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.
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.
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.
A Quarter Millennium of Service On October 13, 1775, the Continental Congress resolved to establish a swift sailing vessel armed with carriage guns to defend American commerce from British forces. From that moment, the United States Navy was born. Two and a half centuries later, the Navy remains at the heart of American security and prosperity.
This week, despite a government shutdown that has paused some ceremonies, the Navy will celebrate its 250th birthday in Philadelphia — the city where both the Navy and Marine Corps trace their roots. Ships will parade on the Delaware River, bands will play, and the public will tour vessels new and old, from USS Arlington to the historic battleship New Jersey. Flyovers, displays, football, and fireworks will honor the sailors who have stood the watch in times of peace, crisis, and war.
Heritage and Resilience The Navy’s legacy is rich with examples of ingenuity and determination. We’ve told the story of USS R-14, whose crew in 1921 literally sailed their submarine home when fuel ran out. We’ve revisited Midway, where pilots flew through chaos and confusion to deliver a decisive victory. We’ve remembered Cold War destroyer sailors who carried out missions day after day with little fanfare but enormous consequences.
These stories remind us that the Navy’s strength lies not only in steel, but in sailors — their resilience, creativity, and courage.
Doing More With Less Today, we ask much of those sailors. The U.S. Navy remains the most powerful in the world by tonnage and capability, but it is no longer the largest by sheer numbers. Our adversaries are building at speed, while we face strained shipyards, aging infrastructure, and stretched resources.
As Vice Adm. John Gumbleton said ahead of the 250th celebrations, the heritage of “mighty warships and service members who sailed proudly at sea” continues today. But heritage and resilience are not enough without investment. Our sailors are doing more with less — and that cannot remain the strategy for America’s future.
Why Americans Should Care The oceans are lifelines of trade, energy, and security. A strong Navy keeps those lifelines secure and deters those who would threaten them. Philadelphia may be the birthplace of the Navy, but the mission it carries belongs to all Americans.
A Call to Action Happy 250th, U.S. Navy. We honor your past, salute your sailors, and celebrate your legacy. But the best way to mark this anniversary is to ensure the next 250 years are just as strong. That means supporting shipbuilding, revitalizing industry, and giving our sailors the tools they need to prevail.
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.
Introduction: Why This Matters At Americans for a Stronger Navy, our mission is clear: give sailors the tools they need to succeed. That means more than ships and weapons — it means clarity and consistency in U.S. foreign policy. When Washington wavers, it is sailors and Marines who carry the burden, often forward-deployed thousands of miles from home.
The Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Foreign Policy Tracker shows just how uneven America’s global posture has become. Some areas are trending positive — energy exports, alliances in Europe, international organizations. Others, especially the Indo-Pacific, are trending negative. That inconsistency has real-world consequences for the Navy: sailors are asked to project strength even as policy shifts under their feet.
A Real-Time Example: The October 7th Hearing Tomorrow, the Senate Subcommittee on East Asia, the Pacific, and International Cybersecurity Policy will hold a hearing titled “Combating the People’s Republic of China’s Illegal, Coercive, Aggressive, and Deceptive Behavior in the Indo-Pacific.”
The witnesses bring distinct perspectives that reflect the challenges highlighted in the Tracker:
Craig Singleton (Foundation for Defense of Democracies) – A former diplomat, Singleton warns that mixed signals on Taiwan, arms sales, and technology exports embolden Beijing. Policy inconsistency undermines deterrence and puts sailors in greater danger.
Ray Powell (SeaLight Foundation, Stanford) – A retired Air Force colonel, Powell tracks China’s “gray zone” tactics: swarming, harassment, and incremental pressure in the South China Sea. These confrontations fall hardest on sailors at sea, who face constant risks of escalation.
Dr. Ely Ratner (The Marathon Initiative) – A strategist focused on great-power competition, Ratner emphasizes the long view: rebuilding U.S. alliances, revitalizing shipbuilding, and sustaining naval power for decades, not just years.
Why Americans Should Care The Indo-Pacific isn’t just a faraway chessboard. The sea lanes carry the goods Americans buy every day, from electronics to energy. If Beijing dominates those waters, costs will rise at home, jobs will be at risk, and U.S. influence will shrink abroad. Add to this China’s cyber intrusions, intellectual property theft, and influence operations, and the challenge is already reaching into American life.
Implications for the Navy The Navy is America’s frontline deterrent. Singleton’s warnings highlight that sailors need more than weapons — they need policy clarity. Powell’s findings show how Beijing’s small-scale harassment tactics wear down ships and crews. Ratner’s perspective reminds us that without sustained investment in industry and alliances, our Navy risks being stretched to the breaking point.
Implications for Allies and Partners Allies like Japan, the Philippines, and Australia want to see American resolve, not hesitation. Mixed signals make them question whether the U.S. will stand firm, driving them to hedge or make side deals with Beijing. A strong and steady Navy reassures allies and keeps coalitions intact.
The Navy’s Burden From trade wars to canceled arms sales, from cyber threats to gray-zone skirmishes, the Navy carries the weight of America’s foreign policy. The Foreign Policy Tracker shows the global picture, and tomorrow’s hearing will shine a light on one theater where the stakes are highest: the Indo-Pacific.
Watch the Hearing The hearing begins October 7, 2025, at 2:30 p.m. ET. Follow it here: Senate Foreign Relations Committee – Hearing Link. We’ll be listening closely and will share a follow-up with key takeaways.
Conclusion At the end of the day, hearings and trackers matter because they remind us of one thing: our sailors and Marines deserve the tools, support, and clear direction needed to keep America safe.
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.
China set 2027 as their military readiness target – that’s 18 months away. Let me tell you something Americans need to hear, even if it makes you uncomfortable: China is laughing out loud and I can hear it from here, and they’re squeezing harder every day.
I’m not being dramatic. I’m being honest. As a former Navy sailor who spent his civilian career in telecom and web technologies, I understand both the military realities and the technological dependencies that have put us in this position. After two years of research—cross-checking military testimony, intelligence reports, and independent defense analyses—I can tell you we’re running out of time to fix this mess.
The Brutal Truth About 2027
China has set a goal to be militarily ready for war with the United States by 2027. That’s not some distant threat—that’s 18 months away. While we’ve been arguing about what he said and she said etc, they’ve been building the world’s largest navy and positioning themselves to strangle us economically, electronically and militarily.
Here’s what keeps me up at night: they don’t need to sink our ships to defeat us. They can just stop selling us the parts to build new ones.
How China is putting on the squeeze
They Control What We Need to Fight Rare earth minerals for our missile guidance systems? China controls 80% of global processing.
Semiconductors for our weapons platforms? We outsourced that to Asia decades ago.
Critical components for naval systems? Good luck building ships without Chinese suppliers.
They Own Our Information Flow
TikTok shapes what our kids think about America and China
They manufacture the phones and devices we use to communicate
Their algorithms determine what information Americans see about military threats
They Hold Our Economy Hostage
Wall Street pension funds are invested in Chinese markets
Silicon Valley’s revenue depends on Chinese manufacturing and consumers Our entire supply chain runs through Chinese factories
The Kicker? The same Silicon Valley companies that handed China our technological advantages now control how Americans get information. Try posting about Chinese military threats on Facebook—watch your reach get throttled. Discuss naval readiness on social media—suddenly you’re “violating community standards.”
They don’t just have us by the blank—they’re controlling the conversation about it.
Don’t Take My Word For It — Listen to the Experts
Over the past 24 months, Americans for a Stronger Navy has been mapping a story few citizens have ever been shown: how China’s campaign against the United States unfolded, who knew what and when, and what it will take to pull back from the brink. We didn’t start with opinions — we started with evidence. Here’s what the experts have been saying for years, and how their warnings fit together.
Strategic Intent and Military Buildup
Admiral James Lyons Jr., former commander of the Pacific Fleet, went on Fox News in 2013 and said what few in Washington wanted to hear: “We’re in our second Cold War with another communist totalitarian regime.” He warned that China has “built the navy specifically to go against the United States Navy” and that their anti-ship ballistic missiles are “not geared to go against the Bangladesh navy.” When a fleet commander speaks that bluntly on national television, that’s not politics — that’s professional judgment.
Brigadier General Douglas P. Wickert has shown how far that judgment has proven correct. In the Gobi Desert, China has built full-scale mock-ups of Taiwan’s Taichung International Airport and a “one-for-one silhouette of the Ford-class aircraft carrier” for target practice. They are not hiding their intentions. They are practicing to sink our ships and invade our allies.
The scale of China’s buildup is staggering: “They have 230 times the shipbuilding capacity of the United States in terms of shipyard infrastructure and potential output.. “Just one shipyard in China last year alone, in 2024, built more tonnage of ships than the U.S. did since the end of World War II.” One shipyard outproduced our entire nation’s post-WWII shipbuilding in a single year.
👉 Subscribe and Follow Along This is just Part 1 of a three-part series. In Part 2: Political Warfare and the Silent Invasion, I’ll break down how China’s campaign has already reached into our own institutions — through espionage, influence operations, and economic coercion.
Key Takeaway: The fight isn’t just “over there.” It’s already here, shaping what Americans see, hear, and believe.
China’s cyber warfare escalation proves the need for a stronger Navy. For two years, we’ve warned that adversaries were already inside our homeland; today’s revelations confirm it and raise the stakes. Cyber defenses matter, but only forward-deployed ships provide the physical presence, analog resilience, and immediate deterrence that malware can’t erase. As we argue at home, Beijing prepares—time is running out to rally behind our sailors, our civilian maritime industry, and the shipbuilding surge America needs.
The Vindication No One Wanted This morning’s New York Times revelation should serve as a wake-up call, but for those paying attention, it reads like an inevitable conclusion. Despite CIA Director William Burns confronting China’s Minister of State Security in May 2023 with evidence of malicious code embedded in America’s critical infrastructure, China ignored the warnings and escalated operations.
As we’ve written before: “Most people don’t realize it yet. We are already in a quiet war. Not with bombs. Not with missiles. But with fentanyl, with financial schemes, and with cyber attacks.”
Today’s reporting proves we were right. The question is: why did it take a CIA director’s secret mission and a massive intelligence failure for mainstream media to acknowledge the obvious?
Silicon Valley’s Role in America’s Vulnerability Before we talk solutions, we must address culpability. Silicon Valley—the same industry that promised to “connect the world”—has systematically created the vulnerabilities that China now exploits.
Supply Chain Sellout: Manufacturing moved to China, transferring critical knowledge of hardware vulnerabilities.
Backdoor Bonanza: Even solar panels and batteries carry hidden back doors that could one day flip a switch against us.
Data Harvesting: Social media platforms collected massive datasets, much of which inevitably found its way into Chinese intelligence.
Infrastructure Integration: Cloud services created single points of failure that adversaries can exploit across sectors simultaneously.
Executives got rich while selling America’s digital sovereignty. They dismissed security concerns as “protectionism” and prioritized market access over national security. Where is the accountability?
The Secret Meeting That Changed Nothing The Times reveals that Burns’ confrontation with Chen Yixin was professional but meaningless. When presented with evidence of cyber intrusions, China’s intelligence chief “gave nothing away.”
China’s real response came later: Salt Typhoon—a massive, yearslong intrusion targeting “nearly every American” and dozens of countries. This was not diplomacy failing. It was China demonstrating that cyber warfare is a strategic pillar, not a negotiable issue.
As Rear Admiral Mike Studeman warned: “The reality is that adversaries have insinuated themselves in our homeland… and continue to exploit our society from the inside out.”
Why Naval Power Matters More After Cyber Escalation Cyber warfare doesn’t eliminate the need for naval power—it makes it more critical.
The Infrastructure Hostage Crisis We warned that adversaries target our banks, pipelines, and power grids. Today’s reporting confirms it. But there’s one thing they can’t hack: ships already forward-deployed.
The Communications Blackout Modern naval operations rely on networks China has proven it can disrupt. The solution isn’t cybersecurity alone—it’s having more ships already in position when networks go dark.
The Logistics Nightmare China can disrupt ports, fuel, and supply chains simultaneously. Forward-deployed naval power bypasses these vulnerabilities.
The Taiwan Test Case China’s cyber strategy aims to create an impossible choice: accept aggression or risk massive retaliation against U.S. infrastructure. But this calculation changes with a larger forward-deployed fleet:
Ships on station can’t be cyber-attacked out of position
Redundant communications across multiple vessels mitigate disruption
Immediate response capability denies China consolidation time
A visible presence deters aggression before it begins
The Call to Action We’ve argued for 24 months that the future of America depends on our sailors, our civilian maritime industry, and a Navy that protects them both. Today’s revelations make this argument irrefutable.
Every day Congress delays emergency shipbuilding, China gains ground. Every month without new investment deepens our vulnerability. Call your representatives. Demand they fund emergency naval expansion now.
Beyond China Russia, Iran, and North Korea are studying these techniques. Naval power provides what cyber defenses cannot: physical presence immune to digital attack.
Ships can’t be deleted by malware. Naval gunfire doesn’t require Wi-Fi. Sailors can’t be hacked out of existence.
Silicon Valley’s Reckoning Day Congress must investigate how U.S. tech companies:
Facilitated Chinese access to critical technologies
Ignored warnings in favor of market access
Enabled mass data collection for foreign intelligence
Built cloud infrastructures that created systemic single points of failure
Executives who sold out American sovereignty should be held to the same scrutiny as defense contractors.
The Validation We Didn’t Want Being right about China’s cyber warfare escalation brings no satisfaction. We would rather have been wrong. Instead, today proves China is pursuing cyber warfare and naval expansion simultaneously. America must respond with both—better cybersecurity and a stronger Navy.
Conclusion: The Time for Half-Measures is Over For 24 months, we’ve warned that America faces adversaries already inside our homeland. Today proves they didn’t waste those 24 months—they dug in deeper.
The question is no longer whether we can afford emergency naval expansion. The question is whether we can afford another 24 months of delay.
That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late. Let’s roll.
Each of these stories pointed to a contest for control of the waterways, ports, and infrastructure that sustain both military power and the global economy.
Today, we turn to the Bashi Channel—a narrow strip of water between southern Taiwan and the northern Philippines that may be the least known, but most decisive, chokepoint in the region. If Scarborough Shoal shows us the contest over reefs and fishing rights, and Subic Bay demonstrates the value of allied ports, the Bashi Channel reveals why geography itself remains the ultimate factor in global power.
A Geography Lesson with Global Stakes The Bashi Channel is less than 90 miles wide. Yet it connects Taiwan’s largest port, Kaohsiung—which handles over 60% of the island’s cargo—with the Pacific Ocean. In an invasion scenario, China would rely on Kaohsiung as a logistics hub, while the United States and allies would race to resupply Taiwan through bases in the Philippines and Japan. That makes the Bashi not just a strait, but a lifeline.
Building on What We’ve Reported
At Subic Bay ([read here][subic-link]), we saw how new shipyards and bases allow U.S. forces to operate closer to Taiwan. The Bashi Channel explains why: northern Luzon and the Batanes islands are the staging ground for resupply lines directly into Taiwan’s southern flank.
At Scarborough Shoal ([read here][scarborough-link]), we documented China’s attempts to normalize control through coercion. The same pattern is at play here—Chinese live-fire drills in 2022 pushed further south, right into the Bashi, to test how far they can go without pushback.
When the British carrier transited the South China Sea ([see coverage][carrier-link]), it demonstrated allied commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific. The Bashi Channel is where that commitment will be tested in practice.
The Digital Dimension As we’ve stressed in earlier posts, undersea cables are the invisible arteries of the modern world. Between 97% and 99% of all international data traffic travels through them, and the Bashi Channel is one of the most congested corridors. If cables here were cut, Americans would feel it instantly—in internet outages, stalled financial transactions, and disrupted supply chains. The stakes are no longer abstract; they’re personal.
Why Americans Should Care The Bashi Channel matters for the same reasons Subic Bay and Scarborough Shoal matter: because adversaries see them as pressure points against America. A disruption here could raise prices at U.S. gas pumps, slow down the internet in our homes, and challenge the freedom of movement that underpins our prosperity. Ignoring this geography doesn’t make the threat go away—it just leaves us less prepared.
Implications for the Navy For the U.S. Navy, this isn’t just about patrolling a waterway. It’s about ensuring freedom of movement for allies, safeguarding undersea cables, and keeping logistics flowing in the event of conflict. Ships, submarines, and surveillance aircraft operating in and around the Bashi Channel aren’t just defending Taiwan—they are defending the arteries of the global economy.
Implications for Our Allies The Philippines, Japan, and Australia all depend on the Bashi Channel for security and trade. As we saw in Subic Bay’s revival, Manila’s choices are central to allied strategy. If political winds shift in the Philippines, America’s ability to project power and protect cables through the Bashi could be compromised. That makes alliances more than symbolic—they’re the difference between deterrence and vulnerability.
Conclusion Scarborough Shoal, Subic Bay, and now the Bashi Channel all point to one truth: the contest in the Indo-Pacific is about control of the chokepoints that sustain trade, communication, and freedom itself. Geography cannot be changed, but strategy can. For generations to come, the Bashi Channel will remain a pivot in the U.S.–China confrontation.
That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter—a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
This post is part of Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — our ongoing educational series at Americans for a Stronger Navy examining the strategic threats facing the U.S. Navy and why they matter to every American. In this installment, we focus on China’s maritime buildup. China isn’t just making claims — it’s building infrastructure, militarizing reefs, and transforming sea features into forward bases. This map-driven guide walks you through where China has control, what they’ve built, and why it matters for U.S. strategy, regional allies, and global maritime security
Map & Visuals
Use one or more of the mapped images above to show:
China’s “Nine-Dash Line” claim
Areas with Chinese military build-up (Subi, Mischief, Fiery Cross, etc.)
Overlapping exclusive economic zones (EEZs) claimed by the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, etc.
Key Chinese-Controlled Features Here are the major reefs, atolls, and islands China controls or heavily influences. For each, we’d provide location, current state (military infra, runways, radars), and why it’s strategically important.
Coast guard, militia presence; possible construction; blocks Filipino access
Symbolic and strategic choke point; EEZ stakes
Paracel Islands
Yes
Many features; garrisons, military infrastructure
Proximity to mainland China; strategic flank toward Vietnam / Philippines
Why This Map Matters
Mapping shows how much of the Spratly / Paracel archipelagos are now “ militarized territory”
It reveals how close China’s bases are to other countries’ claimed waters (especially the Philippines)
Visual clarity helps Americans see this is not abstract — it’s real geography being altered, with legal, military, and economic implications
U.S. Strategic Implications
Presence: Where and how the U.S. Navy can operate
Deterrence: What it takes to make these bases costly for Beijing to use aggressively
Alliances: How neighboring countries feel and what they do (e.g. Philippines’ diplomatic protests, joint patrols)
Call to Action Let the map sharpen our resolve. Knowing the terrain is step one. Step two is educating, advocating, and ensuring our Navy, our Congress, and our allies are equipped for what’s next.
Closing Thought Geography doesn’t shift overnight — but power can. When maps are redrawn, either by diplomacy or force, everyone involved must choose whether to respond or concede. That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late. Let’s roll.
Philippine Officials Raise the Alarm Top Philippine defense and maritime officials have condemned China’s recent declaration of a “nature reserve” at Scarborough Shoal, calling it a “clear pretext for occupation.” This bold response comes in reaction to Beijing’s move to designate the disputed shoal—known locally as Bajo de Masinloc and internationally ruled to be within the Philippine EEZ—as a Chinese national marine reserve.
Philippine officials aren’t mincing words. Former Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio, former Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, and Coast Guard Commodore Jay Tarriela are among those warning that the “reserve” designation masks a broader strategy: to lock down access, increase Chinese presence, and project power deep into Southeast Asia’s maritime heart.
Part 1 — Broken Promises and Growing Risks In 2012, after a tense naval standoff, the U.S. brokered a deal: both China and the Philippines would withdraw their ships from Scarborough Shoal. The Philippines complied. China didn’t. The U.S. didn’t press the issue. The result? Beijing solidified its control and sent a message that international mediation wouldn’t be enforced.
Part 2 — International Law Ignored In 2016, an international tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines, stating clearly that China had no legal claim to Scarborough Shoal. Beijing ignored the decision, accelerating militarization and disrupting Filipino fishing. Once again, global rule of law was challenged—and left unenforced.
Part 3 — The “Nature Reserve” Play Now, in 2025, China has unveiled a new maneuver: using environmental language to advance military and political objectives. The creation of the “Huangyan Island National Nature Reserve” is being widely viewed as part of a creeping campaign to normalize Chinese administrative control.
Despite the label, this is not about conservation. China has repeatedly blocked Filipino fishermen, driven out environmental research vessels, and deployed maritime militia under the radar. Calling this a “preserve” is like calling a fortress a flower garden.
Why Americans Should Care
Strategic Sea Lanes: The South China Sea is a maritime superhighway. If China controls it, they can control access to vital markets and resources.
U.S. Credibility Is on the Line: American influence is measured by what we protect—not just what we promise.
Civic Responsibility: Understanding how foreign policy, trade, and defense intersect isn’t just for experts. It’s for every American who relies on secure energy, stable prices, and a functioning global order.
Environmental Lawfare: Americans should be wary of tactics that exploit noble causes—like conservation—to advance authoritarian control.
Implications for the Navy The U.S. Navy has long played a vital role in ensuring freedom of navigation and stabilizing flashpoints. But gray zone tactics like these require more than just ships—they require intelligence, strategy, and public support. The Navy cannot succeed without a civilian base that understands the stakes.
Implications for Our Allies This isn’t just a Philippine problem. What happens at Scarborough sends ripples across the Pacific. Taiwan, Vietnam, Japan, Australia—all are watching to see whether the U.S. will back its allies when it counts. So are our adversaries.
Call to Action The future of maritime freedom—and American leadership—may hinge on places like Scarborough Shoal. When China tests the limits, Americans need to respond—not just with ships, but with awareness and resolve.
That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
How a 2012 Diplomatic Misfire Sparked a Decade of Chinese Defiance
The Current Flashpoint
Scarborough Shoal is back in the headlines — and with it, so are the warnings.
In September 2025, a Chinese vessel rammed a Philippine resupply boat near the shoal. In response, the U.S. Navy sailed a destroyer directly through the contested waters. The confrontation was brief, but the message was unmistakable: tensions are rising, and the risks are multiplying.
For many Americans, this reef barely registers. But this isn’t just a dust-up between distant nations. It’s a test of American resolve — and a moment that traces directly back to 2012.
2012: A Standoff Mishandled
That year, China and the Philippines faced off at Scarborough Shoal in a tense maritime standoff over fishing rights and territorial claims. The United States stepped in as a broker, aiming to de-escalate. Both nations were expected to withdraw their vessels.
Only one did.
The Philippines pulled back. China did not. And the United States — despite brokering the deal — failed to enforce the agreement or respond meaningfully.
To this day, Chinese ships remain at Scarborough Shoal, effectively taking control. This incident became a turning point in Beijing’s maritime aggression — and a chilling message to U.S. allies in Asia.
Why It Mattered Then — And Still Does
The 2012 failure sent a signal: U.S. guarantees could be questioned.
Philippine public trust eroded. Within a few years, President Duterte pivoted toward China, prioritizing economic deals over alignment with the U.S.
Meanwhile, China accelerated its militarization of the South China Sea — building artificial islands, expanding its maritime militia, and flexing its growing naval power.
What started as a fishing rights dispute became a global credibility crisis.
Now, a Decade Later…
Today’s confrontation is more than a replay. It’s a test of whether the U.S. has learned anything since 2012.
This time, the U.S. Navy showed up. But questions linger:
Will American resolve hold under pressure?
Can alliances like AUKUS and the U.S.-Philippine Mutual Defense Treaty deter escalation?
And do Americans even understand how this reef connects to larger global stakes?
We’ve been here before. We got it wrong then. The consequences are still unfolding.
Why Americans Should Care
Scarborough Shoal isn’t just a reef. It’s a litmus test — for American credibility, regional stability, and the rule of law at sea.
If the U.S. fails to hold the line here, what message does that send to Taiwan, our allies, or our adversaries?
This series breaks it down in plain language — so Americans understand what’s at stake before it’s too late.
What’s Next in the Series
In the next post, we’ll dive into the 2016 international tribunal ruling, how China ignored it, and why this defiance matters not just for the Philippines, but for the future of international order.
We’re connecting the dots between today’s maritime flashpoints and tomorrow’s strategic risks — and making the case for a stronger Navy, an informed public, and a unified voice.
Visit StrongerNavy.org to follow the series and learn more.
