities.

As Wray stated, “the dashboard is flashing red and smoking.”

Think about what this means: In the opening hours of a Taiwan conflict, before a single shot is fired at a carrier strike group, China could potentially darken American cities, shut down water systems, and cripple our ability to mobilize.

Our Navy can’t sortie from ports without power. Our sailors can’t fight if their families are in crisis at home.

Naval Asymmetry: We’re Losing the Numbers Game

Hegseth reveals what Pentagon insiders know but rarely admit publicly:

“In the past 10-15 years, the Pentagon has a perfect record in all of its war games against China. We lose every time.”

Every. Single. Time.

Why? Multiple factors:

Numerical Inferiority: China’s Navy now exceeds the U.S. Navy in sheer hull numbers. They’re building aircraft carriers and advanced destroyers at a pace we cannot match with our current industrial base.

Hypersonic Missiles: China has developed hypersonic weapons specifically designed to defeat our carrier strike groups. As Hegseth notes: “If 15 hypersonic missiles can take out our 10 aircraft carriers in the first 20 minutes of a conflict, what does that look like?”

Our primary tool of power projection—the carrier strike group—may be obsolete on Day One of a Pacific conflict.

Supply Chain Dependency: When Shawn Ryan mentions defensive technologies like directed EMP weapons (from companies like Epirus) that can counter drone swarms, even he expresses concern: “I don’t know if anything’s coming from China. I don’t know what other weapons we have and what’s manufactured in China or what IP they’ve stolen from us.”

We can’t even be certain our most advanced defensive systems aren’t compromised by Chinese components or stolen intellectual property.

The Microchip Chokepoint: Taiwan is Everything

Why does China want Taiwan? Not reunification nostalgia. Taiwan is the beating heart of the global economy and modern civilization.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) doesn’t just produce “the majority” of advanced microchips—it produces over 90% of the world’s most advanced semiconductors. These aren’t chips for smartphones and laptops. These are the chips that power:

  • Every advanced weapon system – F-35s, guided missiles, radar systems, naval combat systems
  • Every AI system – From civilian applications to military command and control
  • Every modern vehicle – Cars, trucks, tractors, commercial aircraft
  • Every hospital – MRI machines, CT scanners, surgical robots, monitoring equipment
  • Every communications system – Cell towers, satellites, internet infrastructure
  • Every financial system – Banking, stock markets, payment processing

If China controls Taiwan, China controls the technological backbone of human civilization.

This isn’t hyperbole. During the COVID chip shortage, automobile production halted worldwide. Factories sat idle. Dealership lots emptied. That was a supply chain hiccup. Imagine China with a monopoly, deciding who gets chips and who doesn’t.

American weapon systems would depend on Chinese approval for components. American hospitals would need Chinese permission to operate. American banks would require Chinese consent to process transactions.

This is why Taiwan isn’t just another regional territorial dispute. Taiwan is the strategic fulcrum upon which the entire 21st century will turn.

And China knows it. That’s why they’re building a military specifically designed to take Taiwan before we can effectively respond. That’s why every hypersonic missile, every carrier, every amphibious assault ship they build is calculated toward this single objective.

Salt Typhoon: They’re Already Inside

In late 2024, U.S. intelligence agencies revealed that Chinese hackers operating under the codename “Salt Typhoon” had achieved deep, persistent access to American telecommunications infrastructure.

Not a probe. Not a test. Deep, persistent access.

They’re inside AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile networks. They can intercept phone calls, text messages, internet traffic. They’ve targeted senior government officials, military personnel, critical infrastructure operators.

This isn’t theoretical preparation for future conflict. This is active intelligence collection happening right now.

Combined with their penetration of our electrical grid (FBI Director Wray’s “flashing red dashboard”), their control over our transformer supply chains, their dominance in 5G infrastructure, and their positioning in our water treatment systems—China has achieved the infiltration necessary to paralyze America without firing a shot.

When the Taiwan crisis comes—and it will come—our response will be shaped by what China has already positioned to cripple us from within.

The Indo-Pacific: Where Our Future Will Be Decided

The Indo-Pacific region isn’t one theater among many. It’s THE theater where American prosperity and security will be won or lost.

Consider the stakes:

Economic: Over 60% of global maritime trade flows through the South China Sea. $3.4 trillion in trade passes through the Taiwan Strait annually. If China controls these waters, they control global commerce.

Alliance Structure: Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, India—our entire network of Pacific allies depends on American commitment. If we cannot or will not defend Taiwan, why would anyone trust American security guarantees?

Resources: Critical minerals, rare earth elements, advanced manufacturing—the Indo-Pacific is the industrial and technological center of the 21st century. Ceding this region to Chinese dominance means accepting permanent economic subservience.

Naval Power Projection: If China controls the First Island Chain (Japan-Taiwan-Philippines), American naval power is effectively contained to Pearl Harbor and San Diego. Our ability to operate globally collapses.

This isn’t about the military-industrial complex wanting another war. This is about the economic and security future of our children and grandchildren.

This is Nothing Like Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan

I understand the skepticism. Both Pete Hegseth and Shawn Ryan expressed it in their interview—they’re both “recovering neocons” who supported Iraq and Afghanistan and now recognize those were strategic disasters.

Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were wars of choice built on questionable premises:

  • Nation-building missions in societies we didn’t understand
  • No vital national interests at stake
  • No clear victory conditions
  • Counterinsurgency in impossible terrain against irregular forces
  • Decades-long occupations with no end state
  • Trillions spent with nothing to show for it

The potential Taiwan conflict is fundamentally different:

1. Vital National Interests: Taiwan semiconductors aren’t optional. Modern civilization depends on them. This isn’t about abstract concepts like “democracy promotion”—it’s about maintaining access to the technology that runs everything from hospitals to power grids.

2. Deterrence, Not Occupation: We don’t need to occupy Chinese territory or rebuild their society. We need to make the cost of taking Taiwan prohibitively high. That’s classic deterrence, not nation-building.

3. Conventional Warfare: This would be state-on-state naval and air conflict where American technological advantages matter, not counterinsurgency in urban terrain where they don’t.

4. Clear Objectives: Maintain Taiwan’s de facto independence and semiconductor production. That’s it. No “hearts and minds,” no transforming societies, no endless occupation.

5. Alliance Structure: We’d fight alongside Japan, Australia, potentially South Korea and others with shared interests. This isn’t America alone trying to remake a foreign society.

6. Existential Stakes: If China controls Taiwan’s chips, they control the global economy. If they demonstrate American security guarantees are worthless, our entire alliance system collapses. If they dominate the Indo-Pacific, American prosperity ends.

The lesson from Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan isn’t “never fight wars.” It’s “don’t fight stupid wars based on lies about stupid objectives in stupid ways.”

Deterring China from taking Taiwan is none of those things. It’s the most strategically vital mission American naval power faces.

This is about ensuring our grandchildren grow up in a free, prosperous America—not one subordinated to Chinese Communist Party dictates because we couldn’t muster the will to maintain our position when it mattered most.

Economic Warfare: The Crypto Scam Example

Hegseth and Ryan discuss an underreported aspect of Chinese strategic operations: systematic economic extraction through crypto scams.

Chinese operatives run sophisticated confidence schemes:

  1. Approach target with small crypto investment opportunity ($15,000)
  2. Deliver real returns quickly ($45,000) to build trust
  3. Escalate to larger investments ($200,000)
  4. When target invests life savings ($1,000,000+), disappear with everything

This isn’t individual crime—it’s organized economic warfare to extract American wealth before potential conflict.

Ryan’s local sheriff’s department just tracked one operator across multiple states to Las Vegas. “It’s happening all over the place,” Ryan notes.

Cultural Infiltration: TikTok and Beyond

As Hegseth observes: “We let in TikTok where they can trans our kids and they don’t trans their kids.”

Whether you agree with his framing or not, the strategic point is valid: China operates TikTok to influence American youth while banning it domestically. That’s not cultural exchange—that’s information warfare.

The CCP understands something we’ve forgotten: The side that controls what the next generation believes controls the future.

The Long Game: China’s Strategic Patience

Here’s what separates China’s approach from ours:

China’s Strategy:

  • Multi-decade planning horizon
  • Systematic IP theft and technology acquisition
  • Economic positioning for future conflict
  • Military buildup specifically designed to defeat the United States
  • Cultural and political elite capture
  • Infrastructure positioning (ports, 5G networks, supply chains)

America’s Strategy:

  • 2-4 year election cycles driving policy
  • Letting China manufacture our critical infrastructure
  • Outsourcing our industrial base for quarterly profit margins
  • Assuming the international rules-based order will protect us
  • Internal political warfare consuming our attention

As Hegseth puts it: “China is playing chess while we’re arguing about pronouns.”

The Timing Question: When Will They Strike?

Both Ryan and Hegseth wrestle with a critical strategic question: When will China make its move on Taiwan?

Ryan’s analysis is chilling:

“If I was them, I would put in the scenario into war games and see what the probability is that we’re going to come out on top. I wouldn’t make a move until after this election because they know what’s going on. They see it. Nobody made any weird moves under Trump that I’m aware of. As soon as they got in—Russia went after Ukraine, tensions with Taiwan getting stronger, the border, Israel—everybody that wanted to make a chess move on the board did it as soon as Trump was out of office.”

“If I was them, I would make my move the first day that Trump is in office because that would be the weakest point before we start to see an incline. And if Kamala gets in there, I would wait another four years, just let it keep declining, and that would just let this place get as weak as it possibly can, and then I would pull the trigger.”

Think about that logic:

  • China runs the scenarios through their war game simulations
  • They update the probability matrices with current data
  • Every year we decline, their probability of victory increases
  • They wait until the optimal moment

The clock is ticking. And we’re not on it.

What This Means for the Navy

Everything Hegseth discusses in the Army context applies with even greater urgency to naval forces:

Recruitment Crisis: The Navy can’t crew the ships we have, let alone the fleet we need. If patriotic families from military traditions are second-guessing service, where do future sailors come from?

Retention Problems: Experienced petty officers and junior officers are leaving. Institutional knowledge walks out the door with them.

Technical Expertise Gap: Modern naval warfare requires STEM-educated personnel. Our education system is producing activists, not engineers.

Readiness vs. Rhetoric: Hegseth mentions sailors in the DMZ in Korea reporting they have “basically enough artillery for 3 days—the rest of it’s in Ukraine.” How many naval munitions have been drawn down? How many maintenance dollars diverted?

Close Quarters Reality: Destroyers, cruisers, submarines—these platforms require maximum unit cohesion in confined spaces over extended deployments. Any policy that complicates that dynamic affects operational capability.

Industrial Base Collapse: We can’t build ships fast enough. China launches a new carrier while we’re still arguing about shipyard contracts.

Why the Navy? Why Not Just “Military” Generally?

Americans for a Stronger Navy focuses specifically on naval power for a fundamental reason: The China challenge is inherently a maritime problem.

Consider the geography:

70% of Earth’s surface is water. The Indo-Pacific theater is defined by vast ocean expanses, island chains, and sea lanes. This isn’t the deserts of Iraq or the mountains of Afghanistan—it’s a maritime domain where naval power is decisive.

Taiwan is an island 100 miles from mainland China. Any conflict over Taiwan is fundamentally an amphibious assault/defense scenario. China must cross water. We must defend across water. The Air Force matters, the Army matters, but the Navy is the primary deterrent.

The First Island Chain is maritime. Japan, Okinawa, Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia—the strategic barrier that contains Chinese power projection is a series of islands. Controlling this chain means controlling maritime access. Losing it means Chinese naval dominance from the South China Sea to the Pacific.

Global trade flows through water. Over 90% of global trade moves by ship. The South China Sea handles $3.4 trillion annually through the Taiwan Strait alone. If China controls these sea lanes, they control global commerce. You can’t secure maritime trade with land forces.

Distance matters. The nearest U.S. territory to China is Guam—3,000 miles from California. You can’t project power across the Pacific with the Army. The Navy is how America reaches the theater. The Navy is how we sustain operations. The Navy is how we defend allies. Without naval dominance, we’re not even in the game.

China understands this. That’s why they’re building the world’s largest navy. Not the world’s largest army (they already had that). They’re specifically building carriers, destroyers, submarines, amphibious assault ships—naval power to challenge American naval power.

They’ve studied American carrier strike groups and designed hypersonic missiles to sink them. They’ve built artificial islands in the South China Sea to extend their naval reach. They’re developing a blue-water navy capable of operating globally.

The Indo-Pacific challenge is a naval challenge. China’s threat is a naval threat. Our response must be naval.

That’s why Americans for a Stronger Navy exists. We’re not generically “pro-military.” We’re specifically focused on the domain where the 21st century’s decisive competition will be won or lost: the sea.

The Resource Allocation Question

Here’s where Americans for a Stronger Navy takes a clear position:

Military resources must be allocated to maximize readiness and deterrence. Period.

That means:

This isn’t about culture. It’s about math.

If we’re losing every war game against China, if our carriers are vulnerable to hypersonic missiles, if our grid can be darkened remotely, if Taiwan is the strategic prize of the century—then every resource decision matters.

The Education Pipeline: Tomorrow’s Sailors

Hegseth spends significant time in both the book and interview discussing education, and this directly impacts naval readiness.

The Navy needs:

  • Nuclear-trained operators for submarines and carriers
  • Electronics technicians for advanced systems
  • Engineers for damage control and propulsion
  • Cryptologists and cyber warriors
  • Aviators with complex technical training

This requires:

  • Strong STEM education
  • Rigorous academic standards
  • Technical aptitude
  • Problem-solving capability
  • Discipline and work ethic

What’s happening in K-12 education:

  • Math and science proficiency declining
  • Reading scores dropping
  • Grade inflation masking actual competency
  • Social-emotional learning replacing academic rigor
  • Anti-American narratives that discourage service

The pipeline is broken. Even if we solve every other problem, we can’t crew a technically complex fleet with graduates who can’t do algebra.

This is where Hegseth’s education critique directly intersects with naval readiness. China is graduating millions of STEM students. We’re graduating activists who think America is irredeemably evil. Who’s going to win that competition?

What We Learned From a Destroyer Sailor

I served on a U.S. Navy destroyer in the 1970s. Several shipmates reached out over the past few years expressing concerns about changes in today’s Navy. I’ll admit I was initially skeptical—were they exaggerating? Were they just resistant to change?

After reading Hegseth’s book and listening to the three-hour Ryan interview, I realize I should have listened more carefully to the warnings. But I also realize something else:

We’re spending so much energy fighting each other that we’re not focusing on the actual threat.

My shipmates on both sides of these cultural debates all agree on one thing: China is the threat. They disagree on solutions to internal problems, but they all recognize the external danger.

That’s where Americans for a Stronger Navy needs to focus.

Let the cultural debates happen. Let good people like Senator Kelly and Pete Hegseth have their disagreements. Our job is to relentlessly advocate for:

  1. Sufficient naval hulls to match China’s growing fleet
  2. Advanced weapon systems that counter hypersonic threats
  3. Industrial base that can actually build ships at competitive speed
  4. Recruitment and retention of qualified personnel
  5. Training and readiness focused on war-fighting
  6. Supply chain independence from Chinese manufacturing
  7. Electrical grid hardening so our bases can operate
  8. Cybersecurity that prevents Chinese infrastructure penetration
  9. Educational reform that produces STEM-capable recruits
  10. Budget prioritization toward capabilities over social experiments

The Three-Hour Wake-Up CalIf the warnings from Ryan and Hegseth about the CCP don’t shake you to the core, I don’t know what will.

Here’s what should terrify every American:

  • Pentagon loses every war game against China
  • China’s Navy now exceeds ours in numbers
  • Hypersonic missiles can sink our carriers in minutes
  • Chinese malware already embedded in our grid
  • Taiwan’s semiconductor monopoly is China’s target
  • Economic warfare extracting American wealth daily
  • Our sailors report ammunition shortages
  • Recruiting and retention in crisis
  • Industrial base can’t build ships competitively
  • Education system failing to produce technical talent

And while all this is happening, Americans are fighting each other instead of the actual enemy.

Our Call to Action

Americans for a Stronger Navy has a clear mission: advocating for the naval power necessary to defend America and deter aggression.

After reviewing Hegseth’s book and the extended Ryan interview, here’s what we’re calling for:

Immediate Priorities:

1. China Threat Education We will dedicate equal or greater time to educating Americans about the CCP threat as we spend on internal debates. The Ryan-Hegseth interview should be required viewing for anyone concerned about national security.

2. Resource Allocation Focus Every dollar matters when you’re losing war games. We support policies that maximize readiness and deterrence, including ending taxpayer funding for elective medical procedures that render service members non-deployable.

3. Industrial Base Revival We cannot have a strong Navy without shipyards that can build ships. This requires industrial policy, workforce development, and political will.

4. Grid Hardening Naval bases can’t operate without power. American families can’t support deployed sailors if they’re in crisis at home. Chinese control of our infrastructure must end.

5. Supply Chain Independence We must stop buying critical military components from our primary adversary. Yes, it will be expensive. No, we don’t have a choice.

6. Education Pipeline Repair Supporting classical education, STEM focus, and programs that produce technically capable recruits is a national security imperative.

7. Bipartisan Unity on China This is the one thing that should unite Americans across political divides. China is not Republican or Democrat. They’re our adversary, and they’re winning.

What You Can Do:

1. Watch the Full Interview The three-hour Shawn Ryan Show interview with Pete Hegseth contains more strategic analysis than most national security briefings. Share it widely.

2. Contact Your Representatives Demand they prioritize naval shipbuilding, infrastructure hardening, and China competition over internal political warfare.

3. Support STEM Education Whether through donations, volunteering, or advocacy—we need the next generation capable of operating advanced naval systems.

4. Spread Awareness Most Americans have no idea how vulnerable we are or how aggressively China is positioning for dominance. Change that.

5. Stay Focused on the Mission Don’t let internal debates distract from external threats. We can disagree on culture while agreeing on China.

Conclusion: The Enemy Gets a Vote—But So Do We

There’s a military axiom: “The enemy gets a vote.”

While America argues about pronouns, DEI, and cultural issues, China is voting with carrier launches, hypersonic missile tests, infrastructure infiltration, and economic positioning.

While good Americans like Senator Kelly and Pete Hegseth have their necessary debates about military culture, China is running war game simulations and updating their probability matrices for success.

While we fight over what makes someone qualified for military service, China is building the fleet that will challenge our ability to defend Taiwan, Japan, Korea, and the Philippines.

The clock is ticking.

But here’s what the alarm shouldn’t become: despair.

What started as a book review to understand Pete Hegseth’s perspective became a stark reminder of what actually matters: our children’s future. And that future is not predetermined. China’s rise is not inevitable. American decline is a choice, not a destiny.

We Have Advantages China Can’t Match

American Innovation: When we freed American energy production, we became energy independent within years. When COVID hit, we developed multiple vaccines in record time. When we commit to solving problems, we still lead the world in innovation.

Emerging Technologies: Directed energy weapons, autonomous systems, AI-enabled targeting, hypersonic defense systems—American companies are developing technologies that can offset Chinese numerical advantages. The Epirus directed EMP system Ryan and Hegseth discussed is just one example.

Alliance Structure: China stands largely alone. We have Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, and emerging partnerships with India and others. China has no equivalent alliance structure. Authoritarian systems inspire fear, not loyalty.

Economic Strength: Despite our challenges, the U.S. economy remains the most dynamic, innovative, and resilient in the world. Our capital markets, universities (when focused on STEM), and entrepreneurial culture are unmatched.

Geographic Position: China must project power across oceans to threaten American territory. We’re protected by two vast moans and friendly neighbors. They have hostile or unreliable neighbors on every border.

The WWII Precedent: In 1940, America had the 17th largest military in the world. By 1945, we had built the arsenal of democracy and defeated two major powers simultaneously on opposite sides of the globe. When America gets serious, we can mobilize faster than any nation on Earth.

This is Winnable—If We Act Now

The Pentagon may lose every war game against China today, but war games assume current capabilities. We can change those capabilities.

We can build more ships. We built 175 ships in two years during WWII. We can revitalize our shipyards.

We can harden our infrastructure. We built the Interstate Highway System, the Hoover Dam, put men on the moon. We can protect our power grid.

We can secure our supply chains. We can reshore critical manufacturing. We can incentivize chip fabrication in America.

We can fix our education system. Classical education is growing. Homeschooling is expanding. STEM-focused alternatives exist.

We can restore deterrence. China only moves on Taiwan if they believe they’ll win. Make the cost prohibitive, and they won’t move.

This requires political will, not miracles. It requires Americans to stop fighting each other and focus on the actual adversary. It requires leaders who prioritize national security over political advantage. It requires citizens who demand action.

And it requires a Navy capable of controlling the seas.

Pete Hegseth’s The War on Warriors contains valuable warnings about institutional problems. The debates his book has sparked are important, and good people disagree on solutions. But the most critical warning in both the book and the Ryan interview isn’t about wokeness—it’s about China.

“They have a full-spectrum, long-term view of not just regional but global domination, and we have our heads up our asses.”

I understand the weariness from Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Both Hegseth and Ryan express it—they’re “recovering neocons” who supported wars they now recognize as mistakes. But the Taiwan situation isn’t another optional nation-building adventure. It’s about the semiconductor supply that powers modern civilization, the alliance structure that maintains global stability, and the economic future our grandchildren will inherit.

This isn’t about the military-industrial complex wanting another war. This is about whether America remains a free, sovereign nation or becomes economically subordinated to Chinese Communist Party control.

Americans for a Stronger Navy exists because we understand that naval power is not optional in a maritime century against a maritime threat. We exist because someone needs to focus relentlessly on building the fleet, supporting the sailors, and educating Americans about what’s at stake.

We need a stronger Navy. We need it now. We need the tools, resources, training, personnel, and industrial base to match the threat.

Our veterans who already served deserve the care they earned—not to see their VA benefits delayed while billions go elsewhere.

Our sailors need ammunition, not just for three days, but for sustained operations.

Our children need semiconductor access that doesn’t depend on Chinese permission.

Our grandchildren deserve to grow up in a free America, not one bowing to Beijing because we couldn’t maintain our naval power when it mattered most.

But they also deserve to grow up knowing their parents and grandparents didn’t give up. That when faced with a determined adversary, America remembered who we are and what we’re capable of achieving.

Everything else is secondary to this mission.

Let’s stop fighting each other and start focusing on the actual enemy. Let’s stop despairing and start building. Let’s stop the internal warfare and restore the external deterrence.

The Salt Typhoon hackers are already inside our telecommunications systems. Chinese malware is pre-positioned in our electrical grid. China controls our transformer supply. They’re building carriers while we argue about culture. They’re war-gaming Taiwan scenarios while we debate pronouns.

But we can still win this. We have time—barely—to restore deterrence, rebuild capacity, and secure our position.

The question isn’t whether we can. It’s whether we will.

Americans for a Stronger Navy is committed to this fight. We’ll continue advocating for the naval power our nation needs. We’ll continue educating Americans about the China threat. We’ll continue supporting the sailors who keep us safe.

Join us. The future our grandchildren inherit depends on what we do right now.

Note: In future posts, we’ll address specific topics including:

  • Detailed naval force structure requirements and shipbuilding timelines
  • The shipyard and industrial base crisis—and how to solve it
  • Allied burden-sharing and the AUKUS partnership
  • Economic warfare beyond military competition (ports, Belt and Road, fentanyl, elite capture)
  • How to pay for naval expansion and why we can’t afford not to
  • Concrete legislative actions and how to engage your representatives effectively

Stay focused on the mission. The Navy we need is within reach if we have the will to build it.

About Americans for a Stronger Navy

Americans for a Stronger Navy is dedicated to promoting peace through strength by supporting a robust, modern, and capable United States Navy. We advocate for the resources, policies, and personnel necessary to ensure American naval dominance and the security of our maritime interests.

Our mission is focused, non-partisan, and urgent: Build the Navy we need to deter the China threat.

This review reflects the analysis of one destroyer sailor who served in the 1970s and believes Americans on all sides of cultural debates can unite around the China threat. We encourage readers to form their own opinions on internal military debates while maintaining absolute clarity on external threats.

The War on Warriors: Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free
By Pete Hegseth
Published 2024

Recommended for: Anyone concerned about national security, China competition, and America’s strategic position

Key Takeaway: Stop fighting each other. Start focusing on China.

Rating: ★★★★ (Important Strategic Warning)

Posted on

Keepers of the Peace: A Veterans Day Reflection

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

Introduction

As a crewman aboard the guided missile destroyer Henry B. Wilson (DDG-7) in the mid-1970s, and with family members tragically scarred from the ravages of war, Veterans Day has always carried deep meaning for me. It’s a day to pause—not just to thank—but to truly remember. To remember those who served, those captured or killed, and those who still stand the watch today.

Why This Matters

Growing up in the 1950s and ’60s shaped how my generation understood service. We played with G.I. Joe action figures modeled after real Medal of Honor recipients. We watched John Wayne storm the beaches in black-and-white war films. We practiced duck-and-cover drills beneath our school desks, Cold War tension seeping into our childhood games.

But today’s America looks different. More than half of our population was born after 1980—long after the draft ended, after Vietnam, after the Cold War. For many Americans under 45, military service is something distant, something other families do. Only about 7% of living Americans have served in uniform. The connection between civilian and sailor, between hometown and ship, has quietly frayed.

That disconnect matters more than ever.

Service Without Fanfare

For many who wore the uniform, service wasn’t about recognition. It was about duty. For some, like the sailors of the Vietnam era, there were no parades waiting when they came home. For others, like my shipmates during the Cold War, their battles were fought in the shadows—quiet missions, constant vigilance, and readiness that helped keep the peace. And for those who have served through the long years in the Middle East and beyond, their courage continues the legacy of those who came before.

Every generation of sailors shares the same bond—service, sacrifice, and love of country.

A Navy of Many Missions

The U.S. Navy has always been more than ships and sailors—it’s a reflection of America’s strength, innovation, and resolve. Across decades, each generation of naval service has carried its own unique challenges.

Vietnam Era: From the blue-water carriers and destroyers offshore to the brown-water patrols on the Mekong Delta, Navy men and women served in every corner of the conflict. Aircraft carriers launched thousands of sorties into hostile skies. River patrol boats navigated treacherous waterways where the enemy could be anywhere. Many came home quietly. Some never did. Too many were forgotten.

Cold War Service: During the tense decades that followed, our ships sailed the world’s seas not to fight—but to deter. We tracked Soviet submarines beneath the Arctic ice. We escorted convoys through contested waters. We maintained an unbroken presence that reminded adversaries of America’s reach. It was a different kind of war—one measured in vigilance rather than victories—but no less vital to our nation’s freedom.

Middle East and Modern Conflicts: From the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea, from the Horn of Africa to the South China Sea, today’s sailors face danger in new forms—terrorism, piracy, cyber warfare, and constant deployments that stretch families to the breaking point. They serve aboard destroyers, submarines, carriers, and expeditionary units—standing between chaos and stability, often far from home, always ready.

The POW/MIA Legacy

No tribute is complete without remembering those who never returned—and those who survived against impossible odds.

Some Did Make It Home—But Paid a Heavy Price

Captain Charlie Plumb, a Navy fighter pilot from Kansas who flew F-4 Phantoms off the USS Kitty Hawk, completed 74 successful combat missions over North Vietnam. On his 75th mission—just five days before the end of his tour—he was shot down over Hanoi. He spent the next 2,103 days as a prisoner of war. Nearly six years in an 8-by-8-foot cell. Torture. Isolation. Yet Plumb became a lifeline to his fellow POWs through underground communications, serving as chaplain and inspiration when hope seemed impossible. He came home. He continued flying for the Navy for decades, retiring as a Captain after 31 years of service. His survival reminds us that some battles don’t end when the guns fall silent—they continue in the hearts and minds of those who endured.

Others Waited Decades to Come Home

Captain Thomas Edwin Scheurich Sr., a Naval Aviator from Norfolk, Nebraska, was designated missing in action following a night mission on March 1, 1968. For 57 years, his name stood among the missing. His wife Eileen raised their four children without him. His family grew—grandchildren he would never meet, milestones he would never witness. But they never forgot. On May 23, 2025, the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency notified his family that his remains had been identified and recovered. This Veterans Day week—November 14, 2025—Captain Scheurich will be laid to rest with full military honors at Arlington National Cemetery.

He was 6’4″ tall and somehow squeezed his whole family into a tiny blue Austin-Healey Sprite. He taught himself banjo and accordion, played in a Dixieland band, and built a boat from scratch. He lived life to its fullest. His journey ended far too soon at age 34.

Captain Plumb made it home. Captain Scheurich finally came home. But thousands of their brothers and sisters never will.

These stories remind us: some debts can never be fully repaid. But they can be remembered. They must be remembered.

Welcome home, Captain Scheurich. Your courage endures. Your sacrifice will never be forgotten.

Why Americans Should Care

Freedom doesn’t sustain itself—it depends on those willing to protect it. Whether in Da Nang or the Persian Gulf, in the Pacific or the Arctic, the spirit of America’s sailors remains constant.

These men and women come from every corner of our country—from farming towns and inner cities, from both coasts and everywhere in between. They stand the watch, often without thanks, but always with pride. They miss birthdays and holidays. They sacrifice time with children who grow up in their absence. They do this so the rest of us don’t have to.

As citizens, we owe them more than gratitude—we owe them understanding, support, and the tools they need to succeed. We owe them a Navy that’s ready, maintained, and respected. We owe them leaders who remember that ships don’t sail themselves, and that every capability gap puts sailors at risk.

Let’s Roll

On this Veterans Day, let us honor every sailor—past and present. From the jungles of Vietnam to the carrier decks of today’s fleet, from the Cold War’s silent service to the visible wars of the 21st century, they’ve carried America’s strength across the seas.

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

The watch continues. The mission endures. And America’s sailors deserve our unwavering support.

Let’s roll.

Posted on

Guard the Lanes


Silicon Valley builds the networks. The Navy protects them. Invest to keep them both secure.

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

Sometimes the search for clarity keeps me up long past midnight. That was the case at 3 a.m. this week when I came across a RAND report titled Economic Deterrence in a China Contingency. I hoped it might explain how America could keep the peace without firing a shot. It did—and it didn’t. RAND’s conclusion is clear: economic tools help, but they work only when anchored to credible strength, industrial capacity, and alliances that hold.

Why Americans Should Care
RAND’s analysis shows that sanctions alone can’t deter China from acting against Taiwan. Even coordinated multilateral efforts might shave a few points off China’s GDP, but they won’t change its core objectives. Unilateral U.S. measures could even harm our own economy. That means deterrence isn’t about paperwork or tariffs—it’s about preparation, partnerships, and public will.

When the lanes of trade and data stay open, the world stays stable. If those lanes close, the cost lands on every American household.

Implications for the Navy
For navalists, the message is unmistakable: economic deterrence rides on sea power. If sanctions are to work, allied fleets must protect the supply lines and chokepoints that keep global commerce moving. RAND calls for better modeling of economic impacts; I’d add that we also need better modeling of shipbuilding, repair, and readiness.

Our destroyers, carriers, and submarines aren’t just tools of war—they’re instruments of economic freedom. They guard the lanes.

Implications for Our Allies
RAND emphasizes that sanctions mean little without unified action. The same applies to maritime strength. Japan, Australia, and the U.K. can’t afford hesitation; unity is deterrence. Coordinated naval presence across the Indo-Pacific signals resolve more effectively than any embargo ever could.

A Call to Silicon Valley
This is where the RAND findings connect directly to our call for America’s tech industry. The report warns that markets adapt faster than governments—and that the private sector will make or break national resilience. That’s a polite way of saying: Silicon Valley, you’re in this fight whether you know it or not.

We’re not asking for militarization of innovation. We’re asking for civic responsibility: secure the code, protect the data, and strengthen the digital lanes that mirror the sea lanes our sailors defend. The Navy protects what you build. Now America must invest to keep both secure.

The Bottom Line
Peace depends on readiness. RAND’s economists proved it with data; our sailors prove it every day with sweat and steel. The future will be written not only in shipyards and naval bases, but also in design labs and data centers.

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

Let’s roll.

Posted on

America’s Next Generation of Warships: Drones Built for the Pacific Fight

In Response to the Call for a Stronger Navy

A major announcement this week marks a breakthrough in naval innovation. Blue Water Autonomy, a Boston-based defense startup, confirmed on November 5 that it has successfully tested its long-range autonomous ship technology on the waters off Massachusetts — a first for U.S. industry.

The company shared new images and data from sea trials, demonstrating that its medium-sized drone warship systems can operate reliably in open-ocean conditions, a critical milestone as the Navy looks to expand its reach in the Pacific. A full-scale 150-foot prototype is planned for 2026, advancing the goal of deploying uncrewed ships capable of long-range operations alongside traditional fleets.

Why It Matters

China’s shipyards continue to outproduce America’s by wide margins, while U.S. shipbuilding struggles with delays, labor shortages, and cost overruns. Blue Water Autonomy’s success offers a glimpse of what’s possible when innovation meets urgency. These modular vessels are designed to carry sensors, radars, and missile payloads across more than 6,000 nautical miles, from California to Taiwan and back — a range that redefines how the U.S. could project power across the Indo-Pacific.

Implications for the Navy

The Navy’s future battle force calls for 381 crewed ships and 134 uncrewed vessels, but reaching those numbers requires new approaches. By designing ships that can be mass-produced quickly at smaller shipyards, Blue Water Autonomy’s model could help offset the strain on America’s overstretched industrial base. With a Navy contract already in hand and potential full-scale production in Louisiana shipyards next year, the company’s success represents a tangible step toward restoring U.S. maritime advantage through technology and industrial reform.

Why Americans Should Care

Every advancement in autonomy brings the same truth into sharper focus: deterrence is cheaper than war. Building smarter, more flexible fleets keeps sailors safe, strengthens deterrence, and ensures America remains a global maritime leader. Blue Water Autonomy’s announcement isn’t just about a new vessel — it’s about rebuilding the capacity and confidence of a nation that must once again lead at sea.

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

Let’s roll.

Posted on

China’s Dark Fishing Fleet: What the Studies Say—and What We Should Do

Plain Talk

America’s prosperity rides on open sea lanes and the rule of law. China’s distant-water fishing (DWF) armada and gray-zone tactics put both at risk—from industrial-scale illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing to militia-enabled “enforcement” around disputed waters. Recent studies converge on two points: (1) the problem is broader than fish; (2) deterrence through presence, enforcement, and allied capacity is cheaper than crisis or war. (RAND Corporation)

What the Evidence Shows (Key Findings)

  • Largest fleet, outsized IUU footprint. China fields thousands of DWF vessels active across the Indo-Pacific and Latin America. Analysts document repeated IUU patterns, transshipment opacity, and vessel “darkness” (AIS off). Heritage’s new issue brief details how these logistics networks can intersect with other illicit trades. Treat this as a credible risk pathway, not proof that fentanyl precursors are already moving on trawlers. (The Heritage Foundation)
  • Fishing–militia–coast guard nexus = gray-zone leverage. RAND shows how militia-backed swarms and lawfare help create “facts in the water,” coercing neighbors below the threshold of war and undermining a rules-based order—especially around Second Thomas Shoal. Presence operations alone are “necessary but insufficient.” (RAND Corporation)
  • Crime convergence at sea. Cross-sector research warns that IUU fishing correlates with forced labor, money laundering, and smuggling—illicit markets that transnational criminal organizations exploit. Global Financial Integrity’s 2025 report quantifies the scale of profits across ten crime markets and flags illegal fishing as a persistent revenue stream in weak-governance corridors. (Global Financial Integrity)
  • Enforcement tools exist—and work when used. NOAA has expanded port-state controls: denying U.S. port privileges to vessels from negatively certified nations and engaging bilaterally under the Moratorium Protection Act. These measures raise operational costs for serial offenders and their backers. (NOAA Fisheries)
  • Partners need capacity, data, and doctrine. Stimson’s roadmaps emphasize fusing civilian and maritime-security tools (MDA sensors, legal alignment, port controls) and building partner constabulary forces for day-to-day enforcement in Southeast Asia’s hot spots. (Stimson Center)

Why Americans Should Care

This touches food security (legal fishermen undercut), economic security (coercion distorts trade), and sovereignty (testing U.S. and allied EEZs). It also burdens our sailors and Coast Guardsmen who are asked to manage gray-zone friction without the industrial base or shipyard throughput they need. We’re fiscal conservatives about this: spend smart, fix shipyards, and back people. Deterrence is cheaper than war—but it isn’t free. (RAND Corporation)

What the Studies Recommend (Action Plan We Support)

  • Make presence purposeful—and persistent. RAND advises pairing routine naval presence with tactics that impose costs for gray-zone coercion: tighter public attribution, allied broadcasting of incidents, and treaty updates that reflect gray-zone realities (e.g., with the Philippines). We endorse presence that cues law-enforcement actions—not photo ops. (RAND Corporation)
  • Supercharge Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA). Stimson calls for fusing RF/AIS/EO data to target dark vessels and suspicious rendezvous, then sharing the common operating picture with partners in near-real time. Invest where it bites: chokepoints near allied EEZs and U.S. territories. (Stimson Center)
  • Harden ports—follow the money. NOAA’s port-denial authorities should be used early and often, with public case files that stigmatize offenders and their beneficial owners. Link port denials to targeted sanctions and AML actions that disrupt crewing agencies, processors, and shell companies bankrolling IUU fleets. (NOAA Fisheries)
  • Scale partner enforcement. Expand shiprider agreements, small-craft patrol capacity, and prosecutor-to-prosecutor cooperation so cases don’t die in court. Stimson’s Southeast Asia roadmap offers a practical menu; implementers need training, maintenance money, and spares—not only hulls. (Stimson Center)
  • Plan for crime convergence. GFI’s findings argue for joint task forces that treat IUU as part of a larger illicit-trade ecosystem. Prioritize investigations that tie illegal catch to labor abuse, laundering, and smuggling flows. Measure success by disrupted networks, not boardings alone. (Global Financial Integrity)
  • Message clearly: rules, not rhetoric. RAND recommends more transparent, real-time communications about unlawful behavior and legal basis for actions (UNCLOS, tribunal rulings). That helps allies hold the line and inoculates the public against lawfare narratives. (RAND Corporation)

Implications for the Navy (and Coast Guard)

  • Navy: Provide the high-end backstop and integrated MDA, deter coast-guard intimidation with credible presence, and be ready to surge when gray-zone friction escalates. Use deployments to exercise allied response playbooks and media transparency. (RAND Corporation)
  • Coast Guard: Lead day-to-day maritime law enforcement, port-state controls, and shiprider operations. Expand training and case-building with partner constabularies so interdictions translate into convictions. (NOAA Fisheries)
  • Industrial base: Presence is math. Clear maintenance backlogs, add dry-dock capacity, and streamline parts pipelines so the fleet isn’t deterred by its own yard schedules. (Multiple studies note presence without readiness is a hollow signal.) (RAND Corporation)

What We’re Asking For (Smart, Doable Steps)

  1. Fund allied-linked MDA projects that feed actionable leads to patrol craft—not dashboards that gather dust. (Stimson Center)
  2. Expand port-denial designations and pair them with targeted financial actions against owners and processors tied to IUU. (NOAA Fisheries)
  3. Grow shiprider programs and small-boat sustainment budgets in the Philippines, Vietnam, and Indonesia to raise the daily cost of IUU and harassment. (Stimson Center)
  4. Update alliance documents to reflect gray-zone realities and publicize unlawful incidents fast and with evidence. (RAND Corporation)
  5. Invest in U.S. shipyards and people so presence is persistent, credible, and sustainable. (RAND Corporation)

Our Commitment

Americans for a Stronger Navy exists to educate, connect, and mobilize the public. We believe civic engagement—not insider talk—closes the readiness gap. If you care about safe seas, fair trade, and peace through strength, this is your fight too.

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

Posted on

The Bashi Channel: The 90-Mile Gap That Could Decide a War

Overview
Most Americans haven’t heard of the Bashi Channel—the narrow stretch of water between Taiwan’s southern tip and the northern Philippines—but it’s now one of the most consequential pieces of ocean on Earth. If China ever moves on Taiwan, this is where the attempt to break out to the Pacific—and the effort to stop it—will collide.

The Geography of Power
The Bashi Channel is one of only two deep-water exits from China’s coastal seas into the open Pacific (the other is the Miyako Strait near Okinawa). Control Bashi and you can bottle up much of the PLAN inside the First Island Chain. Lose it and Beijing gains a southern flank on Taiwan and room to maneuver against U.S. and allied forces.

Logistics Decide Outcomes
Just north of the Channel sits Kaohsiung, Taiwan’s largest port and logistical heart. Fuel, bulk cargo, spare parts, and food flow through it. Any attacker would try to seize Kaohsiung and secure sea lanes through Bashi; any defender would fight to keep those routes open. No fuel, no fight.

The Philippines Is Now the Front Line
Across the Channel, the Batanes island group (fewer than 20,000 residents) has become a literal gate across the southern mouth of Bashi. U.S. and Philippine forces are training there to practice sea denial—airlifting in mobile, ground-based anti-ship systems like NMESIS (Naval Strike Missile, >300 km range) and integrating longer-range fires such as the U.S. Army’s Typhon launcher. The idea is simple: make the Channel too dangerous for hostile warships to enter.

How China Sees It
Beijing has repeatedly pushed carrier groups through Bashi to practice breaking into the Philippine Sea. At the same time, it leans on gray-zone pressure against Manila—harassment and intimidation below the threshold of open conflict—to pry the Philippines away from the alliance network that makes “closing the gate” possible. If the Philippines holds firm, the gate stays shut.

The Hidden Front: Undersea Cables
Nearly all trans-Pacific data—finance, commerce, command-and-control—moves via undersea cables, and a heavy share of those routes choke near the Bashi Channel. In a crisis, cable cuts can delay response, blind decision-makers, and sow confusion long before the first headline. Protecting, monitoring, and rapidly repairing these cables is now part of credible deterrence.

Why Americans Should Care
This isn’t “over there.” It’s about whether an authoritarian power can veto freedom of navigation, commerce, and connection in the Western Pacific. It’s about your bank traffic, our allies’ confidence in U.S. commitments, and whether we can prevent a war instead of clean up after one. People in Batanes already live with the consequences—panic buying when exercises begin, evacuation planning for 200,000 Filipino workers in Taiwan. Deterrence is not abstract for them. It shouldn’t be for us.

Implications for the Navy
• Presence over slogans. You can’t surge trust or access. Forward naval and Marine forces, pre-positioned stocks, and real relationships with Manila are non-negotiable.
• Magazines over posters. Deterrence here is fuel, reloads, spares, repair yards, and enough long-range anti-ship weapons to make break-out math ugly.
• Industrial base over intent. Plans assume ships on station, subs forward, Marines supplied, and damage repaired fast. That takes hulls, welders, parts, and allied capacity—not just strategy documents.
• Cables over headlines. Fund seabed awareness, rapid cable repair, and legal authorities to protect critical undersea infrastructure alongside allies.
• Allies over ego. Japan blocks Miyako; the Philippines helps close Bashi; the U.S. backstops both. Invest accordingly.

What We Must Do Now
• Harden and expand access in Northern Luzon and Batanes, with resilient logistics and fuel.
• Accelerate delivery and co-production of long-range precision fires and maritime ISR with Manila and Tokyo.
• Grow sealift, tenders, and expeditionary repair so forces can persist without fixed bases.
• Fund cable-security programs: mapping, patrol, autonomy, and repair ships.
• Communicate clearly to the American public why this matters—and what success looks like: peace through strength, not war by neglect.

Closing
Geography doesn’t change—but power can. The Bashi Channel is the toll gate between the South China Sea and the Pacific. The Philippines sits in the booth. The United States stands beside them. China wants the gate open. Our job is to make sure it stays free—and too costly to force.

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

Posted on

U.S. Senate Hearing on China’s Gray-Zone Tactics: Full Video Now Live

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

As founder of Americans for a Stronger Navy, I’m posting the full hearing video from the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on East Asia & the Pacific on the People’s Republic of China’s gray-zone/IAD tactics—actions that are illegal, coercive, aggressive, and deceptive but stay below the threshold of open war. This is one of the most consequential national security issues of our time. If you want the complete context, watch it here

What This Hearing Covers
This bipartisan session, led by Sen. Chris Coons (Chair) and Sen. Pete Ricketts (Ranking Member), examines how Beijing is reshaping the regional order through maritime intimidation, disinformation, economic coercion, and lawfare. Expert witnesses include:
• Craig Singleton (Foundation for Defense of Democracies)
• Ray Powell (SeaLight maritime transparency initiative)
• Ely Ratner (The Marathon Initiative; former ASD for Indo-Pacific Security Affairs)

Why Americans Should Care
A stable Indo-Pacific underwrites U.S. jobs, supply chains, and everyday commerce—from energy prices to the goods on our shelves. When the rules at sea are bent or broken, our economy feels it. This isn’t distant geopolitics; it’s about freedom of the seas, the arteries of global trade that American families rely on. That’s why this debate is one of the most consequential for American prosperity and security.

Key Themes to Watch For
• Escalation by inches: How “salami-slicing” and constant pressure attempt to create a new normal in the South and East China Seas and around Taiwan.
• Energy as a pressure point: Taiwan’s thin LNG reserves and what resilience looks like (stockpiles, diversified imports, hardened infrastructure).
• Information advantage: Why assertive transparency—exposing incidents quickly and credibly—helps free societies push back.
• Allies matter: How Japan, Australia, the Philippines, and others factor into deterrence—and what coordinated posture and planning should look like.
• U.S. resolve: The need to signal costs early, test Beijing’s risk tolerance, and align policy, industry, and public support at home.

Implications for the Navy
The Navy operates on the front line of these challenges every day. Sustained gray-zone pressure demands presence, readiness, logistics, and shipyard capacity—and public understanding of why those investments matter. Deterrence at sea is cheaper than crisis later.

Implications for Our Allies
Allies are stepping up, but coordination is the difference between piecemeal responses and collective deterrence. Shared planning, interoperable command and control, resilient bases, and joint information efforts are how we keep the peace.

What We’ll Do Next
For convenience, we’ll post clean sectioned clips—opening statements and the strongest Q&A exchanges—so you can grab the segments you need. If you’re a supporter with video skills, volunteer editors are welcome to help accelerate the turnaround.

How You Can Help
Americans for a Stronger Navy exists to educate, connect the dots, and build civic support for the fleet our economy and security require. If you find this valuable, share the video and invite a friend to subscribe. Public engagement is the missing link.

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.

Posted on

America Reaffirms Sea Power: U.S. to ‘Stoutly Defend’ Indo-Pacific Interests

Diplomacy may set the course, but it’s sea power that keeps America’s word.

The United States sent a clear message this week: America’s leadership in the Indo-Pacific is anchored in naval strength. During high-level talks in Malaysia, the U.S. Secretary of Defense told his Chinese counterpart that Washington would “stoutly defend” its interests in the region. The statement came as part of a broader effort to strengthen alliances, including a new ten-year defense framework signed with India to deepen cooperation on security, logistics, and maritime resilience.

These developments unfolded against a backdrop of rising tension in the South China Sea. Malaysia has long protested China’s encroachment into its waters but tends toward quiet diplomacy. The Philippines, by contrast, has faced direct confrontations with Chinese vessels in recent months. China continues to claim nearly the entire South China Sea, overlapping the sovereign waters of Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Taiwan.

The stakes grew even higher after President Trump suggested the United States could resume nuclear testing “on an equal basis” with Russia and China—a statement that unsettled regional leaders gathered for ASEAN meetings. While there is no evidence of imminent testing, Malaysia’s defense minister reminded the world that Southeast Asia is a nuclear weapon–free zone, saying, “we try to avoid anything that can bring great calamity to humankind.” The contrast was sharp: diplomacy rooted in restraint, and deterrence rooted in readiness.

Why Americans Should Care

The Indo-Pacific is not some faraway concern—it’s the main artery of global trade. Nearly two-thirds of the world’s shipping passes through these waters, carrying the energy, food, and goods that fuel the U.S. economy. If those lanes falter, Americans feel it—in prices at the pump, empty shelves, and economic uncertainty. Naval presence ensures stability, deters coercion, and protects the commerce that keeps the world running.

When the Secretary of Defense tells China that the U.S. will defend its interests, he’s not only speaking for Washington; he’s speaking for every American whose livelihood depends on the free flow of goods and information across the sea.

Implications for the Navy

The new U.S.–India defense pact expands the Navy’s reach and resilience. It strengthens logistics, basing access, and cooperative training—critical components of readiness across the Indo-Pacific. It also reinforces deterrence by showing that America’s commitments are backed by capable partners who share the burden of keeping sea lanes open.

Alfred Thayer Mahan’s lesson still holds true: “Sea power rests upon commerce, and commerce upon the sea.” America’s naval statecraft—its ability to shape world affairs through maritime strength—is what gives diplomacy substance. Without credible power at sea, treaties become talk, and deterrence becomes doubt.

Implications for Our Allies

For India, this agreement signals deeper trust and shared purpose. For Malaysia and the Philippines, it offers reassurance amid mounting pressure from Beijing. For ASEAN as a whole, it underscores that the United States remains a committed partner in preserving peace through strength.
At a time when China’s maritime reach grows bolder, America’s reaffirmation of sea power reminds allies that the free world’s unity still matters—and that the Navy remains the backbone of that unity.

Civic Engagement and Responsibility

At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we believe that public understanding is the missing link in national defense. A strong Navy doesn’t just defend territory—it defends prosperity, stability, and credibility. Every American has a role in that mission, from taxpayers who demand accountability to educators who teach civic responsibility. The Navy belongs to the people, and so does the future it protects.

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.

Posted on

Maritime Security and the Shifting Strategic Landscape: Why the Caribbean Still Matters

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

What held true in the 1970s when I served in the U.S. Navy remains true today: the sea—its lanes, chokepoints, and often hidden logistics networks—is where national power meets commerce and security. As founder of Americans for a Stronger Navy, I’ve watched the Caribbean region shift from a legacy theater of interdiction to something far more strategic and volatile. The United States must stay anchored to its enduring maritime interests, while soberly recognizing how the threat environment has evolved. The piece that follows lays out those stakes and changes in straightforward terms.

The security of the United States has always been tied to the sea. From the earliest days of the Republic, American prosperity has depended on open waterways, secure maritime trade routes, and the prevention of hostile powers establishing influence near U.S. shores. These principles are not abstractions. They are the foundation of American national strategy.

Recent naval actions in the Caribbean, including the deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford and the use of lethal force against suspected drug-trafficking vessels, have reopened a debate about the role of the U.S. Navy in the Western Hemisphere. Some see decisive action against destabilizing criminal networks. Others see a dangerous shift away from established maritime law and precedent.

This post does not seek to argue either side. Instead, it lays out the strategic facts that Americans must understand before forming an opinion.

I. Enduring U.S. Interests in the Western Hemisphere

For more than two centuries, American maritime strategy in the Caribbean has centered on three core objectives.

Freedom of Navigation
The Caribbean connects the Atlantic and Pacific trade systems. The majority of U.S. trade, energy transit, and commercial shipping depends on unobstructed access through these waters.

Security of Strategic Chokepoints
The Panama Canal remains a critical artery of global commerce. Any disruption—whether from instability, coercion, or foreign control—would have immediate and far-reaching economic consequences.

Prevention of Adversarial Influence Near U.S. Shores
From the Monroe Doctrine through the Cold War, American policy has consistently sought to prevent rival powers from establishing military or strategic footholds in the region. Today, this concern increasingly centers on the growing presence of the People’s Republic of China in ports, telecommunications, and financial networks throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, China Merchants Port now holds full ownership of Jamaica’s Kingston Freeport Terminal, one of the region’s key shipping hubs, and Beijing has invested billions in dual-use maritime infrastructure across the hemisphere.

These interests are longstanding. They are not partisan. They are structural.

II. The New Strategic Landscape: Crime, State Actors, and Maritime Security

What has changed is the nature of the threat.

The Synthetic Drug Crisis as a National Security Issue
The U.S. is experiencing a mass-casualty public-health emergency, with tens of thousands of deaths annually attributed to synthetic opioids. Major criminal organizations responsible for production and distribution have developed transnational financing, manufacturing, and logistics networks.

The China Connection
Multiple U.S. agencies have identified two critical dependencies.

Chemical Precursors and Equipment
Key components used to manufacture synthetic opioids are sourced overwhelmingly from Chinese firms.

Financial Networks
Laundering operations linked to PRC-based intermediaries move cartel funds through international markets at scale.

Strategic Presence in the Region
Simultaneously, the PRC has invested heavily in dual-use ports, intelligence-collection infrastructure, and economic footholds across the Caribbean and South America. By 2023, direct Chinese investment in island nations reached $3.3 billion, while infrastructure contracts totaled $32 billion.

As one recent illustrative example, the U.S. guided-missile destroyer USS Gravely docked in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago on 26 October 2025 as part of joint exercises with regional partners near Venezuela—a vivid symbol that U.S. maritime posture in the Caribbean is expanding from interdiction to forward presence.

The issue is no longer purely criminal. It is geopolitical.

III. The Question Before the Country: Method, Law, and Strategic Consequence

The central debate is not whether the United States should defend its interests in the region. It should and always has. The debate is how that defense should be conducted.

Argument for Military Kinetic Action
Supporters argue that the scale of the synthetic-drug crisis qualifies as a national-security threat, enabling the use of military force in self-defence. They contend that criminal networks operating with state-linked support may be treated under the laws of armed conflict.

Argument for Maintaining Traditional Maritime Law and Interdiction Precedent
Legal scholars and military ethicists warn that conducting lethal strikes against vessels without warning may erode long-standing maritime norms. Precedent matters. If the U.S. asserts the right to destroy vessels at sea based on national-security claims, adversaries could use the same justification in other contested waters—potentially including the South China Sea.

The strategic risk is that a short-term response to an urgent threat may weaken the very system of maritime stability the United States has spent generations defending.

Conclusion: The Need for Strategic Clarity

The United States cannot afford to lose stability, access, or influence in the Caribbean. The region matters today for the same reasons it mattered in 1823, 1947, and 1989: geography does not change. What has changed is the strategic environment, the nature of violence, and the actors capable of shaping the maritime domain.

As Americans, we now face a difficult question:
How do we defend our interests in the Western Hemisphere without undermining the maritime rules and partnerships that underpin global stability?

The answer requires seriousness, informed public understanding, and national unity.

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.

Posted on

The Fork in the Sea

An Open Letter to Silicon Valley and the American People

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

If you’re confused by all this, you’re not alone. By “this,” I mean the tangle of headlines, policies, and talking points that have defined America’s relationship with China for the past decade — tariffs and trade wars, tech bans and chip controls, speeches about “decoupling,” and endless debates between the so-called hawks and doves in Washington. There’s a lot to unpack. The truth is, most Americans are burnt out. After years of rising prices, supply chain chaos, and political talk about tariffs and trade wars, people are tired of trying to figure out who’s right, who’s bluffing, and who’s actually working for them. They hear about new restrictions on chips, debates over TikTok, or tariffs on Chinese steel — but they don’t always see how any of it helps put food on the table or keeps the country safe.

Here’s the reality: for years, Washington and Wall Street were divided into two camps. The “China doves” believed that trade, investment, and partnership would bring peace—that if we did business together, China would grow more open and the world would grow more stable. The “China hawks”, on the other hand, warned that the Chinese Communist Party was using that same economic engagement to build leverage, dominate industry, and prepare for confrontation.

The tariffs you’ve heard about—the ones that started during the Trump administration and carried through in various forms—were part of that battle. They weren’t just about steel, aluminum, or semiconductors. They were about whether America would keep surrendering its manufacturing and shipbuilding capacity to a regime that has made no secret of its ambitions in the Pacific.

Most Americans didn’t pick a side. They were too busy working, paying taxes, and hoping someone in Washington would finally get it right. But the truth is, both parties let this happen. We were told that engagement meant peace—when in reality, it built dependency. And now, the same country we helped enrich is threatening our allies, our trade routes, and our future.

That’s why voices like Shyam Sankar’s matter. Over the past week, the Palantir CTO and Hudson Institute trustee laid out a hard truth that America can no longer ignore. In his essay “Why the China Doves Are Wrong,” he calls out a generation of business and technology leaders who misread Beijing’s intentions. These so-called “doves” believed engagement and profit could buy peace. They were wrong.

Sankar singles out Nvidia’s CEO, Jensen Huang, who recently said the future “doesn’t have to be all us or them; it could be us and them.” Sankar’s answer is clear: the Chinese Communist Party doesn’t believe that. Its rise depends on America’s decline—and our own money, technology, and industrial retreat helped make that possible.

He’s right. For decades, U.S. capital and know-how flowed into China, building the very industrial and military capacity that now threatens the free world. America’s overreliance on Chinese supply chains—from semiconductors to shipyards—has turned interdependence into a weapon aimed back at us.

Rebuilding our domestic base—our factories, shipyards, and maritime strength—isn’t nostalgia. It’s national security. Sankar’s warning echoes what many of us have been saying for years: hard power and industrial resilience are the foundation of peace.

At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we believe this isn’t just a policy debate. It’s a call to every citizen. This moment demands that Americans—not just policymakers—take responsibility, stand together, and act before it’s too late.

The Tide Is Turning

For years, Americans for a Stronger Navy has been saying what Shyam Sankar just put into print: we didn’t lose ground to China overnight—it happened one contract, one shipment, one investment at a time. When someone from inside Silicon Valley finally says it out loud, it means the conversation is shifting.

This isn’t about pointing fingers. It’s about facing facts. The same innovation hubs that built the digital future also hollowed out America’s industrial core. And now, even the insiders see it: the CCP isn’t looking for balance—it’s looking for dominance. Sankar’s words confirm what we’ve been warning all along.

Sankar didn’t pull punches. He wrote:

“The U.S. is partially to blame for turning China into a juggernaut. American companies have invested vast sums over decades to build China’s industrial base. … Chinese military contractors securitize weapons contracts in global capital markets, meaning that American pension funds and 401(k) investors have financed missiles aimed at U.S. ships.”

That’s the uncomfortable truth. We financed the very threat we now face. While many Americans were working hard and trusting their savings to grow, their own retirement dollars were indirectly funding China’s military expansion.

This isn’t a partisan issue or a Wall Street issue—it’s an American issue. And fixing it means facing it head-on.

Call to Silicon Valley and the Financial Sector

If there’s one thing Americans know how to do, it’s rebuild. We did it after the Great Depression, after World War II, and after every storm that’s hit this country. But this time, the rebuilding must start with those who helped hollow out the core—our own financial and tech elites.

Silicon Valley didn’t mean to weaken America. Wall Street didn’t set out to fund our rivals. But good intentions don’t excuse bad outcomes. The truth is, while innovators were chasing the next big breakthrough, and investors were chasing the next big return, our shipyards rusted, our supply chains moved offshore, and our industrial base became dependent on the very system now aligned against us.

That’s why this open letter isn’t just a warning—it’s an invitation. We need the same creativity, drive, and innovation that built the digital world to help rebuild the physical one. The next frontier isn’t in code; it’s in steel, in sensors, in shipyards, and in the men and women who keep the seas open and the nation free.

We’re calling on America’s tech and finance leaders to put their talent and capital back to work here at home—where it matters most. Invest in shipbuilding. Partner with maritime innovators. Reimagine logistics, automation, and infrastructure. Help America regain the ability to build, move, and defend.

Because the same companies that helped wire the world now have a moral obligation to help secure it. And if we do this right, we won’t just restore our strength—we’ll rebuild trust between Main Street, Wall Street, and the American people.

Closing: The Hard Truth and the Hope

The American people have every right to feel weary. We’ve been told for decades that global integration would make the world safer, that cheap goods would make us richer, and that innovation alone would keep us ahead. But somewhere along the way, we lost sight of something simple and sacred—the idea that America must be able to stand on her own.

Shyam Sankar reminded us that while our leaders talked about partnership, the Chinese Communist Party was planning for dominance. And he’s right—we built part of that machine. But now we have a chance to build something better: a stronger, more united, and more self-reliant America.

That’s why this isn’t just a letter to policymakers—it’s a letter to all of us. To the shipbuilder and the software engineer. To the machinist and the venture capitalist. To every citizen whose pension, paycheck, or passion helped shape this nation. The future of American power depends on our willingness to face what’s broken and fix it together.

Rebuilding our shipyards and restoring our maritime strength isn’t about preparing for war—it’s about securing peace. It’s about ensuring that no foreign power can hold our economy, our sailors, or our future hostage. It’s about remembering that deterrence isn’t aggression—it’s readiness.

So yes, Americans are tired. We’ve been misled, overextended, and divided. But fatigue is not failure—it’s a signal. A signal that it’s time to get serious, to get focused, and to get back to work.

That’s what Americans for a Stronger Navy stands for—peace through strength, transparency through accountability, and unity through shared responsibility. Together, we can rebuild the strength that keeps us free.

Let’s roll.