Category: China News Watch

China News Watch matters because it creates awareness, promotes understanding, highlights important issues, provides context, and facilitates the potential for international cooperation. It helps people to be informed, engaged, and aware of what is happening in the world, and could also lead to positive change.

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

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

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

Why Americans Should Care

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

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

Implications for the Navy

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

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

Implications for Our Allies

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

Civic Engagement and Responsibility

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

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

Let’s roll.

Posted on

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

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What has changed is the nature of the threat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion: The Need for Strategic Clarity

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

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

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

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

Let’s roll.

Posted on

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

Thitu Island
Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

Introduction

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

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

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

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

The Scene at Sea

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

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

A Dispute Over Sandy Cay

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

Diplomatic Backlash

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

Why It Matters

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

Implications for the U.S. Navy

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

A Call for Awareness and Strength

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

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

Let’s roll.

Posted on

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

by Bill Cullifer, founder Americans for a Stronger Navy

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

A Fleet Stretched Thin

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

Lessons Written in Blood

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

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

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

“Unrestricted Warfare” and Strategic Pluralism

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

Dual-Use Shipbuilding and External Support

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

The “Great Underwater Wall” and Maritime Surveillance

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

“Cabbage” Tactics and Incremental Control

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

The “String of Pearls” Strategy

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

Global Projection and Signaling

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

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

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

Strategic Intent and Military Buildup

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

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

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

A Time for Revival

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

Why Americans Should Care

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

Charting the Next 250 Years

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

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

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

Posted on

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

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

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

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

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

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

The Long Road to Partnership

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

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

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

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

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

What Brought Us Back

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

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

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

The Risks We Should Acknowledge

No alliance is without risks.

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

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

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

The Bigger Picture: China’s Campaign

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

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

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

Why Americans Should Care

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

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

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

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

The Choice Ahead

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

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

The question is whether America will do the same.

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

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

Fair winds and following seas.

Posted on

While We Fight Each Other at Home, China Prepares — And Time Is Running Out

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

Introduction

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.

Don’t miss it — subscribe and follow the series at StrongerNavy.org.

Posted on

Why China’s Cyber Warfare Capabilities Make a Stronger Navy More Critical Than Ever

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

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.

Posted on

Don’t Bet Against America: A Response to Dan Wang on China’s Rise

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

Introduction

Dan Wang’s recent interview on Interesting Times with Ross Douthat offers an intriguing argument: that China, as an “engineering state” may outbuild, out-innovate, and outlast the United States. I respect Wang’s analysis — but I believe it overstates China’s strengths, underestimates America’s, and risks mistaking curated facades for lasting power.

I speak from experience. I served as a Cold War-era Navy destroyer sailor, worked in telecommunications at AT&T, helped set standards for web technologies, and founded Americans for a Stronger Navy. In 2008, I traveled to Beijing as a guest expert at the World Wide Web Conference. That visit — on the eve of the Olympics — revealed the gap between projection and reality.

Facades and Reality

Wang contrasts Shanghai’s clean subways and manicured parks with New York’s noisy infrastructure. I saw another reality. Behind Beijing’s gleaming new airport, residential homes were bulldozed to make way for Olympic tourism. Poverty was hidden, smog choked the skies, and the environmental cost of China’s rapid growth was impossible to ignore. Having served in Hong Kong in the 1970s, I could compare its then-crystal skies with Beijing’s haze in 2008 — a stark reminder that much of China’s “progress” is extraction, not sustainability.

Systematic Extraction

My telecom and security background made me see what others missed. The building across from our Hilton bristled with antennas pointed at us. Government “observers” monitored our sessions. The million-dollar fee to host the conference wasn’t just business — it was leverage.

More troubling were the Western executives — many half my age, fresh from Silicon Valley — using unsecured phones and laptops in this environment. I spoke with a young GM engineer who had developed a novel windshield wiper. He admitted openly that it would be copied and sold back to his own company at lower cost. Yet corporate pressure compelled him to manufacture in China anyway. Days later, flying home through London, I read an FBI advisory warning Olympic visitors not to bring their cell phones. That confirmed every operational concern I had seen firsthand.

The Population Trap

Wang points to China’s vast numbers of engineers and competing firms as proof of superiority. But scale alone does not equal strength. With 1.4 billion people, China naturally produces more engineers than America’s 330 million. The question is quality and innovation, not headcount. At the World Wide Web Conference, Chinese capabilities often lagged global standards. The proliferation of thousands of solar companies reflects size, not necessarily superior organization or creativity.

Naval Realities

Wang worries that China could quickly overwhelm Taiwan and that America’s Navy might not respond effectively. My perspective as a Navy veteran is different. Amphibious assaults across a strait are among the most complex operations in warfare. China’s navy, for all its growth, remains untested in major combat, dependent on land-based missiles with finite range, and lacking the blue-water experience U.S. forces have honed through decades of global deployment. To suggest America cannot meet this challenge underestimates both our power projection and the operational realities that matter at sea.

America’s Resilience

Perhaps Wang’s greatest omission is the resilience factor. History shows America’s ability to respond decisively when existential threats become clear: after Pearl Harbor, in the space race following Sputnik, and after 9/11. The same will be true in the face of today’s strategic competition.

Even China’s own people signal doubts about their system’s sustainability. Wang himself notes the “brain drain”: wealthy families buying homes in Irvine and Vancouver, entrepreneurs relocating to Singapore, tens of thousands crossing the Darién Gap to reach America. They are voting with their feet — and their futures.

A Balanced View

I do not dismiss Wang entirely. He is right to criticize U.S. naiveté in assuming economic engagement would democratize China. He is right that corporations prioritized profits over national resilience. But his analysis is filtered through carefully curated experiences and misses the darker realities: surveillance, forced extraction, environmental costs, and intellectual property theft.

Don’t Bet Against America

China has built dazzling infrastructure and manufacturing scale. But a system built on control, imitation, and exploitation is brittle. America’s advantages remain decisive: our Navy, our innovation ecosystem, our demographics, and above all our proven resilience.

Dan Wang is correct about one thing: this is a long competition. But if history is a guide, the nation that adapts, mobilizes, and earns the trust of its people and partners will prevail. That nation is not China. Don’t bet against America.