Peace Through Strength – Community Driven – Membership Supported
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.
Naval historian Trent Hone recently published a thoughtful piece explaining why the U.S. Navy no longer builds battleships—and why, from a warfighting standpoint, it probably shouldn’t.
Hone’s argument is straightforward: the operational logic that once justified battleships has been obsolete for decades. Big guns gave way to aircraft. Aircraft gave way to missiles. Today’s naval combat rewards dispersion, networking, and numbers—not massive armored hulls.
That assessment is widely shared among naval professionals.
But Hone makes a second, more subtle point that deserves more attention: battleships have always carried symbolic power far beyond their military utility. They were never just weapons. They were national statements—about strength, reach, prestige, and ambition.
That symbolic role has not disappeared.
And that’s where the conversation gets interesting.
Two Serious Perspectives, One Shared Conclusion
Hone is a respected scholar and strategist. He holds the Marine Corps University Foundation Chair of Strategic Studies and has written extensively about how naval doctrine evolves with technology and threat environments. His view is clear: building a new battleship today would produce a smaller, less resilient, less lethal fleet than the alternatives.
Others, however, approach the issue from a different angle.
Defense analyst Brent Sadler, for example, has argued that what matters most is not any specific platform but the urgent need to rebuild American sea power at scale. His emphasis is on fleet size, industrial capacity, and the ability to sustain combat operations over time. For Sadler, bold ideas—even controversial ones—are useful if they force the public to confront how far the Navy has fallen behind its global responsibilities.
These two views may differ on specifics, but they converge on something essential:
America needs a stronger Navy.
Not symbolically. Not nostalgically. Structurally.
The Real Problem Isn’t Battleships—It’s Public Understanding
The deeper issue raised by this debate is not whether we should build a new class of battleships. It’s that the American public has lost touch with what sea power actually means.
Most Americans don’t see the Navy at work. They don’t see trade routes. They don’t see chokepoints. They don’t see logistics. They don’t see undersea cables. They don’t see maintenance backlogs. They don’t see shipyard fragility. They don’t see attrition math.
But they do recognize symbols.
Battleships, like aircraft carriers, are easy to understand. They look powerful. They feel powerful. They communicate strength in a way spreadsheets and logistics diagrams do not.
That doesn’t make them good warfighting solutions—but it does make them powerful communication tools.
And the Navy has a communication problem.
A stronger Navy is not only a military challenge. It is a civic one—requiring public understanding, long-term commitment, and new thinking about how we fund and sustain national security.
Why Americans Should Care
The U.S. Navy is not just a military force. It is the invisible foundation of modern American life.
It protects global trade. It stabilizes energy flows. It keeps shipping lanes open. It reassures allies. It deters coercion. It underwrites economic stability.
When the Navy weakens, these systems become fragile.
That fragility doesn’t show up overnight—but it shows up eventually.
Implications for the Navy
Modern naval power is no longer about a few dominant platforms. It is about:
A stronger Navy is not just a bigger Navy—it is a Navy that can take losses and keep fighting.
That requires more ships, more shipyards, more trained sailors, and more public support.
Implications for Our Allies
Allies do not just look at U.S. statements. They look at U.S. capacity.
They ask: Can America show up? Can America stay? Can America sustain? Can America adapt?
A strong Navy reassures allies. A hollow Navy invites testing.
Where We Stand
At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we are not here to pick winners in platform debates. Reasonable people will disagree about hulls, missiles, drones, and fleet composition.
But most serious voices agree on one thing:
The Navy is stretched too thin. The industrial base is fragile. The fleet is too small for its mission set. And the public does not understand what’s at stake.
That is the gap we exist to close.
Not through nostalgia. Not through fear. But through education.
Because a democracy cannot sustain a strong Navy if it does not understand why it needs one.
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.
Two U.S. Navy destroyers just spent weeks tracking, shadowing, and supporting the seizure of a runaway oil tanker in the North Atlantic.
This was not a combat mission. It was not a press event. It was not symbolic.
It was enforcement.
USS Bulkeley (DDG-84) and USS Paul Ignatius (DDG-117) helped support an operation that ultimately boarded and seized a Russian-flagged tanker that had been actively evading authorities across thousands of miles of open ocean.
This is what maritime power looks like in 2026. And most Americans never see it.
What Happened The vessel—initially named Bella 1—was operating as part of what U.S. officials describe as a “dark fleet,” a network of tankers designed to evade sanctions through deceptive practices.
Over the course of its escape, the tanker: • Changed its name • Reflagged as Russian • Painted a new national tricolor on its hull • Altered its identity • Evaded a U.S. naval blockade • Attempted to disappear into the Atlantic
After weeks of pursuit, U.S. forces—supported by Navy destroyers, Coast Guard assets, special operations forces, and allied surveillance—seized the vessel in waters between the UK and Iceland.
The UK provided support. NATO was not involved.
This was a multinational, multi-domain enforcement operation.
Not war. Not peace. Enforcement.
Why This Matters Sanctions do not enforce themselves.
Every time a government announces new sanctions, it implies something most people never think about:
Someone has to physically enforce them.
That means: • Ships • Crews • Surveillance • Boarding teams • Legal frameworks • Sustainment • Allies • Weeks of continuous presence
Sanctions without maritime power are just words on paper.
The Rise of the Dark Fleet So-called “dark fleet” vessels use identity laundering to move oil, weapons, and sanctioned goods across the world.
They: • Reflag repeatedly • Change names • Operate under shell companies • Transmit false data • Disable tracking systems • Exploit legal gray zones
This is modern maritime gray-zone warfare.
And the U.S. Navy is now its primary counterforce.
Attrition Isn’t Just Combat A Navy captain once wrote: “Wars at sea are wars of attrition.”
What most people miss is that attrition doesn’t only happen during wars.
A reader recently reached out with a thoughtful question. After seeing renewed debate around the Jones Act — including critiques from respected analysts and commentators — they wanted to understand how that debate fits with our advocacy for the SHIPS Act and the recently proposed Strategic Seas Act.
It’s a fair question. And it reflects a broader challenge: America’s maritime conversation has become fragmented, emotional, and often disconnected from strategic reality.
Here’s the clearest way to understand it.
The Core Issue Isn’t One Law — It’s the System
America’s maritime problem did not emerge because of one bad law or one bad decision. It emerged because policy, industry, workforce, logistics, and security drifted out of alignment over decades.
The Jones Act, the SHIPS Act, and the Strategic Seas Act each address different layers of that system. Confusing them — or pitting them against one another — obscures the real challenge.
What the Jones Act Actually Does (and Does Not Do)
The Jones Act governs domestic coastwise and inland shipping — cargo moved between U.S. ports along rivers, coasts, and internal waterways.
Its intent is to preserve:
A U.S. maritime workforce
Domestic shipbuilding and repair capacity
U.S. control over domestic trade routes
It does not regulate international or blue-water shipping.
Critics are right about one thing: the Jones Act did not prevent the collapse of America’s international commercial fleet. That collapse happened outside its scope — driven by tax policy, financing disadvantages, flag-of-convenience practices, and long-term neglect.
That critique is legitimate. But it’s also incomplete.
Why the Jones Act Debate Isn’t Decisive
For years, serious naval professionals and analysts have debated whether the Jones Act is a national security asset or a liability. That debate is not new, and it has often been conducted in good faith.
What has changed is the strategic environment.
Recent analysis has reminded us of a hard truth: wars at sea are wars of attrition. Losses come fast. Ships, crews, and shipyards lost early in a conflict cannot be replaced in time to affect the outcome.
That means no maritime policy — Jones Act included — can be judged solely by cost or efficiency in peacetime. The real question is whether the overall system can absorb loss and sustain combat before a war begins.
What the SHIPS Act Is Designed to Fix
The SHIPS Act addresses a failure the Jones Act was never designed to solve: the collapse of U.S.-flag international shipping and sealift capacity.
Its focus includes:
Rebuilding a viable U.S.-flag fleet in international trade
Expanding and stabilizing the pool of credentialed U.S. mariners
Strengthening sealift capacity the Navy depends on in wartim
Restoring American relevance in global maritime commerce
This is where America’s absence has become a strategic vulnerability — and where reform is long overdue.
Why We Proposed the Strategic Seas Act
Even rebuilding ships and mariners is no longer enough.
Modern global commerce and advanced technologies create maritime security risks at scale — from congested sea lanes and port dependencies to undersea cables and logistics chokepoints. When those risks materialize, the burden falls almost entirely on the U.S. Navy and the American taxpayer.
The Strategic Seas Act starts from a simple principle: strategic risk should be managed and shared, not externalized.
It focuses on:
Accountability for maritime risk creation
Protection of ports, shipyards, sea lanes, and undersea infrastructure
Aligning commercial innovation with maritime and naval security
Closing the gap between private gain and public security cost
This is not about shipping rates. It’s about national responsibility in a contested maritime world.
Why We Don’t Lead With the Jones Act Debate
The Jones Act debate often becomes ideological. The most urgent maritime failures today are strategic and systemic.
Our priority is:
Whether America can move and sustain forces at scale
Whether we have the mariners to crew ships in crisis
Whether our industrial base can repair and regenerate under pressure
That doesn’t make the Jones Act irrelevant. It makes it one part of a much larger system.
Why Americans Should Care
Most Americans never see ships — but their food, fuel, medicine, data, and livelihoods move by sea. When maritime policy fails, the consequences show up quietly: fragile supply chains, higher prices, longer crises, and greater military risk.
Maritime strength is not abstract. It shapes daily life.
Implications for the Navy
The Navy cannot surge ships, mariners, or shipyards after a war starts. Civilian maritime capacity is not separate from naval readiness — it underpins it. Planning without industrial and workforce reality invites failure.
Implications for Our Allies
Allies measure credibility by endurance. A stronger U.S. maritime system reduces dangerous dependence on adversaries and turns alliances into real, usable capacity — not just promises.
Closing Thought
The real question isn’t whether one maritime law should be defended or repealed.
The question is whether the United States intends to remain a serious maritime nation — prepared before the first shot is fired, not scrambling after ships are lost.
That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
Americans Support a Strong Navy — and Expect Readiness to Match
While public debate and media commentary continue, Americans for a Stronger Navy looks under the hood — at what Americans are actually saying and feeling when asked directly about naval strength and readiness.
The 2025 Reagan National Defense Survey offers a rare opportunity to move past headlines and examine public sentiment itself. Rather than reacting to daily news cycles, this analysis focuses on the underlying signals Americans are sending about national security, deterrence, and the role of naval power in an increasingly uncertain world.
What Americans Are Saying
The survey shows strong and durable support for military strength. Eighty-seven percent of Americans believe military superiority matters, and seventy-one percent believe global peace depends on American strength. A majority believe the United States maintains superiority at sea.
Naval power remains central to how Americans think about deterrence, stability, and global leadership. This support is not tied to a single region or conflict. It reflects a broader expectation that the United States should retain the capability to protect its interests, allies, and maritime commerce.
The Confidence Gap
Alongside that support, the data reveals unease. Only forty-nine percent of Americans believe the U.S. military could win a major war overseas, and just forty-five percent believe it can effectively deter foreign aggression.
This gap does not reflect opposition to the military. It reflects concern about whether readiness, capacity, and sustainability are keeping pace with the responsibilities Americans expect the Navy to carry. The difference between support and confidence is one of the most important signals in the survey.
Capacity Matters — and Americans Know It
Two findings stand out. Sixty-eight percent of Americans support increased investment in shipbuilding and manufacturing. Ninety-four percent believe the United States needs greater domestic manufacturing capacity.
Americans appear to understand something fundamental: naval strength is not defined solely by ships at sea, but by the industrial systems that build, repair, crew, and sustain them over time. Shipyards, skilled workers, suppliers, dry docks, and logistics networks are not abstract concepts. They are the difference between plans on paper and forces that are ready when needed.
What the Survey Reveals About Deterrence
The survey also sheds light on how Americans view deterrence in practice, particularly in the Indo-Pacific.
When asked about Taiwan, seventy-seven percent of Americans say it is important for the United States to help defend the island against Chinese aggression. If China were to invade Taiwan, sixty percent say they would support committing U.S. forces to Taiwan’s defense, up from forty-eight percent the prior year. Majorities also support additional measures designed to deter aggression and strengthen regional stability, including deploying more U.S. military assets to the region, sending additional military equipment to Taiwan, imposing economic sanctions, and establishing air and maritime control measures.
These responses do not reflect a desire for conflict. They reflect an expectation that deterrence must be credible. Americans appear to understand that commitments only matter if the United States has the capacity to back them up.
Deterrence at sea is not abstract. It depends on available ships, trained crews, maintained platforms, secure logistics, and resilient industrial support. When Americans express support for defending allies and preserving stability in the Indo-Pacific, they are implicitly expressing expectations about readiness — and about whether U.S. sailors have the tools they need to do their jobs effectively and safely.
From Public Sentiment to Public Support
Americans for a Stronger Navy is politically neutral. We do not support parties or candidates. But we are not neutral on readiness.
Our role is to articulate what Americans are saying and feeling — and, when appropriate, to state clearly when legislation aligns with those expressed expectations.
Based on the survey data and the readiness challenges it highlights, Americans for a Stronger Navy supports the SHIPS for America Act. This support is grounded in alignment, not politics.
Why We Support the SHIPS Act
The SHIPS for America Act does not dictate naval strategy or force employment. Its relevance lies in strengthening the foundations naval readiness depends on.
It addresses shipbuilding and repair capacity by expanding and stabilizing the yards that build and maintain naval vessels. It supports maritime workforce development by growing the skilled labor base the Navy cannot surge in a crisis. It strengthens industrial resilience and surge capacity by reinforcing the commercial and auxiliary maritime sector that supports naval logistics and sealift. And it promotes long-term sustainability by reducing boom-and-bust cycles that drive cost overruns, schedule delays, and readiness shortfalls.
What This Endorsement Is — and Is Not
Our support for the SHIPS Act is not partisan. It does not imply endorsement of every provision, and it does not replace the need for oversight, accountability, or debate.
It reflects a judgment that strengthening the maritime industrial base aligns with what Americans are asking for — and is necessary to close the confidence gap the survey reveals. If Americans expect deterrence to be credible, then policy should strengthen the capacity that makes deterrence real.
The Signal Americans Are Sending
The survey does not prescribe policy, but it does define expectations.
Americans are saying they value naval strength, deterrence over conflict, readiness that matches responsibility, and domestic capacity that sustains credibility. When expectations and outcomes align, confidence grows. When they drift apart, trust erodes.
Our role is to surface that signal clearly. The data speaks. Alignment is the challenge.
The 2027 Countdown: What the Pentagon’s Delayed China Report Reveals
Bill Cullifer, Founder
Hello friends, and fellow supporters of America’s Navy. Bill Cullifer here with Americans for a Stronger Navy.
On December 23rd, the Pentagon released its annual China Military Power Report. This assessment had been missing all year while Congress debated budgets. Now that it’s here, we understand the delay. The report contains the most direct warning yet: China expects to be able to fight and win a war over Taiwan by the end of 2027. That’s less than three years away.
Why Taiwan Matters to You
As Elbridge Colby, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, wrote in TIME Magazine:
“Defending far-off Taiwan and our allies… is rooted in a practical, hard-nosed assessment of what is in Americans’ concrete economic and political interests. It is about defending Americans’ security, liberties, and prosperity from a very real, and in terms of China’s gigantic scale, unprecedented danger.”
Your Phone. Your Car. Your Hospital Equipment.
Taiwan produces 60% of the world’s advanced semiconductors. A Chinese blockade or invasion would cost the global economy at least one trillion dollars per year.
What the Pentagon Report Reveals
Nuclear Expansion: Stockpile reached 600+ in 2024, on track to exceed 1,000 by 2030.
Space Surveillance: 359+ satellites now track U.S. ships in near real-time.
Cyber Weapons: Operations like Volt Typhoon have burrowed into U.S. power grids for wartime sabotage.
Taiwan Pressure: 3,067 air incursions in 2024—nearly double the previous year.
The Timeline Should Terrify You
The Western Pacific is becoming a “Kill Zone.” As one naval officer put it: “We no longer build the Navy the Navy needs. We build the Navy the accountants will tolerate.”
America is not outmatched; we are under-mobilized. The decisions we make in 2025 determine whether deterrence holds in 2027. Visit StrongerNavy.org to request your copy of our 2025 U.S. Navy Year in Review.
Thank you for caring about America’s maritime strength.
Fair winds and following seas,
Bill Cullifer Founder, Americans for a Stronger Navy StrongerNavy.org
Pete Hegseth’s 2024 The War on Warriors has ignited fierce debate across America. As I write this, decorated veterans like Senator Mark Kelly and Pete Hegseth—both men who’ve served with distinction—are in public conflict.
Americans for a Stronger Navy is not going to adjudicate those battles.
What started as an effort to understand Pete Hegseth’s perspective through his book and interviews evolved into something else entirely. As I watched his past interviews and listened to the three-hour conversation with Shawn Ryan, I found myself repeatedly pulled back to our core mission: the urgent need for a Navy capable of deterring China and defending American interests.
While I agree with many of Hegseth’s principles about building a stronger fighting force and improving resources for veterans, I also recognize that his book and interviews reflect a specific moment in time—the period leading up to and following publication. The debates they’ve sparked are important, and good people disagree on the solutions.
But while we debate internally, China doesn’t pause its carrier production.
Our lane is clear: advocating for the naval power necessary to protect America’s future. While others debate military culture, we’re compelled to focus on what both Shawn Ryan and Pete Hegseth spent significant time discussing in their three-hour interview: the existential threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party.
Our veterans deserve better care than they’re receiving. When the VA is failing the warriors who already served, spending defense dollars on elective procedures while vets wait months for basic care is unconscionable. This isn’t a cultural position—it’s a resource management position. Every dollar matters when China is building carriers faster than we can.
With that stated, let’s focus on what should unite all Americans regardless of political persuasion: “China has us by the balls,” says Hegseth. And by our best estimates, we’re running out of time to do something about it.
The Strategic Reality
The most critical parts of the Hegseth-Ryan interview aren’t about DEI or pronouns. They’re about strategic vulnerability to an adversary that’s been playing the long game while we’ve been distracted.
Here’s Pete Hegseth’s unvarnished assessment:
“When they’ve already got us by the balls economically, with our grid, culturally, with elite capture going on around the globe, microchips, everything—why do they want Taiwan? They want to corner the market completely on the technological future. We can’t even drive our cars without the stuff we need out of China these days. They have a full-spectrum, long-term view of not just regional but global domination, and we have our heads up our asses.”
Here’s the short 50 second YouTube clip, watch it for yourself.
Let’s break down what “by the balls” actually means:
Economic Leverage: Our Grid is Their Weapon
China produces all of our electrical transformers, solar panels, and wind turbines. Not most. All. They’re already embedded in our power grid infrastructure. FBI Director Christopher Wray has publicly confirmed Chinese operatives have pre-positioned malware in our electrical grid and water treatment facilities.
As Wray stated, “the dashboard is flashing red and smoking.”
Think about what this means: In the opening hours of a Taiwan conflict, before a single shot is fired at a carrier strike group, China could potentially darken American cities, shut down water systems, and cripple our ability to mobilize.
Our Navy can’t sortie from ports without power. Our sailors can’t fight if their families are in crisis at home.
Naval Asymmetry: We’re Losing the Numbers Game
Hegseth reveals what Pentagon insiders know but rarely admit publicly:
“In the past 10-15 years, the Pentagon has a perfect record in all of its war games against China. We lose every time.”
Every. Single. Time.
Why? Multiple factors:
Numerical Inferiority: China’s Navy now exceeds the U.S. Navy in sheer hull numbers. They’re building aircraft carriers and advanced destroyers at a pace we cannot match with our current industrial base.
Hypersonic Missiles: China has developed hypersonic weapons specifically designed to defeat our carrier strike groups. As Hegseth notes: “If 15 hypersonic missiles can take out our 10 aircraft carriers in the first 20 minutes of a conflict, what does that look like?”
Our primary tool of power projection—the carrier strike group—may be obsolete on Day One of a Pacific conflict.
Supply Chain Dependency: When Shawn Ryan mentions defensive technologies like directed EMP weapons (from companies like Epirus) that can counter drone swarms, even he expresses concern: “I don’t know if anything’s coming from China. I don’t know what other weapons we have and what’s manufactured in China or what IP they’ve stolen from us.”
We can’t even be certain our most advanced defensive systems aren’t compromised by Chinese components or stolen intellectual property.
The Microchip Chokepoint: Taiwan is Everything
Why does China want Taiwan? Not reunification nostalgia. Taiwan is the beating heart of the global economy and modern civilization.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) doesn’t just produce “the majority” of advanced microchips—it produces over 90% of the world’s most advanced semiconductors. These aren’t chips for smartphones and laptops. These are the chips that power:
Every advanced weapon system – F-35s, guided missiles, radar systems, naval combat systems
Every AI system – From civilian applications to military command and control
Every modern vehicle – Cars, trucks, tractors, commercial aircraft
Every communications system – Cell towers, satellites, internet infrastructure
Every financial system – Banking, stock markets, payment processing
If China controls Taiwan, China controls the technological backbone of human civilization.
This isn’t hyperbole. During the COVID chip shortage, automobile production halted worldwide. Factories sat idle. Dealership lots emptied. That was a supply chain hiccup. Imagine China with a monopoly, deciding who gets chips and who doesn’t.
American weapon systems would depend on Chinese approval for components.American hospitals would need Chinese permission to operate.American banks would require Chinese consent to process transactions.
This is why Taiwan isn’t just another regional territorial dispute. Taiwan is the strategic fulcrum upon which the entire 21st century will turn.
And China knows it. That’s why they’re building a military specifically designed to take Taiwan before we can effectively respond. That’s why every hypersonic missile, every carrier, every amphibious assault ship they build is calculated toward this single objective.
Salt Typhoon: They’re Already Inside
In late 2024, U.S. intelligence agencies revealed that Chinese hackers operating under the codename “Salt Typhoon” had achieved deep, persistent access to American telecommunications infrastructure.
Not a probe. Not a test. Deep, persistent access.
They’re inside AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile networks. They can intercept phone calls, text messages, internet traffic. They’ve targeted senior government officials, military personnel, critical infrastructure operators.
This isn’t theoretical preparation for future conflict. This is active intelligence collection happening right now.
Combined with their penetration of our electrical grid (FBI Director Wray’s “flashing red dashboard”), their control over our transformer supply chains, their dominance in 5G infrastructure, and their positioning in our water treatment systems—China has achieved the infiltration necessary to paralyze America without firing a shot.
When the Taiwan crisis comes—and it will come—our response will be shaped by what China has already positioned to cripple us from within.
The Indo-Pacific: Where Our Future Will Be Decided
The Indo-Pacific region isn’t one theater among many. It’s THE theater where American prosperity and security will be won or lost.
Consider the stakes:
Economic: Over 60% of global maritime trade flows through the South China Sea. $3.4 trillion in trade passes through the Taiwan Strait annually. If China controls these waters, they control global commerce.
Alliance Structure: Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, India—our entire network of Pacific allies depends on American commitment. If we cannot or will not defend Taiwan, why would anyone trust American security guarantees?
Resources: Critical minerals, rare earth elements, advanced manufacturing—the Indo-Pacific is the industrial and technological center of the 21st century. Ceding this region to Chinese dominance means accepting permanent economic subservience.
Naval Power Projection: If China controls the First Island Chain (Japan-Taiwan-Philippines), American naval power is effectively contained to Pearl Harbor and San Diego. Our ability to operate globally collapses.
This isn’t about the military-industrial complex wanting another war. This is about the economic and security future of our children and grandchildren.
This is Nothing Like Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan
I understand the skepticism. Both Pete Hegseth and Shawn Ryan expressed it in their interview—they’re both “recovering neocons” who supported Iraq and Afghanistan and now recognize those were strategic disasters.
Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were wars of choice built on questionable premises:
Nation-building missions in societies we didn’t understand
No vital national interests at stake
No clear victory conditions
Counterinsurgency in impossible terrain against irregular forces
Decades-long occupations with no end state
Trillions spent with nothing to show for it
The potential Taiwan conflict is fundamentally different:
1. Vital National Interests: Taiwan semiconductors aren’t optional. Modern civilization depends on them. This isn’t about abstract concepts like “democracy promotion”—it’s about maintaining access to the technology that runs everything from hospitals to power grids.
2. Deterrence, Not Occupation: We don’t need to occupy Chinese territory or rebuild their society. We need to make the cost of taking Taiwan prohibitively high. That’s classic deterrence, not nation-building.
3. Conventional Warfare: This would be state-on-state naval and air conflict where American technological advantages matter, not counterinsurgency in urban terrain where they don’t.
4. Clear Objectives: Maintain Taiwan’s de facto independence and semiconductor production. That’s it. No “hearts and minds,” no transforming societies, no endless occupation.
5. Alliance Structure: We’d fight alongside Japan, Australia, potentially South Korea and others with shared interests. This isn’t America alone trying to remake a foreign society.
6. Existential Stakes: If China controls Taiwan’s chips, they control the global economy. If they demonstrate American security guarantees are worthless, our entire alliance system collapses. If they dominate the Indo-Pacific, American prosperity ends.
The lesson from Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan isn’t “never fight wars.” It’s “don’t fight stupid wars based on lies about stupid objectives in stupid ways.”
Deterring China from taking Taiwan is none of those things. It’s the most strategically vital mission American naval power faces.
This is about ensuring our grandchildren grow up in a free, prosperous America—not one subordinated to Chinese Communist Party dictates because we couldn’t muster the will to maintain our position when it mattered most.
Economic Warfare: The Crypto Scam Example
Hegseth and Ryan discuss an underreported aspect of Chinese strategic operations: systematic economic extraction through crypto scams.
Chinese operatives run sophisticated confidence schemes:
Approach target with small crypto investment opportunity ($15,000)
Deliver real returns quickly ($45,000) to build trust
Escalate to larger investments ($200,000)
When target invests life savings ($1,000,000+), disappear with everything
This isn’t individual crime—it’s organized economic warfare to extract American wealth before potential conflict.
Ryan’s local sheriff’s department just tracked one operator across multiple states to Las Vegas. “It’s happening all over the place,” Ryan notes.
Cultural Infiltration: TikTok and Beyond
As Hegseth observes: “We let in TikTok where they can trans our kids and they don’t trans their kids.”
Whether you agree with his framing or not, the strategic point is valid: China operates TikTok to influence American youth while banning it domestically. That’s not cultural exchange—that’s information warfare.
The CCP understands something we’ve forgotten: The side that controls what the next generation believes controls the future.
The Long Game: China’s Strategic Patience
Here’s what separates China’s approach from ours:
China’s Strategy:
Multi-decade planning horizon
Systematic IP theft and technology acquisition
Economic positioning for future conflict
Military buildup specifically designed to defeat the United States
Letting China manufacture our critical infrastructure
Outsourcing our industrial base for quarterly profit margins
Assuming the international rules-based order will protect us
Internal political warfare consuming our attention
As Hegseth puts it: “China is playing chess while we’re arguing about pronouns.”
The Timing Question: When Will They Strike?
Both Ryan and Hegseth wrestle with a critical strategic question: When will China make its move on Taiwan?
Ryan’s analysis is chilling:
“If I was them, I would put in the scenario into war games and see what the probability is that we’re going to come out on top. I wouldn’t make a move until after this election because they know what’s going on. They see it. Nobody made any weird moves under Trump that I’m aware of. As soon as they got in—Russia went after Ukraine, tensions with Taiwan getting stronger, the border, Israel—everybody that wanted to make a chess move on the board did it as soon as Trump was out of office.”
“If I was them, I would make my move the first day that Trump is in office because that would be the weakest point before we start to see an incline. And if Kamala gets in there, I would wait another four years, just let it keep declining, and that would just let this place get as weak as it possibly can, and then I would pull the trigger.”
Think about that logic:
China runs the scenarios through their war game simulations
They update the probability matrices with current data
Every year we decline, their probability of victory increases
They wait until the optimal moment
The clock is ticking. And we’re not on it.
What This Means for the Navy
Everything Hegseth discusses in the Army context applies with even greater urgency to naval forces:
Recruitment Crisis: The Navy can’t crew the ships we have, let alone the fleet we need. If patriotic families from military traditions are second-guessing service, where do future sailors come from?
Retention Problems: Experienced petty officers and junior officers are leaving. Institutional knowledge walks out the door with them.
Technical Expertise Gap: Modern naval warfare requires STEM-educated personnel. Our education system is producing activists, not engineers.
Readiness vs. Rhetoric: Hegseth mentions sailors in the DMZ in Korea reporting they have “basically enough artillery for 3 days—the rest of it’s in Ukraine.” How many naval munitions have been drawn down? How many maintenance dollars diverted?
Close Quarters Reality: Destroyers, cruisers, submarines—these platforms require maximum unit cohesion in confined spaces over extended deployments. Any policy that complicates that dynamic affects operational capability.
Industrial Base Collapse: We can’t build ships fast enough. China launches a new carrier while we’re still arguing about shipyard contracts.
Why the Navy? Why Not Just “Military” Generally?
Americans for a Stronger Navy focuses specifically on naval power for a fundamental reason: The China challenge is inherently a maritime problem.
Consider the geography:
70% of Earth’s surface is water. The Indo-Pacific theater is defined by vast ocean expanses, island chains, and sea lanes. This isn’t the deserts of Iraq or the mountains of Afghanistan—it’s a maritime domain where naval power is decisive.
Taiwan is an island 100 miles from mainland China. Any conflict over Taiwan is fundamentally an amphibious assault/defense scenario. China must cross water. We must defend across water. The Air Force matters, the Army matters, but the Navy is the primary deterrent.
The First Island Chain is maritime. Japan, Okinawa, Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia—the strategic barrier that contains Chinese power projection is a series of islands. Controlling this chain means controlling maritime access. Losing it means Chinese naval dominance from the South China Sea to the Pacific.
Global trade flows through water. Over 90% of global trade moves by ship. The South China Sea handles $3.4 trillion annually through the Taiwan Strait alone. If China controls these sea lanes, they control global commerce. You can’t secure maritime trade with land forces.
Distance matters. The nearest U.S. territory to China is Guam—3,000 miles from California. You can’t project power across the Pacific with the Army. The Navy is how America reaches the theater. The Navy is how we sustain operations. The Navy is how we defend allies. Without naval dominance, we’re not even in the game.
China understands this. That’s why they’re building the world’s largest navy. Not the world’s largest army (they already had that). They’re specifically building carriers, destroyers, submarines, amphibious assault ships—naval power to challenge American naval power.
They’ve studied American carrier strike groups and designed hypersonic missiles to sink them. They’ve built artificial islands in the South China Sea to extend their naval reach. They’re developing a blue-water navy capable of operating globally.
The Indo-Pacific challenge is a naval challenge. China’s threat is a naval threat. Our response must be naval.
That’s why Americans for a Stronger Navy exists. We’re not generically “pro-military.” We’re specifically focused on the domain where the 21st century’s decisive competition will be won or lost: the sea.
The Resource Allocation Question
Here’s where Americans for a Stronger Navy takes a clear position:
Military resources must be allocated to maximize readiness and deterrence. Period.
That means:
This isn’t about culture. It’s about math.
If we’re losing every war game against China, if our carriers are vulnerable to hypersonic missiles, if our grid can be darkened remotely, if Taiwan is the strategic prize of the century—then every resource decision matters.
The Education Pipeline: Tomorrow’s Sailors
Hegseth spends significant time in both the book and interview discussing education, and this directly impacts naval readiness.
The Navy needs:
Nuclear-trained operators for submarines and carriers
The pipeline is broken. Even if we solve every other problem, we can’t crew a technically complex fleet with graduates who can’t do algebra.
This is where Hegseth’s education critique directly intersects with naval readiness. China is graduating millions of STEM students. We’re graduating activists who think America is irredeemably evil. Who’s going to win that competition?
What We Learned From a Destroyer Sailor
I served on a U.S. Navy destroyer in the 1970s. Several shipmates reached out over the past few years expressing concerns about changes in today’s Navy. I’ll admit I was initially skeptical—were they exaggerating? Were they just resistant to change?
After reading Hegseth’s book and listening to the three-hour Ryan interview, I realize I should have listened more carefully to the warnings. But I also realize something else:
We’re spending so much energy fighting each other that we’re not focusing on the actual threat.
My shipmates on both sides of these cultural debates all agree on one thing: China is the threat. They disagree on solutions to internal problems, but they all recognize the external danger.
That’s where Americans for a Stronger Navy needs to focus.
Let the cultural debates happen. Let good people like Senator Kelly and Pete Hegseth have their disagreements. Our job is to relentlessly advocate for:
Sufficient naval hulls to match China’s growing fleet
Advanced weapon systems that counter hypersonic threats
Industrial base that can actually build ships at competitive speed
Recruitment and retention of qualified personnel
Training and readiness focused on war-fighting
Supply chain independence from Chinese manufacturing
Electrical grid hardening so our bases can operate
Cybersecurity that prevents Chinese infrastructure penetration
Educational reform that produces STEM-capable recruits
Budget prioritization toward capabilities over social experiments
The Three-Hour Wake-Up CalIf the warnings from Ryan and Hegseth about the CCP don’t shake you to the core, I don’t know what will.
Here’s what should terrify every American:
Pentagon loses every war game against China
China’s Navy now exceeds ours in numbers
Hypersonic missiles can sink our carriers in minutes
Chinese malware already embedded in our grid
Taiwan’s semiconductor monopoly is China’s target
Economic warfare extracting American wealth daily
Our sailors report ammunition shortages
Recruiting and retention in crisis
Industrial base can’t build ships competitively
Education system failing to produce technical talent
And while all this is happening, Americans are fighting each other instead of the actual enemy.
Our Call to Action
Americans for a Stronger Navy has a clear mission: advocating for the naval power necessary to defend America and deter aggression.
After reviewing Hegseth’s book and the extended Ryan interview, here’s what we’re calling for:
Immediate Priorities:
1. China Threat Education We will dedicate equal or greater time to educating Americans about the CCP threat as we spend on internal debates. The Ryan-Hegseth interview should be required viewing for anyone concerned about national security.
2. Resource Allocation Focus Every dollar matters when you’re losing war games. We support policies that maximize readiness and deterrence, including ending taxpayer funding for elective medical procedures that render service members non-deployable.
3. Industrial Base Revival We cannot have a strong Navy without shipyards that can build ships. This requires industrial policy, workforce development, and political will.
4. Grid Hardening Naval bases can’t operate without power. American families can’t support deployed sailors if they’re in crisis at home. Chinese control of our infrastructure must end.
5. Supply Chain Independence We must stop buying critical military components from our primary adversary. Yes, it will be expensive. No, we don’t have a choice.
6. Education Pipeline Repair Supporting classical education, STEM focus, and programs that produce technically capable recruits is a national security imperative.
7. Bipartisan Unity on China This is the one thing that should unite Americans across political divides. China is not Republican or Democrat. They’re our adversary, and they’re winning.
What You Can Do:
1. Watch the Full Interview The three-hour Shawn Ryan Show interview with Pete Hegseth contains more strategic analysis than most national security briefings. Share it widely.
2. Contact Your Representatives Demand they prioritize naval shipbuilding, infrastructure hardening, and China competition over internal political warfare.
3. Support STEM Education Whether through donations, volunteering, or advocacy—we need the next generation capable of operating advanced naval systems.
4. Spread Awareness Most Americans have no idea how vulnerable we are or how aggressively China is positioning for dominance. Change that.
5. Stay Focused on the Mission Don’t let internal debates distract from external threats. We can disagree on culture while agreeing on China.
Conclusion: The Enemy Gets a Vote—But So Do We
There’s a military axiom: “The enemy gets a vote.”
While America argues about pronouns, DEI, and cultural issues, China is voting with carrier launches, hypersonic missile tests, infrastructure infiltration, and economic positioning.
While good Americans like Senator Kelly and Pete Hegseth have their necessary debates about military culture, China is running war game simulations and updating their probability matrices for success.
While we fight over what makes someone qualified for military service, China is building the fleet that will challenge our ability to defend Taiwan, Japan, Korea, and the Philippines.
The clock is ticking.
But here’s what the alarm shouldn’t become: despair.
What started as a book review to understand Pete Hegseth’s perspective became a stark reminder of what actually matters: our children’s future. And that future is not predetermined. China’s rise is not inevitable. American decline is a choice, not a destiny.
We Have Advantages China Can’t Match
American Innovation: When we freed American energy production, we became energy independent within years. When COVID hit, we developed multiple vaccines in record time. When we commit to solving problems, we still lead the world in innovation.
Emerging Technologies: Directed energy weapons, autonomous systems, AI-enabled targeting, hypersonic defense systems—American companies are developing technologies that can offset Chinese numerical advantages. The Epirus directed EMP system Ryan and Hegseth discussed is just one example.
Alliance Structure: China stands largely alone. We have Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, and emerging partnerships with India and others. China has no equivalent alliance structure. Authoritarian systems inspire fear, not loyalty.
Economic Strength: Despite our challenges, the U.S. economy remains the most dynamic, innovative, and resilient in the world. Our capital markets, universities (when focused on STEM), and entrepreneurial culture are unmatched.
Geographic Position: China must project power across oceans to threaten American territory. We’re protected by two vast moans and friendly neighbors. They have hostile or unreliable neighbors on every border.
The WWII Precedent: In 1940, America had the 17th largest military in the world. By 1945, we had built the arsenal of democracy and defeated two major powers simultaneously on opposite sides of the globe. When America gets serious, we can mobilize faster than any nation on Earth.
This is Winnable—If We Act Now
The Pentagon may lose every war game against China today, but war games assume current capabilities. We can change those capabilities.
We can build more ships. We built 175 ships in two years during WWII. We can revitalize our shipyards.
We can harden our infrastructure. We built the Interstate Highway System, the Hoover Dam, put men on the moon. We can protect our power grid.
We can secure our supply chains. We can reshore critical manufacturing. We can incentivize chip fabrication in America.
We can fix our education system. Classical education is growing. Homeschooling is expanding. STEM-focused alternatives exist.
We can restore deterrence. China only moves on Taiwan if they believe they’ll win. Make the cost prohibitive, and they won’t move.
This requires political will, not miracles. It requires Americans to stop fighting each other and focus on the actual adversary. It requires leaders who prioritize national security over political advantage. It requires citizens who demand action.
And it requires a Navy capable of controlling the seas.
Pete Hegseth’s The War on Warriors contains valuable warnings about institutional problems. The debates his book has sparked are important, and good people disagree on solutions. But the most critical warning in both the book and the Ryan interview isn’t about wokeness—it’s about China.
“They have a full-spectrum, long-term view of not just regional but global domination, and we have our heads up our asses.”
I understand the weariness from Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Both Hegseth and Ryan express it—they’re “recovering neocons” who supported wars they now recognize as mistakes. But the Taiwan situation isn’t another optional nation-building adventure. It’s about the semiconductor supply that powers modern civilization, the alliance structure that maintains global stability, and the economic future our grandchildren will inherit.
This isn’t about the military-industrial complex wanting another war. This is about whether America remains a free, sovereign nation or becomes economically subordinated to Chinese Communist Party control.
Americans for a Stronger Navy exists because we understand that naval power is not optional in a maritime century against a maritime threat. We exist because someone needs to focus relentlessly on building the fleet, supporting the sailors, and educating Americans about what’s at stake.
We need a stronger Navy. We need it now. We need the tools, resources, training, personnel, and industrial base to match the threat.
Our veterans who already served deserve the care they earned—not to see their VA benefits delayed while billions go elsewhere.
Our sailors need ammunition, not just for three days, but for sustained operations.
Our children need semiconductor access that doesn’t depend on Chinese permission.
Our grandchildren deserve to grow up in a free America, not one bowing to Beijing because we couldn’t maintain our naval power when it mattered most.
But they also deserve to grow up knowing their parents and grandparents didn’t give up. That when faced with a determined adversary, America remembered who we are and what we’re capable of achieving.
Everything else is secondary to this mission.
Let’s stop fighting each other and start focusing on the actual enemy. Let’s stop despairing and start building. Let’s stop the internal warfare and restore the external deterrence.
The Salt Typhoon hackers are already inside our telecommunications systems. Chinese malware is pre-positioned in our electrical grid. China controls our transformer supply. They’re building carriers while we argue about culture. They’re war-gaming Taiwan scenarios while we debate pronouns.
But we can still win this. We have time—barely—to restore deterrence, rebuild capacity, and secure our position.
The question isn’t whether we can. It’s whether we will.
Americans for a Stronger Navy is committed to this fight. We’ll continue advocating for the naval power our nation needs. We’ll continue educating Americans about the China threat. We’ll continue supporting the sailors who keep us safe.
Join us. The future our grandchildren inherit depends on what we do right now.
Note: In future posts, we’ll address specific topics including:
Detailed naval force structure requirements and shipbuilding timelines
The shipyard and industrial base crisis—and how to solve it
Allied burden-sharing and the AUKUS partnership
Economic warfare beyond military competition (ports, Belt and Road, fentanyl, elite capture)
How to pay for naval expansion and why we can’t afford not to
Concrete legislative actions and how to engage your representatives effectively
Stay focused on the mission. The Navy we need is within reach if we have the will to build it.
About Americans for a Stronger Navy
Americans for a Stronger Navy is dedicated to promoting peace through strength by supporting a robust, modern, and capable United States Navy. We advocate for the resources, policies, and personnel necessary to ensure American naval dominance and the security of our maritime interests.
Our mission is focused, non-partisan, and urgent: Build the Navy we need to deter the China threat.
This review reflects the analysis of one destroyer sailor who served in the 1970s and believes Americans on all sides of cultural debates can unite around the China threat. We encourage readers to form their own opinions on internal military debates while maintaining absolute clarity on external threats.
The War on Warriors: Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free By Pete Hegseth Published 2024
Recommended for: Anyone concerned about national security, China competition, and America’s strategic position
Key Takeaway: Stop fighting each other. Start focusing on China.
As a crewman aboard the guided missile destroyer Henry B. Wilson (DDG-7) in the mid-1970s, and with family members tragically scarred from the ravages of war, Veterans Day has always carried deep meaning for me. It’s a day to pause—not just to thank—but to truly remember. To remember those who served, those captured or killed, and those who still stand the watch today.
Why This Matters
Growing up in the 1950s and ’60s shaped how my generation understood service. We played with G.I. Joe action figures modeled after real Medal of Honor recipients. We watched John Wayne storm the beaches in black-and-white war films. We practiced duck-and-cover drills beneath our school desks, Cold War tension seeping into our childhood games.
But today’s America looks different. More than half of our population was born after 1980—long after the draft ended, after Vietnam, after the Cold War. For many Americans under 45, military service is something distant, something other families do. Only about 7% of living Americans have served in uniform. The connection between civilian and sailor, between hometown and ship, has quietly frayed.
That disconnect matters more than ever.
Service Without Fanfare
For many who wore the uniform, service wasn’t about recognition. It was about duty. For some, like the sailors of the Vietnam era, there were no parades waiting when they came home. For others, like my shipmates during the Cold War, their battles were fought in the shadows—quiet missions, constant vigilance, and readiness that helped keep the peace. And for those who have served through the long years in the Middle East and beyond, their courage continues the legacy of those who came before.
Every generation of sailors shares the same bond—service, sacrifice, and love of country.
A Navy of Many Missions
The U.S. Navy has always been more than ships and sailors—it’s a reflection of America’s strength, innovation, and resolve. Across decades, each generation of naval service has carried its own unique challenges.
Vietnam Era: From the blue-water carriers and destroyers offshore to the brown-water patrols on the Mekong Delta, Navy men and women served in every corner of the conflict. Aircraft carriers launched thousands of sorties into hostile skies. River patrol boats navigated treacherous waterways where the enemy could be anywhere. Many came home quietly. Some never did. Too many were forgotten.
Cold War Service: During the tense decades that followed, our ships sailed the world’s seas not to fight—but to deter. We tracked Soviet submarines beneath the Arctic ice. We escorted convoys through contested waters. We maintained an unbroken presence that reminded adversaries of America’s reach. It was a different kind of war—one measured in vigilance rather than victories—but no less vital to our nation’s freedom.
Middle East and Modern Conflicts: From the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea, from the Horn of Africa to the South China Sea, today’s sailors face danger in new forms—terrorism, piracy, cyber warfare, and constant deployments that stretch families to the breaking point. They serve aboard destroyers, submarines, carriers, and expeditionary units—standing between chaos and stability, often far from home, always ready.
The POW/MIA Legacy
No tribute is complete without remembering those who never returned—and those who survived against impossible odds.
Some Did Make It Home—But Paid a Heavy Price
Captain Charlie Plumb, a Navy fighter pilot from Kansas who flew F-4 Phantoms off the USS Kitty Hawk, completed 74 successful combat missions over North Vietnam. On his 75th mission—just five days before the end of his tour—he was shot down over Hanoi. He spent the next 2,103 days as a prisoner of war. Nearly six years in an 8-by-8-foot cell. Torture. Isolation. Yet Plumb became a lifeline to his fellow POWs through underground communications, serving as chaplain and inspiration when hope seemed impossible. He came home. He continued flying for the Navy for decades, retiring as a Captain after 31 years of service. His survival reminds us that some battles don’t end when the guns fall silent—they continue in the hearts and minds of those who endured.
Others Waited Decades to Come Home
Captain Thomas Edwin Scheurich Sr., a Naval Aviator from Norfolk, Nebraska, was designated missing in action following a night mission on March 1, 1968. For 57 years, his name stood among the missing. His wife Eileen raised their four children without him. His family grew—grandchildren he would never meet, milestones he would never witness. But they never forgot. On May 23, 2025, the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency notified his family that his remains had been identified and recovered. This Veterans Day week—November 14, 2025—Captain Scheurich will be laid to rest with full military honors at Arlington National Cemetery.
He was 6’4″ tall and somehow squeezed his whole family into a tiny blue Austin-Healey Sprite. He taught himself banjo and accordion, played in a Dixieland band, and built a boat from scratch. He lived life to its fullest. His journey ended far too soon at age 34.
Captain Plumb made it home. Captain Scheurich finally came home. But thousands of their brothers and sisters never will.
These stories remind us: some debts can never be fully repaid. But they can be remembered. They must be remembered.
Welcome home, Captain Scheurich. Your courage endures. Your sacrifice will never be forgotten.
Why Americans Should Care
Freedom doesn’t sustain itself—it depends on those willing to protect it. Whether in Da Nang or the Persian Gulf, in the Pacific or the Arctic, the spirit of America’s sailors remains constant.
These men and women come from every corner of our country—from farming towns and inner cities, from both coasts and everywhere in between. They stand the watch, often without thanks, but always with pride. They miss birthdays and holidays. They sacrifice time with children who grow up in their absence. They do this so the rest of us don’t have to.
As citizens, we owe them more than gratitude—we owe them understanding, support, and the tools they need to succeed. We owe them a Navy that’s ready, maintained, and respected. We owe them leaders who remember that ships don’t sail themselves, and that every capability gap puts sailors at risk.
Let’s Roll
On this Veterans Day, let us honor every sailor—past and present. From the jungles of Vietnam to the carrier decks of today’s fleet, from the Cold War’s silent service to the visible wars of the 21st century, they’ve carried America’s strength across the seas.
That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter—a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
The watch continues. The mission endures. And America’s sailors deserve our unwavering support.
Silicon Valley builds the networks. The Navy protects them. Invest to keep them both secure.
Bill Cullifer, Founder
Sometimes the search for clarity keeps me up long past midnight. That was the case at 3 a.m. this week when I came across a RAND report titled Economic Deterrence in a China Contingency. I hoped it might explain how America could keep the peace without firing a shot. It did—and it didn’t. RAND’s conclusion is clear: economic tools help, but they work only when anchored to credible strength, industrial capacity, and alliances that hold.
Why Americans Should Care RAND’s analysis shows that sanctions alone can’t deter China from acting against Taiwan. Even coordinated multilateral efforts might shave a few points off China’s GDP, but they won’t change its core objectives. Unilateral U.S. measures could even harm our own economy. That means deterrence isn’t about paperwork or tariffs—it’s about preparation, partnerships, and public will.
When the lanes of trade and data stay open, the world stays stable. If those lanes close, the cost lands on every American household.
Implications for the Navy For navalists, the message is unmistakable: economic deterrence rides on sea power. If sanctions are to work, allied fleets must protect the supply lines and chokepoints that keep global commerce moving. RAND calls for better modeling of economic impacts; I’d add that we also need better modeling of shipbuilding, repair, and readiness.
Our destroyers, carriers, and submarines aren’t just tools of war—they’re instruments of economic freedom. They guard the lanes.
Implications for Our Allies RAND emphasizes that sanctions mean little without unified action. The same applies to maritime strength. Japan, Australia, and the U.K. can’t afford hesitation; unity is deterrence. Coordinated naval presence across the Indo-Pacific signals resolve more effectively than any embargo ever could.
A Call to Silicon Valley This is where the RAND findings connect directly to our call for America’s tech industry. The report warns that markets adapt faster than governments—and that the private sector will make or break national resilience. That’s a polite way of saying: Silicon Valley, you’re in this fight whether you know it or not.
We’re not asking for militarization of innovation. We’re asking for civic responsibility: secure the code, protect the data, and strengthen the digital lanes that mirror the sea lanes our sailors defend. The Navy protects what you build. Now America must invest to keep both secure.
The Bottom Line Peace depends on readiness. RAND’s economists proved it with data; our sailors prove it every day with sweat and steel. The future will be written not only in shipyards and naval bases, but also in design labs and data centers.
That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter—a 24-part educational series explaining how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
A major announcement this week marks a breakthrough in naval innovation. Blue Water Autonomy, a Boston-based defense startup, confirmed on November 5 that it has successfully tested its long-range autonomous ship technology on the waters off Massachusetts — a first for U.S. industry.
The company shared new images and data from sea trials, demonstrating that its medium-sized drone warship systems can operate reliably in open-ocean conditions, a critical milestone as the Navy looks to expand its reach in the Pacific. A full-scale 150-foot prototype is planned for 2026, advancing the goal of deploying uncrewed ships capable of long-range operations alongside traditional fleets.
Why It Matters
China’s shipyards continue to outproduce America’s by wide margins, while U.S. shipbuilding struggles with delays, labor shortages, and cost overruns. Blue Water Autonomy’s success offers a glimpse of what’s possible when innovation meets urgency. These modular vessels are designed to carry sensors, radars, and missile payloads across more than 6,000 nautical miles, from California to Taiwan and back — a range that redefines how the U.S. could project power across the Indo-Pacific.
Implications for the Navy
The Navy’s future battle force calls for 381 crewed ships and 134 uncrewed vessels, but reaching those numbers requires new approaches. By designing ships that can be mass-produced quickly at smaller shipyards, Blue Water Autonomy’s model could help offset the strain on America’s overstretched industrial base. With a Navy contract already in hand and potential full-scale production in Louisiana shipyards next year, the company’s success represents a tangible step toward restoring U.S. maritime advantage through technology and industrial reform.
Why Americans Should Care
Every advancement in autonomy brings the same truth into sharper focus: deterrence is cheaper than war. Building smarter, more flexible fleets keeps sailors safe, strengthens deterrence, and ensures America remains a global maritime leader. Blue Water Autonomy’s announcement isn’t just about a new vessel — it’s about rebuilding the capacity and confidence of a nation that must once again lead at sea.
That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
America’s prosperity rides on open sea lanes and the rule of law. China’s distant-water fishing (DWF) armada and gray-zone tactics put both at risk—from industrial-scale illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing to militia-enabled “enforcement” around disputed waters. Recent studies converge on two points: (1) the problem is broader than fish; (2) deterrence through presence, enforcement, and allied capacity is cheaper than crisis or war. (RAND Corporation)
What the Evidence Shows (Key Findings)
Largest fleet, outsized IUU footprint. China fields thousands of DWF vessels active across the Indo-Pacific and Latin America. Analysts document repeated IUU patterns, transshipment opacity, and vessel “darkness” (AIS off). Heritage’s new issue brief details how these logistics networks can intersect with other illicit trades. Treat this as a credible risk pathway, not proof that fentanyl precursors are already moving on trawlers. (The Heritage Foundation)
Fishing–militia–coast guard nexus = gray-zone leverage. RAND shows how militia-backed swarms and lawfare help create “facts in the water,” coercing neighbors below the threshold of war and undermining a rules-based order—especially around Second Thomas Shoal. Presence operations alone are “necessary but insufficient.” (RAND Corporation)
Crime convergence at sea. Cross-sector research warns that IUU fishing correlates with forced labor, money laundering, and smuggling—illicit markets that transnational criminal organizations exploit. Global Financial Integrity’s 2025 report quantifies the scale of profits across ten crime markets and flags illegal fishing as a persistent revenue stream in weak-governance corridors. (Global Financial Integrity)
Enforcement tools exist—and work when used. NOAA has expanded port-state controls: denying U.S. port privileges to vessels from negatively certified nations and engaging bilaterally under the Moratorium Protection Act. These measures raise operational costs for serial offenders and their backers. (NOAA Fisheries)
Partners need capacity, data, and doctrine. Stimson’s roadmaps emphasize fusing civilian and maritime-security tools (MDA sensors, legal alignment, port controls) and building partner constabulary forces for day-to-day enforcement in Southeast Asia’s hot spots. (Stimson Center)
Why Americans Should Care
This touches food security (legal fishermen undercut), economic security (coercion distorts trade), and sovereignty (testing U.S. and allied EEZs). It also burdens our sailors and Coast Guardsmen who are asked to manage gray-zone friction without the industrial base or shipyard throughput they need. We’re fiscal conservatives about this: spend smart, fix shipyards, and back people. Deterrence is cheaper than war—but it isn’t free. (RAND Corporation)
What the Studies Recommend (Action Plan We Support)
Make presence purposeful—and persistent. RAND advises pairing routine naval presence with tactics that impose costs for gray-zone coercion: tighter public attribution, allied broadcasting of incidents, and treaty updates that reflect gray-zone realities (e.g., with the Philippines). We endorse presence that cues law-enforcement actions—not photo ops. (RAND Corporation)
Supercharge Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA). Stimson calls for fusing RF/AIS/EO data to target dark vessels and suspicious rendezvous, then sharing the common operating picture with partners in near-real time. Invest where it bites: chokepoints near allied EEZs and U.S. territories. (Stimson Center)
Harden ports—follow the money. NOAA’s port-denial authorities should be used early and often, with public case files that stigmatize offenders and their beneficial owners. Link port denials to targeted sanctions and AML actions that disrupt crewing agencies, processors, and shell companies bankrolling IUU fleets. (NOAA Fisheries)
Scale partner enforcement. Expand shiprider agreements, small-craft patrol capacity, and prosecutor-to-prosecutor cooperation so cases don’t die in court. Stimson’s Southeast Asia roadmap offers a practical menu; implementers need training, maintenance money, and spares—not only hulls. (Stimson Center)
Plan for crime convergence. GFI’s findings argue for joint task forces that treat IUU as part of a larger illicit-trade ecosystem. Prioritize investigations that tie illegal catch to labor abuse, laundering, and smuggling flows. Measure success by disrupted networks, not boardings alone. (Global Financial Integrity)
Message clearly: rules, not rhetoric. RAND recommends more transparent, real-time communications about unlawful behavior and legal basis for actions (UNCLOS, tribunal rulings). That helps allies hold the line and inoculates the public against lawfare narratives. (RAND Corporation)
Implications for the Navy (and Coast Guard)
Navy: Provide the high-end backstop and integrated MDA, deter coast-guard intimidation with credible presence, and be ready to surge when gray-zone friction escalates. Use deployments to exercise allied response playbooks and media transparency. (RAND Corporation)
Coast Guard: Lead day-to-day maritime law enforcement, port-state controls, and shiprider operations. Expand training and case-building with partner constabularies so interdictions translate into convictions. (NOAA Fisheries)
Industrial base: Presence is math. Clear maintenance backlogs, add dry-dock capacity, and streamline parts pipelines so the fleet isn’t deterred by its own yard schedules. (Multiple studies note presence without readiness is a hollow signal.) (RAND Corporation)
What We’re Asking For (Smart, Doable Steps)
Fund allied-linked MDA projects that feed actionable leads to patrol craft—not dashboards that gather dust. (Stimson Center)
Expand port-denial designations and pair them with targeted financial actions against owners and processors tied to IUU. (NOAA Fisheries)
Grow shiprider programs and small-boat sustainment budgets in the Philippines, Vietnam, and Indonesia to raise the daily cost of IUU and harassment. (Stimson Center)
Update alliance documents to reflect gray-zone realities and publicize unlawful incidents fast and with evidence. (RAND Corporation)
Invest in U.S. shipyards and people so presence is persistent, credible, and sustainable. (RAND Corporation)
Our Commitment
Americans for a Stronger Navy exists to educate, connect, and mobilize the public. We believe civic engagement—not insider talk—closes the readiness gap. If you care about safe seas, fair trade, and peace through strength, this is your fight too.
That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late. Let’s roll.
