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.
U.S. and allied navies sailing in formationBill Cullifer, Founder
Introduction
Giving Credit Where It’s Due Kurt Campbell and Rush Doshi recently argued in the New York Times that America alone cannot match China’s growing scale — economically, technologically, or militarily — and that our strength depends on “allied scale.” They are right to say this out loud, and they deserve credit for raising the issue. Campbell has long been a voice for rebalancing U.S. strategy toward Asia, and Doshi has studied China’s grand strategy in depth. Their track records show they’ve been sounding the alarm.
Why We’re in This Position It’s fair to ask: if they saw this coming, why didn’t America adjust sooner? The truth is, Campbell and Doshi were not sitting in the chairs with the ultimate levers. Campbell’s call for a pivot to Asia faced headwinds from wars in the Middle East and competing budget priorities. Doshi, until recently, was in academia, warning of China’s rise but without a policymaker’s authority. They were raising the right concerns, but Washington’s attention was elsewhere. That’s not about pinning blame on individuals — it’s about recognizing how easy it is for America to be distracted.
The Larger Point The conversation they are starting in public now is one America needs to have candidly. China’s scale in shipbuilding, technology, and manufacturing is a strategic challenge unlike any we have faced before. Campbell and Doshi are right that alliances matter — losing India, Japan, or Europe to Chinese influence would change the balance overnight. But alliances alone aren’t enough. America must also invest in its own naval strength and rebuild the industrial base that sustains it.
My Role in This Conversation I am two years into this effort with Americans for a Stronger Navy. My job is not to dictate policy but to help Americans understand the facts. It is up to the American people to decide. What I can do is publish what’s happening, provide context, and advocate on behalf of my shipmates — so that when the time comes, they have the resources they need, where and when they need them.
Why Americans Should Care If we don’t get this right, it’s not only the Navy that will feel the consequences. Our supply chains, our economy, and our security all ride on free and open seas. Campbell and Doshi are right to remind us that “quantity has a quality all its own.” China has the quantity. America must respond with both quality and scale — and it will take both allies abroad and buy-in at home to meet that challenge.
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.
Introduction As a former U.S. Navy destroyer sailor from the ’70s and founder of Americans for a Stronger Navy, I’ve seen firsthand how sea power isn’t only about ships—it’s about people, industry, and the trade that keeps America moving. This isn’t a Beltway debate; it touches your grocery bill, your job, and the undersea cables that carry your paycheck.
In this interview, Captain Brent D. Sadler, USN (Ret.), discusses the ideas from his book U.S. Naval Power in the 21st Century: A New Strategy for Facing the Chinese and Russian Threat. He calls this framework naval statecraft. In Washington circles, the same concept is often referred to as maritime statecraft—a term meant to highlight the economic and commercial side of sea power. As Sadler makes clear, the two are essentially the same. What matters is the substance: reconnecting America’s Navy with shipyards, supply chains, and allies.
If we want peace, prosperity, and fewer crises, we must rebuild the muscle behind the flag—logistics, repair, and a maritime workforce. This interview is a practical roadmap. —Bill
Overview Captain Brent D. Sadler, USN (Ret.), argues that America must reconnect military power with economics, industry, and trade—what he calls naval (or “maritime”) statecraft. It’s not a new strategy so much as a return to our roots: the Navy as a warfighter, a shaper of peace, and a protector of commerce. That means rebuilding ships and shipyards, restoring sealift and logistics, re-wiring alliances for industrial capacity, and aligning innovation with both commercial and military needs.
What Is Naval/Maritime Statecraft—and Why It Matters
More than combat: the Navy deters war, protects trade, and shapes the environment in peacetime.
Break the silos: integrate defense, diplomacy, and economics so China can’t “triangulate” between them.
Update the structure: organize like it’s a long competition again—industry, ports, sealift, and policy working together.
Lessons from History
Avoid a “Phony War”: weak industrial bases turn short crises into long wars.
Operate where you may have to fight: know the people, ports, and waters before a crisis.
Today’s Pressing Challenges
Industrial shortfall: workforce gaps, thin supply chains, and insufficient naval architects and yards.
Logistics as Achilles’ heel: too few tankers, dry cargo/ammo ships, and assured fuel storage after Red Hill.
Economic leverage: China’s dominance in shipbuilding, shipping fleets, and port stakes shapes global trade on its terms.
Undersea infrastructure: seabed cables and pipelines are targets; cyber and space resilience are now core to sea power.
A Practical Path Forward
Demand and Shipyards: use smart incentives (e.g., Jones Act demand, allied capital) to expand U.S. yard capacity.
Human Capital: rebuild the trades—welders, pipefitters, naval architects—and grow maritime education pipelines.
Innovation with Purpose: from advanced logistics to modular cargo, small modular reactors, and data-driven supply chains—commercial breakthroughs that also serve military sustainment.
Allied Muscle: tap allied shipping and yards (Japan, South Korea, Europe, Canada) to scale capacity fast and politically sustainably.
Why Americans Should Care Everything from groceries to phones rides ships and undersea cables. If adversaries control ports, fleets, and repair yards—or cut our cables—prices spike, jobs suffer, and crises last longer. Maritime strength keeps daily life predictable.
Implications for the Navy Prioritize logistics ships, fuel resilience, dispersed Pacific access, and contested-environment sustainment. Tie operational concepts to a revitalized industrial base so the fleet you plan is the fleet you can build, crew, repair, and keep at sea.
Implications for Our Allies A stronger U.S. maritime sector reduces dangerous dependence on Chinese shipbuilding and sustains shared deterrence. Joint investment in yards, sealift, and pre-positioned stocks turns alliances into real capacity.
Call to Action Citizens should press leaders—local, state, and federal—to support maritime education, shipyard expansion, and logistics recapitalization. Industry and investors should pursue maritime tech and U.S. waterfront projects. Policymakers should align defense, commerce, and diplomacy to grow capacity at home and with allies.
For readers who want to go deeper, Captain Brent D. Sadler, USN (Ret.), expands on these ideas in his book U.S. Naval Power in the 21st Century: A New Strategy for Facing the Chinese and Russian Threat. It offers a detailed blueprint for how America can reconnect its Navy, industry, and diplomacy in the new era of great power competition.
For deeper dives, we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
How one Naval officer’s warning and one strategist’s vision show us the path forward
Introduction
In June 1943, the USS Essex arrived at Pearl Harbor, followed shortly by the USS Yorktown. These weren’t just two more ships—they were harbingers of American naval dominance. By August 1945, the U.S. Navy commanded 6,768 ships, dwarfing every other navy on earth. For a brief, shining moment, America achieved total maritime supremacy.
That moment, as Commander Benjamin Armstrong reminds us in his prescient Proceedings article, was fleeting. More importantly, it wasn’t inevitable. “American naval dominance is not a birthright,” Armstrong writes. “It cannot and should not be assumed in the 21st century.”
The Choice Before Us
Today, we face another inflection point remarkably similar to the one Alfred Thayer Mahan confronted in 1890. Then, as now, America had to choose between maritime greatness and strategic irrelevance.
Mahan saw an America that had grown economically powerful but remained strategically vulnerable. His solution wasn’t just to build ships—it was to educate the American people about why naval power mattered. Through articles in The Atlantic, books that shaped presidents, and tireless public advocacy, Mahan created the intellectual foundation for American naval expansion.
The result?
White Fleet, the Panama Canal, and the naval infrastructure that would prove decisive in two world wars.
History’s Pattern: The Sine Wave of American Naval Power
Armstrong’s analysis reveals a crucial truth: American naval strength has never followed a straight line. Instead, it follows what historian Craig Symonds calls a “sine wave”—peaks and troughs dictated not by strategic logic, but by how Americans view their role in the world.
After the War of 1812, when the Royal Navy had blockaded American ports and burned Washington, Congress appropriated $8 million for naval construction—the largest appropriation to that point. Americans had felt vulnerability firsthand, and they acted.
But by the 1850s, southern politicians saw the Navy as a tool of federal overreach. The fleet shrank. After the Civil War, America turned inward, focusing on western expansion. The Navy withered to just 38 ships by 1886.
Then came the 1890s economic expansion, Mahan’s influence, and renewed American ambition. The Navy grew again, reaching its “Second to None” peak during World War I, only to shrink again during the peace dividend of the 1920s.
The pattern is clear: American naval power rises and falls based on American choices, not strategic necessity.
The 1940 Moment: When America Chose Dominance
The most instructive parallel to today came in June 1940. As German forces overwhelmed France, Chief of Naval Operations Harold Stark requested $4 billion to increase the fleet by 70 percent. Congress didn’t just approve it—they doubled it, appropriating over $8 billion for the Two-Ocean Navy Act.
That wasn’t a military decision or even an executive branch decision. It was the American people, through their representatives, choosing naval dominance. Three years later, that choice manifested as the Essex and Yorktown sailing into Pearl Harbor, beginning America’s brief moment of total maritime supremacy.
Today’s China Challenge: Mahan’s Nightmare Realized
Mahan warned that America’s geographic advantages were temporary. He feared a day when a rising power could challenge American access to global markets and trade routes. That day has arrived.
China launches a new warship every month. We launch one every two years. By 2030, China will field 460 ships to our 290. More troubling, they’re building in contested waters—the South China Sea that carries $3.4 trillion in annual trade, including the supply chains that stock every American store and factory.
This isn’t just a military problem—it’s an economic catastrophe waiting to happen. Every iPhone, every car part, every prescription drug that crosses the Pacific depends on naval power to guarantee safe passage. When China can stop our ships, they can stop our economy.
The Mahan Model for Modern Advocacy
Just as Mahan educated Americans about naval power’s economic importance, we must connect naval dominance to modern prosperity. The tech industry that depends most heavily on Pacific trade should lead this effort—after all, they collectively enabled China’s rise through technology transfer and manufacturing partnerships.
Apple’s entire business model assumes free navigation of sea lanes China now contests. Tesla’s Shanghai factory means nothing if Chinese warships can interdict the ships carrying Tesla vehicles to American ports. Amazon’s global supply chain collapses without the Navy to keep shipping lanes open.
These companies have the resources and self-interest to fund a sustained campaign for naval investment. A small fraction of their cash reserves could support the kind of public education that creates political will for a 500-ship Navy.
The Choice Point: Repeating 1940
Armstrong’s historical analysis points to an uncomfortable truth: “The size and shape of the fleet have ebbed and flowed across history. American naval dominance is not a birthright… American naval dominance is a choice.”
We are at such a choice point now. Like 1940, we face a rising challenger, contested sea lanes, and an American public largely unaware of the stakes. Like 1940, we need both strategic vision and public will.
The strategic vision exists—military leaders have clearly articulated the need for over 500 ships and increased naval spending. What’s missing is the public education and political mobilization that translates vision into funding.
The Path Forward: GDP and Political Will
Currently, America spends roughly 1% of GDP on naval forces. In 1940, when we chose dominance, we spent over 8%. Even achieving a modest increase to 2% of GDP would fund the 500-ship Navy our strategists say we need.
But that requires the American people to make the same choice their grandparents made in 1940: that naval dominance isn’t a luxury, but a necessity.
Like Mahan 130 years ago, we must educate Americans about the connection between naval power and their daily prosperity. We must show them that the choice isn’t between military spending and domestic priorities—it’s between naval investment and economic vulnerability.
Conclusion: The Mahan Moment
Alfred Thayer Mahan changed how Americans thought about naval power through sustained public advocacy. He connected abstract strategic concepts to concrete economic interests. He made the case that naval power wasn’t optional for a trading nation—it was essential.
Commander Armstrong’s warning gives us the historical framework. Mahan’s example gives us the method. China’s challenge gives us the urgency.
The question isn’t whether America can afford naval dominance. The question is whether we can afford to lose it. In 1940, Americans chose wisely. The prosperity and security of the next 50 years depends on whether we choose as wisely today.
American naval dominance isn’t our birthright. But it can be our choice—if we make it while we still can.
Sign up for: Charting the Course: Voices That Matter—a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
Introduction Most people don’t realize it yet. We are already in a quiet w@r. Not with bombs. Not with missiles. But with fentanyl, with financial schemes, and with cyber attacks. These are not random hacks — they are deliberate intrusions aimed straight at America’s lifelines.
Targeting America’s Core Systems They target our banks — draining trust from the financial system. They map our pipelines — threatening the flow of oil and gas that heats our homes. They burrow into our power grids — carrying the ability to shut down American cities. They test our hospitals and emergency networks. They infiltrate our communications — preparing to cut the way America speaks, trades, and defends itself.
And now, they even target our homes and businesses. The devices we plug in. The networks we rely on. Even solar panels and batteries made overseas — carrying hidden back doors that could one day flip a switch against us.
Banks. Grids. Solar.
Why Americans Should Care This is not only about us. Our allies are targeted too. These attacks seek to divide, to weaken the bonds that keep freedom strong. A crisis in one corner of the world can ripple across oceans — and into our own homes.
The Navy and the Nation Our strength rests on both our sailors and our civilian maritime industry. Civilian ships move the goods America needs. Our Navy protects those ships and the sea lanes they travel. Together, they keep our nation alive and our economy moving.
As Rear Admiral Mike Studeman, U.S. Navy (Retired) has said: “The reality is that adversaries have insinuated themselves in our homeland… and continue to exploit our society from the inside out.”
A Call to Action That’s why today I am asking you: Call Congress. Tell them to support our sailors. Find your Representative or Senator at USA.gov. Use your voice. Every call is logged. Every message counts.
Demand that Congress fund emergency shipbuilding. And strengthen the Navy’s fleet.
Conclusion The future of America depends on us — on our sailors, on our civilian maritime, on our citizens, and on a Navy that protects them all.
That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter—a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
A Cautionary Tale for U.S. Naval Planners and Taxpayers
Bill Cullifer, Founder
Introduction
For decades, America chased profits by partnering with China — transferring technology and know-how that supercharged Beijing’s rise. Today, we could risk repeating that same mistake: putting quick Silicon Valley paydays ahead of America’s long-term security.
This is not about scoring points against Silicon Valley. It’s about ensuring America does not repeat the mistakes of the past — short-term profits and quick fixes that left China stronger and our Navy weaker — as someone who has seen these dynamics firsthand.
For those who have followed our work at Americans for a Stronger Navy, you know we believe America’s security, economy, and way of life depend on having the most capable fleet in the world. But capability isn’t measured in dollars spent or headlines about “innovation” — it’s measured in performance, reliability, and the safety of our sailors.
The latest reporting from Reuters makes clear we are falling catastrophically short, and that should alarm every American. Yes, bad news sells — but in this case, the bad news matters, because it reveals deeper failures in how America develops and fields naval technology — failures with life-and-death consequences.
When “Move Fast and Break Things” Breaks Lives
Recent tests off the California coast read like a Silicon Valley nightmare at sea. In one, a drone vessel stalled dead in the water while another smashed into its side, vaulting over the deck before crashing back into the sea. In another, a support boat capsized when the autonomous craft it was towing suddenly accelerated, throwing its captain into the ocean.
These aren’t beta test glitches. They’re life-threatening failures happening while China builds the largest navy in the world — and they’re funded by your tax dollars.
Testing vs. Accountability
Some will argue that testing is supposed to reveal problems — that dramatic failures are part of the process. They’re absolutely right that we need aggressive testing, not risk-aversion that slows innovation. But there’s a crucial difference between finding software bugs and throwing captains into the ocean. The same Silicon Valley companies that conduct exhaustive beta testing and gradual rollouts for consumer apps seem content to discover basic safety flaws during live Navy tests with human crews.
We’re not calling for less testing or slower innovation — we’re calling for the same rigorous pre-deployment standards these companies apply to their consumer products. If they can test a new iPhone feature through multiple phases before it reaches users, they can ensure autonomous boats won’t suddenly accelerate and capsize support vessels.
The Billion-Dollar Boondoggle
Defense startups with multi-billion-dollar valuations churn out drones by the dozen. Contractors take in hundreds of millions for autonomy software and systems that still stall, crash, and misfire. The culture of “fail fast” has migrated from app stores to the high seas — and our sailors are paying the price.
Bottom line: venture capitalists and defense contractors are getting rich while the Navy struggles to field systems that won’t sink, crash, or kill our crews.
History’s Warning — Don’t Hand China the Keys
We’ve been here before. In the late Cold War, the Navy realized that simply matching the Soviets ship-for-ship in Europe wasn’t enough. Leaders like John Lehman pushed a bold maritime strategy — using U.S. carrier groups to threaten the Soviet flanks, forcing Moscow to defend everywhere at once. That clarity of purpose built political support for a 600-ship Navy and helped secure the peace.
Today, by contrast, we risk drifting into the opposite: building expensive systems without a clear strategy, while China launches warships at breakneck pace. If Taiwan falls, Beijing won’t just seize an island — it will gain a springboard into the Central Pacific, threatening the Philippines, Guam, Hawaii, and the global sea lanes our prosperity depends on. That is the equivalent of handing China the keys to the Pacific.
The Tech Transfer Trap
For decades, Silicon Valley helped fuel China’s rise — chasing profits through partnerships, supply chains, and research deals that handed Beijing advanced technologies. That short-sightedness supercharged the very military now challenging America at sea. And today, the same ecosystem is cashing Pentagon checks while delivering half-finished products to the U.S. Navy.
Silicon Valley’s Responsibility
Palantir CEO Alex Karp recently said Silicon Valley must “fight for America.” We agree. But fighting for America means more than signing billion-dollar contracts — it means delivering technology that works, that protects sailors’ lives, and that strengthens deterrence in the Pacific. Anything less is not fighting for America; it’s profiting while our fleet falls behind.
We’ve seen how this plays out before: decades of short-sighted deals and technology transfers helped supercharge China’s rise. The result? Beijing got stronger, American taxpayers footed the bill, and now our Navy struggles with half-finished systems at sea. If Silicon Valley truly wants to defend America, it must also own its share of responsibility — and prove it by getting this right.
More Than Money — Lives and Liberty
This isn’t some procurement squabble over cost overruns. Every software glitch puts crews in mortal danger. Every failed deployment leaves the Pacific more vulnerable and our allies questioning American resolve. Every wasted dollar is one not spent on the ships, submarines, and systems actually needed to secure trade routes, defend allies, and deter Beijing.
Just look at Scarborough Shoal, where Chinese vessels recently rammed and water-cannoned Philippine boats in defiance of international law. Or the swarms of “maritime militia” Beijing deploys daily to choke off its neighbors’ fishing grounds and shipping routes. These are not distant hypotheticals — they are live-fire tests of American resolve. While our drones crash into each other off California, China is rewriting the rules of the Pacific, one confrontation at a time.
While executives celebrate unicorn valuations in Silicon Valley, Chinese naval forces are conducting increasingly aggressive patrols in the South China Sea. While venture capitalists debate which startup deserves their next hundred million, China launches new warships at a pace that would have impressed World War II shipbuilders.
Demand Better — Or Lose Everything
America doesn’t need more press releases about “revolutionary defense innovation.” It needs results. Innovation is vital — America must harness Silicon Valley’s ingenuity — but innovation without accountability isn’t strength, it’s surrender. We are not calling for less innovation — we are calling for better innovation that delivers results worthy of the stakes.
We need accountability that goes beyond pausing contracts after people nearly die. We need a defense industrial base that prioritizes mission success over market valuations.
Don’t expect the mainstream press to frame this correctly — they’ll blame the Navy. But this isn’t on the sailors, the admirals, or the Navy’s acquisition officers working with the systems they’re given. This is on the defense contractors and tech companies who took taxpayer money promising cutting-edge capability and delivered dangerous prototypes instead.
America’s Naval Advantage — If We Seize It
Make no mistake: America still holds the cards to dominate the seas for decades to come. We have the world’s most innovative tech sector, the deepest capital markets, and the most experienced naval force on the planet. What we need is to stop letting Silicon Valley treat the U.S. Navy like a beta testing ground while they perfect their systems.
The same ecosystem that built the internet, revolutionized computing, and put rovers on Mars can absolutely build the world’s most capable autonomous naval fleet — if we demand they bring their A-game instead of their rough drafts. When SpaceX decided to take astronauts seriously, they revolutionized spaceflight. When Silicon Valley takes sailors seriously, they’ll revolutionize naval warfare.
This isn’t about stifling innovation — it’s about unleashing it properly. The companies cashing these Pentagon checks have proven they can build reliable, game-changing technology when their reputation depends on it. Now their reputation should depend on keeping our sailors safe and our Navy superior.
Most of all, we need Americans to demand better — because the alternative to demanding excellence isn’t just wasted money or embarrassing headlines. It’s watching China’s growing fleet face no credible opposition in the waters that secure our prosperity. But that’s not inevitable. America can still build the world’s most dominant navy — we just need to stop accepting second-rate work from first-rate companies.
The stakes are nothing less than our security, our economy, and our future. It’s time to make waves.
That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter—a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
A Comprehensive Series by Americans for a Stronger Navy
By Bill Cullifer, Founder – Americans for a Stronger Navy
Introduction: Why We’re Launching This Series on Scarborough Shoal
What is Scarborough Shoal?
At first glance, it’s just a triangle-shaped reef in the South China Sea, roughly 120 nautical miles west of Luzon, Philippines. No buildings. No runway. No flag.
Scarborough Shoal, courtesy of the U.S. Navy.
But don’t let its humble appearance fool you.
Scarborough Shoal is one of the most contested flashpoints in the Indo-Pacific. This seemingly minor cluster of rocks and reefs sits at the heart of one of the world’s most vital sea lanes — and could very well be the next spark in a global conflict.
What Prompted This Series
We didn’t choose Scarborough Shoal at random. This series was prompted by a disturbing escalation in Chinese maritime aggression in the South China Sea — specifically at Scarborough Shoal, a small reef with outsized strategic consequences.
Recent satellite photo of Scarborough Shoal showing Chinese vessels surrounding the reef, with overlay graphics indicating vessel positions and types
Recent events that brought this to a head include:
A Chinese cutter and guided-missile destroyer collided during a botched blockade attempt of Philippine Coast Guard vessels ten nautical miles off Scarborough Shoal in August 2025.
USS Higgins (DDG-76) sailed within 12 nautical miles of Scarborough Shoal conducting a Freedom of Navigation Operation (FONOP) — the first known U.S. military operation in at least six years in these specific waters.
Chinese Coast Guard harassment of Philippine resupply missions.
Dumping of concrete blocks — a likely signal of future construction.
Swarming of the area by Chinese maritime militia vessels.
The Scarborough Shoal is quickly becoming a litmus test for Chinese expansionism and U.S. resolve.
Why Now: The Wake-Up Call
Scarborough Shoal lies just 120 nautical miles off the Philippine coast — well within their Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) — and even closer to America’s red lines. When China seized de facto control of the shoal in 2012, the U.S. stood back. Many viewed this as a strategic failure of deterrence.
Now, the world is witnessing the possibility of militarization of the reef — and direct confrontation with a U.S. ally. That makes this more than a regional issue. It’s a crisis in the making.
The 2012 Standoff: A Turning Point
In April 2012, Philippine authorities attempted to arrest Chinese fishermen operating illegally in the shoal. Chinese maritime surveillance ships intervened. A tense standoff ensued, lasting weeks. The U.S. brokered a deal: both sides would withdraw.
The Philippines kept its word. China didn’t.
Instead, China took control of Scarborough Shoal, effectively barring Filipino access ever since. They now patrol it with coast guard cutters, militia fishing boats, and surveillance drones — sometimes even water cannons. Construction may follow.
A Geopolitical Tinderbox in the Sea
The South China Sea is home to trillions of dollars in annual global trade. It’s also flush with resources: fish, gas, oil, and geostrategic leverage. China claims nearly all of it under its so-called “Nine-Dash Line” — a sweeping assertion that ignores international law and overrides the rights of Southeast Asian nations like the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia.
Scarborough Shoal, or Bajo de Masinloc as the Filipinos call it, lies within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ), as defined under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration definitively ruled that China’s sweeping claims in the South China Sea had no legal basis under international law.
China’s response? They ignored the ruling entirely and doubled down on their aggression.
My Perspective: This Isn’t Just a Reef
As a former Navy destroyer sailor from the 1970s, I understand how seemingly minor naval flashpoints can quickly spiral. I launched Americans for a Stronger Navy to bridge the gap between what’s happening on the water and what the American public knows.
When I began Americans for a Stronger Navy, I did so because I believed — and still believe — that Americans are not being told the full story.
Scarborough Shoal isn’t on the nightly news — but it should be.
This reef is about more than rocks and water. It’s about:
Sovereignty
International law
Access to critical trade routes
Maintaining a rules-based order
The failure of deterrence
The rise of maritime bullying
The fragility of global trade
And the uncomfortable question: Will America act, or will we retreat?
Why Americans Must Pay Attention
Most Americans have never heard of Scarborough Shoal, but they should. Here’s why it matters to you:
Over $3 trillion in trade passes through the South China Sea annually.
China is testing the boundaries of international law and Western will.
Scarborough is a potential trigger point for a wider conflict — even WWIII.
The U.S. Navy may be forced to act, and our sailors are on the front line.
Success here emboldens China’s tactics elsewhere — Taiwan Strait, East China Sea.
Control of Scarborough supports China’s broader Belt and Road Initiative and maritime silk road ambitions.
If you think a shoal doesn’t matter, consider this: $3.4 trillion in global trade flows through the South China Sea every year. China is attempting to rewrite the rules of international waters. And the U.S. Navy — your Navy — is the thin blue line standing in the way.
Coming Up in This Series
The history of Scarborough Shoal and how we got here
The 2012 U.S.-brokered standoff and its long-term impact
The 2016 international arbitration ruling and China’s defiance
China’s maritime militia and “gray zone” tactics
The importance of fishing rights, seabed minerals, and cable networks
Allied response frameworks: QUAD, AUKUS, and Philippines mutual defense commitments
The implications for the U.S., our allies, and our Navy
Economic warfare potential and leverage tactics
Technology, surveillance, and intelligence dimensions
WWIII scenarios — and what they could look like
Congressional and policy tools available (or missing)
What Americans know (or don’t) about this growing threat
Each post will build context and momentum — helping readers understand why this small reef could shape the future of American security strategy in Asia and beyond.
Join the Mission
Understanding Scarborough Shoal is understanding a fault line in today’s global order. This series isn’t just about sounding the alarm — it’s about equipping Americans with insight, history, and facts so we can rally support, demand accountability, and avoid miscalculation.
If we don’t understand where the storm is brewing, we won’t know when to take shelter — or when to stand our ground.
Scarborough Shoal may seem far away. But the values at stake — sovereignty, freedom of navigation, and deterrence — are right at our doorstep.
Not to inflame. Not to fearmonger. But to educate, illuminate, and inspire action.
Please follow along, share with others, and help us shine a spotlight on one of the most important — and most underreported — strategic flashpoints of our time.
Stay with us. Read. Share. Talk about it.
Because understanding this reef might just help us prevent the next war.
A Final Thought
If a reef you’ve never heard of could spark the next major war — dragging America and its sailors into the fight — doesn’t that make it worth understanding?
Let’s chart the course together.
That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter—a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
Illustration of the AIRCAT Bengal MC, the world’s most advanced autonomous naval vessel.
Introduction
The recent unveiling of the AIRCAT Bengal MC marks one of the most significant leaps in naval technology in recent years. Developed by Eureka Naval Craft in collaboration with Greenroom Robotics and ESNA Naval Architects, this 36-meter Surface Effect Ship (SES) blends cutting-edge speed, payload capacity, modularity, and autonomous operation. Capable of operating both crewed and uncrewed, the Bengal MC is designed to execute a wide range of missions—from launching Tomahawk cruise missiles to serving as a drone mothership—at a fraction of the cost of traditional warships. For a Navy seeking to maximize agility and lethality while controlling costs, the Bengal MC may represent a new model for maritime dominance.
Advanced Design and Capabilities
At the heart of the Bengal MC’s innovation is its SES hull, a hybrid between a hovercraft and a catamaran, which reduces drag and allows speeds exceeding 50 knots. It can carry up to 44 tons—enough for two 40-foot ISO modules—while maintaining a 1,000 nautical-mile operational range. This enables deployment to distant theaters without frequent refueling.
Mission versatility is a hallmark of the Bengal MC. Configurable for troop transport, landing support, electronic warfare, mine-laying or counter-mine operations, reconnaissance, and high-speed logistics, its modular construction allows the ship to be tailored for the task at hand. It’s equipped to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles and Naval Strike Missiles, providing a level of firepower that traditionally required much larger, more expensive ships.
Autonomy and Operational Flexibility
Powered by Greenroom Robotics’ Advanced Maritime Autonomy Software (GAMA), the Bengal MC is fully capable of autonomous operation, while still offering human-in-the-loop oversight. This system was validated through the Patrol Boat Autonomy Trial, ensuring reliability in complex maritime environments. Its ability to operate autonomously means it can be deployed into high-risk zones without putting sailors directly in harm’s way, while crewed missions remain an option for complex operations.
Efficiency and Strategic Value
The Bengal MC is also designed for fuel efficiency and reduced operating costs, making it an attractive option for navies needing maximum capability per dollar spent. Its ability to replace or augment larger surface combatants with smaller, faster, more adaptable ships could reshape the way the U.S. Navy and allied forces plan their fleets. This is particularly critical in the Indo-Pacific, where speed, reach, and survivability are vital.
Why Americans Should The Bengal MC
represents a shift toward a leaner, faster, more lethal Navy—one that can respond quickly to threats without waiting for a carrier strike group to arrive. In an era where peer adversaries like China are rapidly expanding and modernizing their fleets, the U.S. must adopt innovative solutions to maintain maritime dominance. This is about more than ships; it’s about safeguarding trade routes, deterring aggression, and ensuring that America retains freedom of movement on the seas.
Implications for the Navy
For the U.S. Navy, the Bengal MC offers an opportunity to expand distributed maritime operations with high-speed, missile-capable platforms that are less expensive to build and operate. The autonomy package reduces crew demands, freeing personnel for other critical missions. In contested environments, these vessels can serve as fast-moving strike platforms, reconnaissance nodes, or logistic links—roles that support and extend the reach of larger fleet assets.
Implications for Our Allies
For U.S. allies in AUKUS, NATO, and key Indo-Pacific partnerships, the Bengal MC offers an interoperable, high-performance platform that can be rapidly integrated into joint operations. Nations like Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Vietnam, Thailand, and the Philippines—facing their own maritime security challenges—could use this vessel to augment their fleets without the heavy investment required for traditional destroyers or frigates. Greater allied adoption would strengthen collective maritime defense and create a shared technological advantage over adversaries.
Conclusion
The AIRCAT Bengal MC is more than a new ship—it’s a potential blueprint for the future of naval warfare. Fast, flexible, and autonomous, it demonstrates how advanced engineering and smart design can produce a strategic asset that meets the demands of modern maritime security. If the U.S. and its allies choose to embrace this model, it could mark a turning point in the race for naval superiority in the 21st century.
Learn More and Get Involved
At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we believe in highlighting technologies and strategies that strengthen our maritime advantage. Our mission is to educate, engage, and rally support for a Navy that can meet tomorrow’s challenges head-on. Sign up for the FREE newsletter and join our educational series.
Chart of the disposition of ships the night of 8 AugustBill Cullifer, Founder
Introduction
On this solemn anniversary of the Battle of Savo Island, Americans for a Stronger Navy joins our Australian allies in remembering the courage and sacrifice of those who gave their lives in the dark waters off Guadalcanal on August 9, 1942.
The loss of HMAS Canberra and her 84 brave sailors, alongside over 900 American naval personnel, represents more than numbers—it represents the ultimate sacrifice made by free nations standing together against tyranny. This battle, while tactically a defeat, demonstrated the unbreakable bond between Australian and American naval forces that continues to secure the Pacific today.
The lessons of Savo Island—the critical importance of naval readiness, advanced training, and technological superiority—remain as relevant now as they were 82 years ago. As we face new challenges in the Pacific, from contested sea lanes to emerging threats, we honor these fallen heroes by ensuring our Navy maintains the strength, capability, and resolve they died defending.
Their sacrifice reminds us that freedom of navigation and maritime security are not abstract concepts, but principles worth defending with our lives. Today, as then, a strong Navy remains America’s first line of defense and our greatest tool for preserving peace through strength.
We stand with Australia in remembering these heroes and recommit ourselves to the naval strength that protects both our nations.
A Salute to Those Who Remember
To all who pause today to honor these fallen sailors—veterans, families, historians, students, and citizens both American and Australian—thank you. Your remembrance keeps their sacrifice alive and their lessons relevant. Whether you’re a descendant of a Savo Island survivor, a naval history enthusiast, or simply someone who understands that freedom isn’t free, your attention to this anniversary matters.
Special recognition goes to our Australian friends, military historians, naval societies, and educators who ensure these stories continue to be told. In an age of shortened attention spans, those who preserve and share naval history perform a vital service to both our nations.
Why Average Americans Should Care About the Battle of Savo Island
Economic Security The Pacific carries over $1.4 trillion in annual trade vital to American prosperity. These are the same trade routes where sailors died in 1942. Today, 40% of America’s imports cross these waters, along with critical shipping lanes for oil, gas, and renewable energy components that power our economy.
Historical Lessons for Today Savo Island showed the cost of being caught unprepared—a lesson directly applicable to current Pacific tensions. The battle demonstrated why strong allies like Australia are essential to American security, and how technological superiority matters. Japanese superiority in night-fighting capabilities led to their victory; today’s tech gaps could prove equally costly.
Personal Connection Many American families have ancestors who served in the Pacific Theater. Understanding what military service truly costs helps inform decisions about defense spending and foreign policy. The battle reminds us that the freedoms Americans enjoy came at tremendous cost and weren’t guaranteed by geography alone.
Current Relevance The same strategic waterways remain crucial to American interests today. Modern tensions in the South China Sea echo the naval competition of WWII, and historical battles like Savo Island inform current debates about naval funding and capabilities.
Strengthening Allied Partnerships
The Battle of Savo Island reminds us that America’s security depends not just on our own naval strength, but on the strength of our alliances. Today, this means:
The AUKUS Partnership with Australia and the UK builds on the naval cooperation forged in battles like Savo Island, sharing submarine technology that strengthens all three nations. Joint training exercises with Australian, Japanese, and other Pacific allies ensure we won’t repeat the communication failures of 1942 that contributed to the defeat.
Shared intelligence networks and integrated defense relationships born from WWII sacrifices now provide early warning and coordinated responses to regional threats. Allied shipbuilding and defense manufacturing strengthen both nations’ naval capabilities, creating an industrial base that supports deterrence.
The Battle of Savo Island isn’t just history—it’s a reminder that American prosperity and security depend on naval strength and strong alliances. The sailors who died there died protecting the world we live in today. Their legacy lives on not just in our memory, but in the enduring partnerships their sacrifice helped forge.
If we want peace, we must master this new domain.
It’s time to embrace it. It’s time to invest. It’s time to lead.
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 future isn’t coming—it’s already here, patrolling our oceans with no human hands on the wheel.
Personal Reflection
Bill Cullifer, onboard USS Henry B. Wilson -DDG 7 1976Bill Cullifer, Founder
As someone who stood watch on a destroyer’s deck for years, I’d love nothing more than for every young American to feel the salt air, a wooden helm at their fingertips, the roll of the ship beneath their feet and the breathtaking vastness of the sea. That experience shaped my life and the life of many others that I respect and admire.
But sentiment won’t secure the future. The world has changed—and it’s time we face some hard facts.
We’re now witnessing the dawn of a radically new era in warfare. One that demands we embrace and invest in the technologies that will define the next generation of naval power.
From Science Fiction to Sea Trials
Less than a decade ago, the idea of fully autonomous warships seemed like the stuff of sci-fi. Today, the U.S. Navy’s USX-1 Defiant—a 180-foot, 240-ton vessel designed without a single human accommodation—is conducting sea trials off Washington state.
No bunks. No heads. No mess halls. Just a steel-clad, AI-powered war machine optimized purely for mission.
This isn’t incremental change. It’s an exponential leap.
The Compound Effect of Convergent Technologies
What’s driving this revolution isn’t just a single breakthrough. It’s convergence.
AI Decision-Making at Machine Speed
Ships like USS Ranger and Mariner aren’t just autonomous—they’re operational. They’ve logged thousands of miles, fired missiles, and executed missions without direct human control. Real-time, tactical adaptation is already replacing human-triggered decision trees.
Swarm Coordination Beyond Human Capability
With programs like Ghost Fleet Overlord, we’re moving toward fully integrated autonomous networks—surface, subsurface, aerial. Swarms of unmanned systems coordinating at machine speed, executing joint missions across domains.
New Physical Designs, New Possibilities
When you remove the human factor, new design freedom emerges. The NOMARS program optimizes for function over form—rapid payload reconfiguration, longer endurance, fewer constraints. Defiant doesn’t compromise. It adapts.
The Multiplication Factor
Each of these capabilities amplifies the others:
AI enables swarm tactics
Swarms generate operational data
That data trains the next-gen AI
Which enables even more sophisticated missions
The cycle is accelerating. Consider DARPA’s Manta Ray, an autonomous glider designed to “hibernate” on the seabed for months. Now picture that working in tandem with unmanned surface vessels like Defiant, and traditional submarines—all coordinating without a single sailor onboard.
The MASC Paradigm: Speed Over Paperwork
The Navy’s new Modular Attack Surface Craft (MASC) program exemplifies this exponential thinking. Instead of designing ships around specific missions, MASC creates standardized platforms that gain capabilities through containerized payloads—like naval smartphones that become powerful through modular “apps.”
With an aggressive 18-month delivery timeline and emphasis on commercial standards over “exquisite” platforms, MASC represents a fundamental shift in how the Navy acquires capability. As Austin Gray, Navy Reserve Intelligence Officer & Co-founder/CSO, Blue Water Autonomy observed: “The way Navy is approaching MASC—procuring fast, iteratively, and with focus on speed over paperwork—should offer us hope that the future of U.S. seapower is not so dim.”
This isn’t just about new ships—it’s about new thinking. MASC vessels can be missile shooters one day, submarine hunters the next, simply by swapping standardized containers. The high-capacity variant could carry 64 missiles—more firepower than many destroyers, at a fraction of the cost.
Beyond the Horizon
In 2016, Sea Hunter launched with basic navigation. By 2021, converted vessels were firing missiles. In 2025, purpose-built unmanned warships are conducting sea trials. By 2026, MASC prototypes will be delivered for fleet operations.
What’s next?
The Pentagon is backing this future with a $179 billion R&D investment focused on AI, drone swarms, and autonomous systems. The revolution isn’t limited to ships—it extends to autonomous aircraft, land vehicles, and space-based platforms.
The Inflection Point
This may be the most transformative shift in warfare since the atomic age.
But unlike nuclear weapons, which stagnated under treaties and deterrence doctrines, autonomous systems evolve constantly—learning, adapting, improving. The next five years will likely deliver breakthroughs we can’t yet fully comprehend.
We’re not just upgrading platforms. We’re creating entire ecosystems of autonomous coordination that outpace human decision-making and redefine how wars are fought—and deterred.
Welcome to U.S. Navy 3.0—a new era defined not by bigger ships, but by smarter ones.
We’ve discussed this evolution before: Navy 1.0 was sail and steel; Navy 2.0 brought nuclear power and carrier dominance. Navy 3.0 marks a transformational leap driven by artificial intelligence, autonomy, and multi-domain integration. It’s not just about replacing crewed vessels with unmanned ones—it’s about rethinking naval power from the keel up. From swarming tactics to predictive logistics and machine-speed decision-making, Navy 3.0 is our opportunity to regain the edge in a world where adversaries are building faster, cheaper, and without rules.
The Legacy Challenge
This transformation faces significant resistance. Naval culture, built around centuries of seamanship and command tradition, doesn’t easily embrace unmanned systems. The defense industrial base, optimized for billion-dollar platforms with decades-long production cycles, struggles with MASC’s 18-month timelines and commercial standards.
But operational necessity is forcing evolution. When China builds ships faster than we can afford traditional platforms, alternatives become imperatives. The question isn’t whether to change—it’s whether we can change fast enough.
The Future Is Now
This isn’t a concept. It’s not theory. It’s happening:
Autonomous vessels are already patrolling the Pacific
Underwater gliders are proving months-long endurance
Unmanned surface warships are rewriting the rules of naval architecture
Containerized missile systems are operational
MASC solicitations are active with near-term delivery requirements
The revolution is not ahead of us. It’s around us.
And we’ve only just left the pier.
Why Americans Should Care
Autonomous warfare isn’t just a military story—it’s a national security imperative. Adversaries like China are racing to seize the advantage in unmanned systems. Falling behind means more than losing battles—it risks losing deterrence, freedom of navigation, and geopolitical influence.
The economic implications are equally significant. Navy 3.0’s emphasis on commercial standards and distributed production could revitalize American shipbuilding, creating jobs while strengthening national security.
Implications for the Navy
To remain dominant, the U.S. Navy must rethink everything: shipbuilding timelines, training paradigms, procurement processes, and alliances. Naval power in this new era will favor speed, adaptability, and distributed lethality.
Officer career paths built around commanding ships must evolve to managing autonomous swarms. Training programs must balance traditional seamanship with algorithmic warfare. Most critically, the Navy must maintain its warrior ethos while embracing radical technological change.
A Final Word
Let’s not confuse nostalgia with readiness. The romance of the sea will always have a place in our hearts—but it won’t protect our shores.
The wooden helm and salt air that shaped naval officers for generations remain valuable experiences. But future naval leaders will find meaning in different challenges: commanding autonomous fleets, coordinating multi-domain operations, and outthinking adversaries at machine speed.
If we want peace, we must master this new domain.
It’s time to embrace it. It’s time to invest. It’s time to lead.
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.
24 Months of Evidence Supporting Admiral Studeman’s Warning
How Americans for a Stronger Navy’s research reveals the CCP has escalated from silent infiltration to brazen assault
A Courageous Voice Speaking Essential Truth
When Rear Admiral Mike Studeman tweets about the Chinese Communist Party’s “silent invasion” of the United States, he demonstrates the courage and expertise that made him one of America’s most respected intelligence leaders. As the former commander of the Office of Naval Intelligence and director for intelligence (J2) of the Indo-Pacific Command, his assessment carries the weight of unparalleled access to classified intelligence and strategic analysis.
Admiral Studeman’s characterization of a “silent invasion” accurately captures the sophisticated nature of CCP operations and Beijing’s remarkable success in suppressing American awareness of these threats. We deeply respect his expertise and his willingness to speak plainly about dangers that many prefer to ignore.
However, our 24 months of intensive research at StrongerNavy.org suggests the CCP has escalated beyond “silent” operations into something far more brazen and destructive. What we’re witnessing isn’t just sophisticated infiltration—it’s an increasingly overt wrecking ball campaign against American sovereignty, institutions, and security.
From Silent to Brazen: The Evolution We’ve Documented
From Silent to Brazen: The Evolution We’ve Documented
Since early 2023, Americans for a Stronger Navy has been tracking what appears to be a deliberate escalation in CCP operations. While these campaigns retain sophisticated elements that justify Admiral Studeman’s “silent invasion” framework, our evidence reveals increasingly brazen and openly destructive tactics.
The CCP seems to have calculated that they can operate more aggressively without meaningful American response—and unfortunately, they appear to be correct.
The Brazen Infrastructure Assault
Our documentation reveals systematic, increasingly bold attacks on America’s most critical systems. These aren’t subtle probes—they’re aggressive penetrations designed to establish persistent access and demonstrate vulnerability.
The infiltration of presidential communications represents just the most visible example of operations that have grown remarkably brazen. Our research indicates comprehensive targeting of government communications at all levels, conducted with a boldness that suggests confidence in American inaction.
Recent attacks on energy grids, transportation networks, and telecommunications systems show a pattern of escalating aggression. These operations extend far beyond intelligence gathering into active preparation for disruption and destruction.
Open Information Warfare
Perhaps most brazenly, we’ve tracked sophisticated information warfare campaigns that no longer attempt to hide their foreign origins. These operations openly work to disrupt American elections, amplify social divisions, and undermine public trust in democratic institutions.
The CCP’s information warfare apparatus has grown increasingly confident in conducting operations that would have been considered unthinkably brazen just years ago. They’re betting that Americans won’t respond effectively even to overt manipulation—and so far, they’re winning that bet.
Economic Wrecking Ball Tactics
Our monitoring reveals systematic efforts to damage American economic competitiveness through increasingly overt means. This goes beyond traditional espionage into active economic warfare designed to weaken American industrial capacity and technological leadership.
The brazenness of these operations reflects Beijing’s assessment that America lacks the will to respond proportionally to economic aggression, even when it’s conducted openly.
Congressional Validation: The Scope of Brazen Operations
Recent congressional investigations validate our assessment that CCP operations have grown increasingly bold and destructive:
More than 60 CCP-related espionage cases documented from February 2021 to December 2024 across 20 states
The FBI reports that roughly 80 percent of economic espionage prosecutions involve conduct that would benefit China
Despite congressional warnings 25 years ago, federal agencies continue to treat these operations as manageable rather than the existential threat they represent
These statistics represent only discovered and prosecuted cases. The true scope of brazen CCP operations likely extends far beyond public acknowledgment, precisely because their boldness makes them harder for American institutions to process and respond to effectively.
The Wrecking Ball Strategy: Why Brazen Works
Intelligence analysts have identified the six broad domains of Chinese political warfare that Admiral Studeman’s assessment encompasses:
Intelligence operations – Now conducted with unprecedented boldness
Cyber operations – Increasingly destructive rather than just penetrative
Information and disinformation operations – Openly aggressive narrative warfare
United Front work – Brazen influence operations in academic and political institutions
Irregular military actions – Escalating gray zone operations testing American resolve
Economic coercion – Open use of economic relationships as weapons
Our research shows escalating aggression across all domains. The CCP appears to have concluded that brazen operations work better than subtle ones because they overwhelm American decision-making processes and exploit our institutional reluctance to acknowledge the scale of the threat.
The Suppression Paradox: Hiding in Plain Sight
Here’s where Admiral Studeman’s “silent invasion” framework remains critically important: Beijing has achieved the remarkable feat of conducting increasingly brazen operations while maintaining effective suppression of American awareness.
This represents a sophisticated understanding of American psychology and institutional dynamics. By operating brazenly while simultaneously suppressing discussion, the CCP creates a psychological disconnect that paralyzes American response.
The suppression operates through:
Institutional capture – Leveraging relationships to discourage acknowledgment of the threat’s scope
Information overwhelm – Creating so much noise that clear signals get lost
Psychological warfare – Making the threat seem too large and complex to address effectively
Economic leverage – Using business relationships to discourage honest assessment
The result is that brazen operations continue while most Americans remain unaware they’re living through an unprecedented assault on American sovereignty.
Admiral Studeman’s Essential Service
Admiral Studeman’s willingness to speak publicly about this threat performs essential national service. His credibility as a former intelligence chief makes it harder to dismiss these concerns as partisan hysteria or threat inflation.
His “silent invasion” framework captures the sophisticated suppression campaign that keeps most Americans unaware of what’s happening. Our research builds on his foundation by documenting how these operations have escalated into increasingly brazen territory.
Together, these perspectives reveal the full scope of the challenge: sophisticated suppression campaigns enabling increasingly brazen destructive operations.
The Wrecking Ball Reality: Beyond Traditional Competition
What we’re documenting isn’t traditional great power competition or even sophisticated espionage. It’s a comprehensive wrecking ball campaign designed to weaken American society, institutions, and capabilities from within.
The “wrecking ball” metaphor captures several essential elements:
Destructive intent – These operations aim to damage, not just gather intelligence
Brazen execution – Increasingly overt operations that test American resolve
Systematic targeting – Coordinated assault on multiple critical systems simultaneously
Escalating aggression – Growing boldness as American responses prove inadequate
This represents something qualitatively different from the Cold War competition or traditional espionage. It’s political warfare designed to achieve strategic objectives through systematic destruction of American capabilities and confidence.
Our Continuing Documentation Mission
For 24 months, Americans for a Stronger Navy has been documenting this escalating campaign because we understand that naval readiness cannot be separated from broader threats to American sovereignty. A stronger Navy requires a society capable of recognizing and responding to unprecedented challenges.
Admiral Studeman’s courage in speaking publicly about the “silent invasion” creates an opportunity to educate Americans about both the sophisticated suppression campaigns and the increasingly brazen operations they enable.
Our research at StrongerNavy.org will continue documenting these operations, providing Americans with evidence-based analysis of threats that combine sophisticated concealment with brazen execution. This isn’t about creating panic—it’s about enabling the informed, strategic response that this unprecedented challenge demands.
Breaking Through: From Silent to Seen
Admiral Studeman’s public warnings represent a crucial first step in breaking through Beijing’s suppression campaign. His “silent invasion” framework helps Americans understand how sophisticated operations can remain hidden in plain sight.
Our “wrecking ball” analysis builds on his foundation by revealing how these operations have escalated into increasingly brazen territory. Together, these perspectives provide a comprehensive understanding of threats that are simultaneously sophisticated and destructive, subtle and brazen.
The silent invasion is real—and it has evolved into something even more dangerous. The wrecking ball campaign is underway. Thanks to leaders like Admiral Studeman, Americans are finally beginning to see what’s been happening on their home soil.
The first step in defending American sovereignty is recognizing that we’re facing something unprecedented: a campaign that combines sophisticated suppression with brazen destruction. Admiral Studeman has provided the framework for understanding the suppression. Our research documents the escalating brazenness.
Together, we can help Americans see the full scope of the challenge—and the urgent need for a response equal to the threat.
Americans for a Stronger Navy has been documenting evidence of escalating foreign political warfare operations at StrongerNavy.org since early 2023. Our mission is to educate Americans about the maritime and national security challenges facing our nation while advocating for the naval capabilities needed to address them.
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 move beyond slogans. Let’s build understanding, accountability, and strength—before the next crisis comes knocking.
Follow our research at StrongerNavy.org and join the conversation on social media @StrongerNavy
