Charting the Course Archives - Americans for a Stronger Navy

November 3, 2025November 3, 2025

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.

November 2, 2025November 2, 2025

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

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.

November 1, 2025November 1, 2025

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.

Let’s roll.

October 26, 2025October 26, 2025

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

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.

October 20, 2025October 20, 2025

The Fork in the Sea

An Open Letter to Silicon Valley and the American People

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.

October 16, 2025October 17, 2025

Collision at Thitu Island: A Test of Resolve in the South China Sea

Introduction

As a former U.S. Navy sailor, I’ve always held deep respect for the Philippines and its people—for their resilience, their maritime spirit, and their long-standing friendship with the United States. The Philippines has stood beside America through war and peace alike, and their sailors, fishermen, and families live daily with the reality of defending one of the most contested waterways on Earth.

We recently reflected on the rich maritime history shared by the U.S. and the Philippines, from World War II’s island campaigns to the cooperative exercises that continue today. That partnership, built on mutual respect and shared sacrifice, remains vital to freedom of navigation and peace in the Indo-PacificToday, that bond is being tested again—this time at Thitu Island (Pag-asa Island), where courage and restraint are once more defining moments in the face of growing aggression.

US condemns China over South China Sea vessel clash with the Philippines

On October 12, 2025, a Chinese coast guard vessel used water cannons and deliberately rammed the Philippine government ship BRP Datu Pagbuaya near Thitu Island (Pag-asa Island) in the South China Sea. The impact caused minor damage but no injuries, according to Philippine authorities. The incident occurred less than two nautical miles from Thitu, inside waters internationally recognized as part of the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone.

The Scene at Sea

Philippine coast guard reports say the Datu Pagbuaya was anchored near Thitu as part of a program to protect local fishermen when a Chinese vessel approached aggressively, fired a water cannon, and three minutes later struck the ship’s stern.
China quickly blamed the Philippines, claiming the ships had “illegally entered Chinese waters” and “dangerously approached” its patrols.

Newly released videos confirm the sequence: high-pressure water blasts followed by the ramming maneuver. The footage, shared widely by AP News and Business Insider, has stirred public outrage and renewed debate over China’s maritime coercion tactics.

A Dispute Over Sandy Cay

At the center of this clash lies Sandy Cay, a tiny reef roughly 1.5 nautical miles northwest of Thitu Island. Though uninhabited, it sits within the Philippines’ claimed territorial sea.
China has repeatedly attempted to assert control there, even trying to raise its flag in April 2025. These gray-zone tactics—testing boundaries without open warfare—aim to erode Philippine control and normalize Chinese presence inside other nations’ waters.

Diplomatic Backlash

The United States condemned China’s actions as “dangerous and destabilizing,” reaffirming that the U.S.–Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty covers attacks on Philippine public vessels, including the coast guard.
Allies including Japan, Australia, and the European Union echoed the warning. Each incident like this forces the question: Will free nations defend freedom of navigation when it is most directly challenged?

Why It Matters

The South China Sea is a vital artery for more than $3 trillion in annual global trade.
In 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled that China’s sweeping territorial claims had no basis in international law. Nine years later, Beijing continues to ignore that verdict and tighten its grip through force and intimidation.
The Thitu collision is not an isolated event—it’s part of a campaign to control critical sea lanes, reshape the regional order, and test allied resolve.

Implications for the U.S. Navy

Every encounter like this one is a measure of American readiness. The U.S. Navy and allied fleets patrol to deter escalation, but deterrence only works when backed by strength, credibility, and speed.
If the U.S. cannot maintain the tempo of operations or replace aging ships, these provocations risk becoming the new normal. That’s why strengthening our Navy—and the civilian infrastructure that supports it—is not just a defense issue, it’s a national imperative.

A Call for Awareness and Strength

The collision at Thitu Island is a stark reminder that peace through strength is more than a slogan; it’s a responsibility.
Our sailors are being tested daily on the front lines of freedom of navigation, while adversaries exploit ambiguity and inattention.
Americans for a Stronger Navy believes that education and unity are our best defense. Every citizen should understand what’s at stake when the world’s sea lanes—and the rules that keep them free—are challenged.

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.

October 13, 2025October 13, 2025

A Response to Defeatism: Why America’s Navy Must Stay Strong

By Bill Cullifer, Founder Americans for a Stronger Navy

Today, October 13, 2025, marks the 250th anniversary of the United States Navy. It’s a moment to celebrate two and a half centuries of service, sacrifice, and dedication to protecting freedom of the seas. It’s also a time to reflect on the challenges ahead—and to clarify what I mean when I advocate for a Stronger Navy.

For some, the phrase “a stronger Navy” may sound like a call to arms or empire-building. It’s not. My advocacy has always been rooted in one simple truth: a strong Navy preserves peace, protects prosperity, and prevents wars.

And by “stronger,” I don’t mean the Navy is weak. Far from it. The men and women serving today are the best-trained, best-equipped, and most capable sailors in the world. But they’re being asked to do more—to cover more oceans, deter more threats, and respond to more crises with fewer ships and tighter resources than ever before. “Stronger” means giving them what they need to succeed: modern tools, sufficient numbers, and unwavering public support.

Strength is not aggression. It’s deterrence. It’s readiness. It’s the quiet assurance that when freedom is threatened, the United States and its allies can respond decisively and responsibly.

Recently, a prominent economist claimed the “Western era is over,” that American leaders are “delusional” for maintaining global commitments, and that we should accept a “multipolar world” dominated by nations like China and Russia. His argument deserves a response—not because debate is unwelcome, but because democratic principles and freedom of the seas are at stake.

The Dangerous Myth of Inevitable Decline

The Argument: The West represents only 12 percent of the world’s population and can no longer lead.
The Reality: Power has never been about population alone. If it were, India would dominate China, and Indonesia would be a superpower. What matters is:

Technological Innovation: The United States leads in AI, semiconductors, biotechnology, aerospace, and space.
Alliance Networks: Over 30 treaty allies choose to align with us—authoritarians coerce; we attract.
Economic Dynamism: The dollar still anchors ~56–58 percent of global reserves (IMF COFER Q2 2025).
Naval Projection: We operate globally; our competitors remain largely regional powers.

The U.S. Navy doesn’t maintain 11 carrier strike groups because we’re “delusional.” We maintain them because freedom of navigation matters, our allies depend on us, and deterrence works.

The False Choice Between Strength and Diplomacy

The Argument: Maintaining a strong Navy is provocative; we should just “talk” to our adversaries.
The Reality: Weakness invites aggression. History proves it.

Finland joined NATO on April 4, 2023, and Sweden on March 7, 2024—proof that accommodation fails.
China continues to build aircraft carriers and overseas bases.
Pacific allies—Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the Philippines—want more U.S. presence, not less.

Peace through strength isn’t a slogan. It’s the most successful deterrent model in modern history. The post–Cold War era of American naval dominance was also the most peaceful.

What’s Really at Stake: Democratic Principles

This isn’t about dominance—it’s about the kind of world we want to live in.

Authoritarian Model:

Borders redrawn by force
“Might makes right”
International law ignored
Smaller nations coerced

Democratic Model:

Sovereignty respected
Sea lanes open to all
Collective security honored
Law upheld

When we maintain a strong Navy, we’re protecting a system that has lifted billions from poverty through free trade and open seas.

The China Challenge: Clear-Eyed Assessment

China has grown, but its vulnerabilities are glaring.

Geographic Disadvantages:

Roughly 80 percent of its oil imports pass through the Strait of Malacca—a chokepoint and wartime liability.
Trapped behind the First Island Chain with few friendly overseas bases.

Economic Fragilities:

Over $13 trillion in local-government debt
Property sector collapse
Shrinking population since 2015
No immigration, worsening demographic decline

Military Limitations:

No combat experience since 1979
Carrier operations still rudimentary
Submarine fleet far noisier than ours
No ability to sustain power projection beyond Asia

Alliance Deficit:

North Korea is its only treaty ally
India remains a rival
ASEAN partners are wary
Russia is a partner of convenience, not trust

Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy operates from 80 years of combat experience, forward bases on every ocean, interoperable fleets with allies, unmatched logistics, and the world’s most advanced submarine force.

Why We Cannot Rest

Some say multipolarity is inevitable. History says otherwise. Multipolar systems are less stable:

Early 1900s Europe: two world wars, 100 million dead
Cold War bipolarity: no great-power wars
Post-Cold War unipolarity: most peaceful period in modern history

The question isn’t whether we can maintain naval strength—it’s whether we will.

The 250th Anniversary Call

As we celebrate 250 years of service, we face a choice.

Option One: Accept decline, draw down the fleet, and hope aggressors respect our weakness.
Option Two: Recognize that deterrence requires both capability and will. Modernize with unmanned systems, AI, and hypersonics. Maintain forward presence. Stand with allies.

What “Not Resting” Means in Practice

Build the 381+ Ship Fleet
- Current fleet: ~296 ships (Dec 2024 baseline)
- Requirement: 381 manned + 134 unmanned for full readiness
- China’s PLAN: ~370 ships now, projected 395 by 2025 and 435 by 2030
Embrace Technological Transformation
- Unmanned surface and underwater vehicles
- AI-enhanced command and control
- Hypersonic weapons
- Space-based sensing and communications
- Cyber resilience
Strengthen Pacific Presence
- AUKUS and Quad partnerships
- Expanded exercises with Japan, Australia, the Philippines, and South Korea
Maintain Atlantic Vigilance
- Monitor Russia’s submarine activity
- Secure Arctic and Baltic approaches
Protect Global Commerce
- South China Sea: ~$3.4 trillion in annual trade
- Suez, Red Sea, and Persian Gulf choke points
- Panama Canal and Caribbean routes

Preserving and Projecting Democratic Values

We must do more than preserve freedom of the seas—we must project the values that make that freedom possible.

Transparency Over Opacity: We publish our strategy; authoritarians conceal theirs.
Rule of Law: We uphold international law; competitors ignore it.
Alliance Over Coercion: Nations choose to partner with us.
Innovation Over Theft: We invent; China steals ~$600 billion in IP annually.
Professionalism Over Intimidation: Our sailors serve as ambassadors of democracy.

Every humanitarian mission, disaster response, and joint exercise demonstrates what democratic power means.

A Message to Our Shipmates

To those who serve and have served—you inherit a 250-year tradition of defending freedom of the seas. From wooden frigates to stealth destroyers, the mission remains: protect the free and open oceans upon which prosperity depends.

Don’t believe anyone who says the Navy is obsolete or that we should retreat. The world didn’t become more peaceful because we withdrew—it became more dangerous.

Freedom of navigation isn’t Western dominance—it’s global stability.
Deterrence isn’t warmongering—it’s peacekeeping.

The Choice Before Us

Some argue we should accept decline gracefully. The greater delusion is believing authoritarian powers will respect weakness or that freedom can defend itself.

As we honor 250 years of the United States Navy today, let’s commit to the next 250—not through empire, but through readiness, accountability, and partnership.

Call to Action

For Shipmates: Stay strong, stay skilled, stay ready.
For Citizens: Demand full funding for the Navy that defends your freedom.
For Allies: Know that America keeps its word.
For Competitors: Understand that U.S. naval power deters aggression and protects peace.

“I can imagine no more rewarding a career. And any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life worthwhile, I think can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction: ‘I served in the United States Navy.’”
— President John F. Kennedy

Fair winds and following seas. Stay Navy Strong.

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Americans for a Stronger Navy
October 13, 2025

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.

October 12, 2025October 12, 2025

The U.S. Navy at 250: A Celebration — and a Reality Check

by Bill Cullifer, founder Americans for a Stronger Navy

As America marks the Navy’s 250th birthday, Captain Brent Sadler, USN (Ret.) recent essay reminds us this milestone is not just a moment to celebrate—it’s a call to action. From two ships in 1775 to the world’s most powerful fleet, the Navy has carried our flag, defended our freedom, and guarded the arteries of global commerce. But as Sadler rightly warns, the next few years will not be smooth sailing.

A Fleet Stretched Thin

Today, over a third of our fleet is more than 20 years old. Shipbuilding delays and maintenance backlogs are pushing the limits of readiness. Our sailors, the heart of the fleet, continue to perform with unmatched skill and resolve—but they are doing so aboard aging platforms. China is fast closing the gap, and they are not waiting for us.

Lessons Written in Blood

History teaches that there are no cheap shortcuts to sea power. Survivability and lethality come from hard-earned experience, superior training, and a robust industrial base. Sadler recalls the typhoon of 1944 that claimed three destroyers and hundreds of lives—a stark reminder that nature and conflict alike punish complacency. Competence, leadership, and technical mastery remain our sailors’ greatest weapons.

For the Skeptics: China’s Long Game Is Already Underway

To those who still doubt that China poses more than a distant “threat,” here is a sharper look at how Beijing is already laying the foundations of a rival maritime order—and why ignoring it is perilous.

“Unrestricted Warfare” and Strategic Pluralism

Chinese strategists have long argued that war is no longer limited to the battlefield. Unrestricted Warfare (1999) openly promoted using economic, cyber, legal, and informational tools to weaken stronger powers—a doctrine now reflected in Beijing’s global behavior.

Dual-Use Shipbuilding and External Support

China’s commercial and naval shipyards work side-by-side, leveraging subsidies and state control to produce more hulls than the rest of the world combined. These facilities give Beijing the ability to surge production during crisis—something the U.S. industrial base cannot yet match.

The “Great Underwater Wall” and Maritime Surveillance

Beijing is constructing a vast undersea sensor network across the South China Sea—an integrated web of hydrophones, drones, and seabed nodes designed to detect U.S. and allied submarines. It’s surveillance on a scale the world has never seen.

“Cabbage” Tactics and Incremental Control

China surrounds disputed islands layer by layer—fishing boats, coast-guard cutters, and finally warships—gradually converting “gray zones” into permanent possessions without firing a shot.

The “String of Pearls” Strategy

Ports and logistics hubs from the Indian Ocean to the Atlantic give China reach far beyond its shores. Each node tightens its grip over the world’s vital maritime choke points.

Global Projection and Signaling

China’s navy now sails the Tasman Sea, the Gulf of Oman, and beyond—exercising in waters where it once had no business. These deployments make one thing clear: China’s maritime ambitions are global, not regional.

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

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

Strategic Intent and Military Buildup

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

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

The scale of China’s buildup is staggering. As Sadler and others have documented:
“They have 230 times the shipbuilding capacity of the United States in terms of shipyard infrastructure and potential output. Just one shipyard in China last year alone, in 2024, built more tonnage of ships than the U.S. did since the end of World War II.”
One shipyard outproduced our entire nation’s post-WWII shipbuilding in a single year. That’s not competition—that’s a wake-up call.

A Time for Revival

The path forward demands both vision and accountability. We need new ships—but also a paradigm shift in how America thinks about sea power, alliance networks, and industrial mobilization. Unmanned systems, resilient architectures, and faster acquisition must be part of the solution. So must shipyard revitalization, recruitment, and public understanding.

Why Americans Should Care

A strong Navy isn’t about seeking conflict—it’s about preventing it. The sea connects our economy, allies, and security. Every container safely delivered, every undersea cable protected, every freedom-of-navigation operation maintained depends on a Navy that’s ready, credible, and resilient. The choices we make now will determine whether we can deter China in 2027 and beyond—or whether others will write the next chapter of maritime history for us.

Charting the Next 250 Years

As we honor our Navy’s proud history, we must also rally around its future. That means bringing Americans into the conversation—not just policymakers and admirals, but citizens, veterans, and industry alike. Our sailors deserve ships that match their courage and leaders who match their commitment.

Sadler’s message is clear: vigilance and strength are the surest remedies against any adversary’s ambitions.

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.

October 11, 2025October 11, 2025

An Open Letter to War on the Rocks: Protecting Supply Chains Starts with a Stronger Navy

To the Editor and Mr. Jesse Humpal,

Your recent commentary, “Supply Chains Are Critical Infrastructure. It’s Time U.S. Policy Caught Up,” correctly identifies supply chains as battlefields targeted by America’s rivals. But while you focus on new legislation and bureaucratic reforms, the real lesson of Maersk, Colonial Pipeline, and Nord Stream is not just a lack of resilience—it’s that corporate offshoring created a moral hazard. For decades, profits were privatized while risks were socialized. Now taxpayers are being asked to underwrite the fallout.

The True Cost of Externalized Risk
Maersk, Colonial Pipeline, and Nord Stream all exposed the same vulnerability: companies prioritized efficiency and profit over redundancy and security. When their fragility became a national crisis, it was the government—and by extension, the American taxpayer—that had to absorb the cost. Legislation like the CHIPS Act or a pharmaceutical reserve may help, but these measures are ultimately subsidies for corporate strategic failures.

The Navy as a Necessary Public Good
The U.S. government should not exist to de-risk private balance sheets. Its mission is to deter adversaries. And only the U.S. Navy has the reach, capability, and mandate to secure the sea lanes, ports, and subsea infrastructure that underpin 90 percent of global trade.

The inherent conflict of interest: CEOs answer to shareholders, not to national security.
The Navy as the ultimate hedge: no private firm will pay to safeguard global commerce; that burden falls on the fleet.
Deterrence through capability: a dominant Navy ensures freedom of navigation, secures subsea lifelines, and guarantees the supply lines needed for both commerce and force projection.

Congress Must Do More
Congress should pass the Promoting Resilient Supply Chains Act, but it must not mistake legislation for deterrence. Protecting the arteries of our economy requires a stronger, larger, and better-resourced Navy. Anything less is subsidizing failure.

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 mission is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.

October 10, 2025October 10, 2025

250 Years of Standing Watch: A Destroyer Sailor’s Take on Why the Philippines Partnership Defines Our Future

Somewhere in the South China Sea right now, a Filipino coast guard crew is preparing to head back to Second Thomas Shoal. They know what’s waiting—Chinese vessels that will shadow them, harass them, maybe hit them with water cannons or attempt to ram their boats.

They’re going anyway. They’re bringing supplies to their troops stationed on a rusting ship grounded on a reef that lies well within Philippine waters, recognized under international law.

They’re going because some things are worth standing up for. Because sovereignty matters. Because the rule of law at sea isn’t optional.

As the United States Navy marks its 250th anniversary, there’s no better example of why we exist than the U.S.–Philippine partnership—complicated, hard-won, and stronger than ever.

The Long Road to Partnership

Our relationship with the Philippines began painfully. After defeating Spain in 1898, America annexed the Philippines. Filipinos who had fought for independence resisted fiercely. The Philippine–American War was brutal—thousands of U.S. service members killed, tens of thousands of Filipino combatants lost, and many more civilians dead.

That legacy still shapes Filipino attitudes toward foreign military presence. Their wariness isn’t ingratitude—it’s rooted in history.

But World War II forged a different bond. Filipino and American forces fought side by side at Bataan and Corregidor. An estimated one million Filipino civilians died during the occupation. General MacArthur’s promise—“I shall return”— and the liberation that followed forged bonds in blood that endure.

After independence in 1946, Clark Air Base and Subic Bay Naval Base became crown jewels of U.S. power in the Pacific. During Vietnam, Subic Bay handled over 200 ship visits a month. These bases were economic engines but also symbols of resentment. By 1992, rising nationalism and environmental damage forced the U.S. military to leave.

For two decades, the alliance drifted. Then China changed the equation.

What Brought Us Back

Beijing’s growing assertiveness—seizing Scarborough Shoal in 2012, building militarized artificial islands, and harassing Filipino fishermen—forced Manila to turn again to Washington.

The 2014 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) provided rotational access to Philippine bases without creating new U.S. installations—a distinction that matters for Filipino sovereignty. By 2023, the Philippines had opened nine EDCA sites, facing both Taiwan and the South China Sea.

Today, U.S. and Philippine forces conduct more than 500 joint activities each year. The Balikatan exercises now involve 14,000 troops in full-scale scenarios. New U.S. funding—$500 million in 2024—underscores how central this partnership has become.

The Risks We Should Acknowledge

No alliance is without risks.

The 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty could pull the U.S. into conflict over reefs or shoals. Americans could find themselves at war in disputes they barely understand.

Some argue we should fix our own maintenance backlogs and shipbuilding delays before investing abroad. Others warn our expanded presence could accelerate Chinese militarization instead of deterring it. And Philippine politics—sometimes turbulent—carry reputational risk for the U.S.

These are real concerns. But the alternative—a South China Sea dominated by Beijing, where international law collapses and small democracies are swallowed by larger neighbors—is far more dangerous.

The Bigger Picture: China’s Campaign

The Philippines is not the issue—it’s the line in the sand. Incidents at Second Thomas Shoal are part of a systematic campaign of Chinese aggression.

Harassment of U.S. forces: Military lasers aimed at U.S. aircraft, fighters buzzing within feet of American planes, warships cutting across our destroyers.
Rapid naval buildup: The PLA Navy is on track to field over 395 ships by 2025—outnumbering our Navy in its own region.
Encirclement of Taiwan: Beijing rehearses blockades and missile strikes, preparing to coerce neighbors and challenge U.S. access.
Cyber warfare: Groups like Volt Typhoon have penetrated U.S. power grids, water systems, and telecom networks. These intrusions aren’t hypothetical—they’re pre-positioning for conflict.
Disinformation and espionage: From spy balloons to propaganda campaigns, Beijing is shaping the information battlefield.

The message is clear: this is not about a shoal, it’s about the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific.

Why Americans Should Care

Freedom of Navigation: Nearly a third of global trade flows through the South China Sea. If Beijing can dictate access there, every sea lane becomes vulnerable.
Economic Security: This isn’t just about faraway reefs. Those sea lanes carry the fuel that powers your car, the medicine in your cabinet, and the goods that stock your shelves. During COVID, Americans got a hard lesson in what happens when supply chains break—higher prices, empty shelves, and uncertainty.

If China controls those routes, disruption won’t be temporary. It would mean sustained leverage over the American economy: higher grocery and gas prices, layoffs in U.S. factories, and rising costs on everything from mortgages to credit cards.

Control of the South China Sea isn’t an abstract problem overseas. It’s leverage over the American economy—and your family’s budget.

Alliance Credibility: Our 1951 treaty with Manila sends a message to allies everywhere—do U.S. commitments mean anything?
Democratic Solidarity: Manila is modernizing, partnering with Japan and Australia, and standing up to pressure. Supporting them means supporting a network of democracies.

The Choice Ahead

For 250 years, the United States Navy has defended freedom of the seas. At its best, it has enabled smaller nations to prosper without massive militaries of their own.

Today, Filipino coast guard crews at Second Thomas Shoal embody the courage and loyalty of a steadfast ally. They aren’t backing down, even when outnumbered.

The question is whether America will do the same.

As we celebrate our Navy’s 250th anniversary, we face a choice:
Do we stand with democracies under pressure?
Do we defend international law at sea?
Do we maintain a Navy strong enough to prevent wars rather than fight them?

I know my answer. It’s why I write. It’s why Americans for a Stronger Navy exists. Because a strong Navy is what allows the world to prosper under the rule of law—not the rule of the biggest bully.

Fair winds and following seas.