Global News Watch Archives - Americans for a Stronger Navy

September 12, 2025September 12, 2025

A Clear Pretext for Occupation: Philippines Pushes Back on China’s Nature Reserve Claim

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.

Let’s roll.

September 11, 2025September 11, 2025

U.S. Marines Expand Presence on Strategic Pacific Islands

Overview
The United States is increasing its forward military presence near China by deploying Marine forces aboard the expeditionary sea base ship USS Miguel Keith. This afloat platform extends the reach of the Marine Rotational Force-Darwin (MRF-D), based in northern Australia, across the contested island chains of the western Pacific. This move underscores Washington’s commitment to countering Beijing’s growing influence and military footprint in the Indo-Pacific.

The Island Chain Strategy
At the heart of this deployment lies the U.S. island chain strategy: three north-south defensive lines stretching across the Pacific. By leveraging allied territory and naval access points, the U.S. can project power, deter aggression, and defend against potential Chinese military action. The second island chain, where the USS Miguel Keith is homeported in Saipan, plays a pivotal role in supporting operations deeper into the Pacific.

Why This Matters
Operating from a sea base offers the Marines flexibility and unpredictability. Unlike fixed land bases, the Miguel Keith allows U.S. forces to maneuver rapidly across archipelagic terrain and forward locations ashore, complicating adversary planning. This is especially important at a time when Chinese forces are building out anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities designed to push U.S. forces farther from contested waters.

Recent Exercises
The deployment follows recent exercises across the first and second island chains:

Exercise Alon 25 in the Philippines (August 15–29).
Exercise Super Garuda Shield 25 in Indonesia (August 25–September 4).

These multinational drills reinforced cooperation with allies, improved readiness, and signaled a unified front in the region.

Implications for the Navy
The Navy’s role in enabling sea-based expeditionary operations is central. With amphibious ships like the USS New Orleans temporarily out of service due to fire damage, expeditionary sea bases provide a critical stopgap. They allow Marines and sailors to continue distributed operations, demonstrating the Navy’s adaptability in keeping forward presence credible.

Implications for Our Allies
For Australia, the Philippines, and Indonesia, U.S. deployments reinforce security guarantees. The Marines’ message, as articulated by Colonel Jason Armas, was clear: America and its allies “stand ready to maneuver, sustain and fight as one force.” This is reassurance at a time of rising Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea and beyond.

Why Americans Should Care
This is not simply a faraway deployment. The Pacific is a lifeline for U.S. trade, energy, and global communications infrastructure. Securing these waters ensures that Americans at home continue to benefit from stable supply chains and open sea lanes. A failure to hold the line in the Pacific would ripple into our economy and national security alike.

Closing Call
As the U.S. strengthens its presence in the Indo-Pacific, the question is not whether we can afford to maintain this posture, but whether we can afford not to. A stronger Navy and Marine Corps presence ensures deterrence, protects trade, and preserves peace.

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.

September 9, 2025September 9, 2025

Broken Promises and Growing Risks: The Scarborough Standoff Reignites

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.

Missed the first post? Read it here.

Join the Mission

This post is part of Charting the Course: Voices That Matter, our national education initiative.

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.

Let’s roll.

September 9, 2025September 9, 2025

Allies, Scale, and America’s Navy: A Conversation We Can’t Delay

U.S. and allied navies sailing in formation

Introduction

Giving Credit Where It’s Due
Kurt Campbell and Rush Doshi recently argued in the New York Times that America alone cannot match China’s growing scale — economically, technologically, or militarily — and that our strength depends on “allied scale.” They are right to say this out loud, and they deserve credit for raising the issue. Campbell has long been a voice for rebalancing U.S. strategy toward Asia, and Doshi has studied China’s grand strategy in depth. Their track records show they’ve been sounding the alarm.

Why We’re in This Position
It’s fair to ask: if they saw this coming, why didn’t America adjust sooner? The truth is, Campbell and Doshi were not sitting in the chairs with the ultimate levers. Campbell’s call for a pivot to Asia faced headwinds from wars in the Middle East and competing budget priorities. Doshi, until recently, was in academia, warning of China’s rise but without a policymaker’s authority. They were raising the right concerns, but Washington’s attention was elsewhere. That’s not about pinning blame on individuals — it’s about recognizing how easy it is for America to be distracted.

The Larger Point
The conversation they are starting in public now is one America needs to have candidly. China’s scale in shipbuilding, technology, and manufacturing is a strategic challenge unlike any we have faced before. Campbell and Doshi are right that alliances matter — losing India, Japan, or Europe to Chinese influence would change the balance overnight. But alliances alone aren’t enough. America must also invest in its own naval strength and rebuild the industrial base that sustains it.

My Role in This Conversation
I am two years into this effort with Americans for a Stronger Navy. My job is not to dictate policy but to help Americans understand the facts. It is up to the American people to decide. What I can do is publish what’s happening, provide context, and advocate on behalf of my shipmates — so that when the time comes, they have the resources they need, where and when they need them.

Why Americans Should Care
If we don’t get this right, it’s not only the Navy that will feel the consequences. Our supply chains, our economy, and our security all ride on free and open seas. Campbell and Doshi are right to remind us that “quantity has a quality all its own.” China has the quantity. America must respond with both quality and scale — and it will take both allies abroad and buy-in at home to meet that challenge.

September 7, 2025September 7, 2025

Naval (Maritime) Statecraft: Brent Sadler on Rebuilding America’s Maritime Power

Introduction
As a former U.S. Navy destroyer sailor from the ’70s and founder of Americans for a Stronger Navy, I’ve seen firsthand how sea power isn’t only about ships—it’s about people, industry, and the trade that keeps America moving. This isn’t a Beltway debate; it touches your grocery bill, your job, and the undersea cables that carry your paycheck.

In this interview, Captain Brent D. Sadler, USN (Ret.), discusses the ideas from his book U.S. Naval Power in the 21st Century: A New Strategy for Facing the Chinese and Russian Threat. He calls this framework naval statecraft. In Washington circles, the same concept is often referred to as maritime statecraft—a term meant to highlight the economic and commercial side of sea power. As Sadler makes clear, the two are essentially the same. What matters is the substance: reconnecting America’s Navy with shipyards, supply chains, and allies.

If we want peace, prosperity, and fewer crises, we must rebuild the muscle behind the flag—logistics, repair, and a maritime workforce. This interview is a practical roadmap. —Bill

Overview
Captain Brent D. Sadler, USN (Ret.), argues that America must reconnect military power with economics, industry, and trade—what he calls naval (or “maritime”) statecraft. It’s not a new strategy so much as a return to our roots: the Navy as a warfighter, a shaper of peace, and a protector of commerce. That means rebuilding ships and shipyards, restoring sealift and logistics, re-wiring alliances for industrial capacity, and aligning innovation with both commercial and military needs.

What Is Naval/Maritime Statecraft—and Why It Matters

More than combat: the Navy deters war, protects trade, and shapes the environment in peacetime.
Break the silos: integrate defense, diplomacy, and economics so China can’t “triangulate” between them.
Update the structure: organize like it’s a long competition again—industry, ports, sealift, and policy working together.

Lessons from History

Avoid a “Phony War”: weak industrial bases turn short crises into long wars.
Operate where you may have to fight: know the people, ports, and waters before a crisis.

Today’s Pressing Challenges

Industrial shortfall: workforce gaps, thin supply chains, and insufficient naval architects and yards.
Logistics as Achilles’ heel: too few tankers, dry cargo/ammo ships, and assured fuel storage after Red Hill.
Economic leverage: China’s dominance in shipbuilding, shipping fleets, and port stakes shapes global trade on its terms.
Undersea infrastructure: seabed cables and pipelines are targets; cyber and space resilience are now core to sea power.

A Practical Path Forward

Demand and Shipyards: use smart incentives (e.g., Jones Act demand, allied capital) to expand U.S. yard capacity.
Human Capital: rebuild the trades—welders, pipefitters, naval architects—and grow maritime education pipelines.
Innovation with Purpose: from advanced logistics to modular cargo, small modular reactors, and data-driven supply chains—commercial breakthroughs that also serve military sustainment.
Allied Muscle: tap allied shipping and yards (Japan, South Korea, Europe, Canada) to scale capacity fast and politically sustainably.

Why Americans Should Care
Everything from groceries to phones rides ships and undersea cables. If adversaries control ports, fleets, and repair yards—or cut our cables—prices spike, jobs suffer, and crises last longer. Maritime strength keeps daily life predictable.

Implications for the Navy
Prioritize logistics ships, fuel resilience, dispersed Pacific access, and contested-environment sustainment. Tie operational concepts to a revitalized industrial base so the fleet you plan is the fleet you can build, crew, repair, and keep at sea.

Implications for Our Allies
A stronger U.S. maritime sector reduces dangerous dependence on Chinese shipbuilding and sustains shared deterrence. Joint investment in yards, sealift, and pre-positioned stocks turns alliances into real capacity.

Call to Action
Citizens should press leaders—local, state, and federal—to support maritime education, shipyard expansion, and logistics recapitalization. Industry and investors should pursue maritime tech and U.S. waterfront projects. Policymakers should align defense, commerce, and diplomacy to grow capacity at home and with allies.

For readers who want to go deeper, Captain Brent D. Sadler, USN (Ret.), expands on these ideas in his book *U.S. Naval Power in the 21st Century: A New Strategy for Facing the Chinese and Russian Threat*. It offers a detailed blueprint for how America can reconnect its Navy, industry, and diplomacy in the new era of great power competition.

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

Let’s roll.

September 6, 2025September 6, 2025

Alaska’s Arctic Waters: The Overlooked Front in U.S. Homeland Defense

China and Russia are pushing closer to our northern doorstep — and Alaska is the front line.

Introduction

Over the past year, U.S. Coast Guard cutters have repeatedly intercepted foreign “research” ships operating just beyond the 200-mile line off Alaska’s Arctic coast. At the same time, the U.S. Navy has kept up under-ice submarine operations, while Russian aircraft test our air defense zone and Sino-Russian flotillas sail through the Bering Strait.

**Map Legend**
**Dashed Red Lines** – *Patrol routes and foreign vessel tracks monitored by the U.S. Coast Guard near Alaska’s Arctic coast.*
**Solid Blue Lines** – *Projected Arctic shipping lanes, including the Northern Sea Route (along Russia) and emerging trans-Arctic corridors.*
**Shaded Blue Zone** – *Exercise Northern Edge 2025 training areas, where U.S. and allied forces conducted joint, multi-domain operations.*
**Black Ship Icons** – *Locations of recent intercepts of foreign “research” vessels near Utqiaġvik.*
**Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)** – *U.S. waters extending 200 nautical miles from Alaska’s coast, where America exercises sovereign rights over resources.*

The takeaway is simple: America’s Arctic is no longer quiet. It’s contested.

Why Americans Should Care
Alaska is not a remote outpost. It is our Arctic front yard, rich in resources, with thousands of miles of shoreline and a narrow strait that connects the Pacific to the Arctic. When Chinese “research” vessels map our seabeds or Russian aircraft enter the Air Defense Identification Zone, they’re probing how close they can get to our homeland. What happens off Alaska affects energy security, trade routes, and even the protection of undersea cables that carry the world’s internet traffic.

RAND’s latest study underscores this point. In The Future of Maritime Presence in the Central Arctic Ocean (July 2025), RAND concludes that as sea ice retreats, the Arctic will draw in both Arctic and non-Arctic actors for economic, political, and military gain. They warn that competition will intensify in phases: first commercial, then political, and ultimately strategic. For the U.S., that means maritime presence is not optional — it is essential to prevent rivals from dictating the rules of the Arctic.

Implications for the Navy
Day-to-day patrols fall to the Coast Guard, which provides the only regular surface presence in the Arctic. But the Navy’s role is no less critical. Its submarines operate beneath the ice, practicing for deterrence and warfighting in a domain where rivals are gaining ground. The Navy also views Alaska as part of the defense-in-depth of the United States — the first line of detection and deterrence against missile submarines, long-range bombers, and other threats moving south from the Arctic.

This year’s Northern Edge 2025 exercise made that point clear. More than 6,400 U.S. and Canadian service members, 100 aircraft, and seven warships, including USS Abraham Lincoln and her carrier strike group, trained across Alaska. Running alongside Arctic Edge, the exercises brought together INDOPACOM and NORTHCOM to practice joint, multi-domain operations — from the Aleutians to Adak. In other words: Alaska is not just about defending the homeland, it is a launchpad for projecting U.S. power into the Indo-Pacific.

The challenge remains that America’s icebreaker fleet is thin, while Russia operates dozens and China fields new polar-capable vessels. Without recapitalization and greater presence, the U.S. risks falling behind in its own backyard. RAND echoes this warning: presence and infrastructure — from icebreakers to domain awareness — are key to avoiding strategic surprise.

Implications for Our Allies
The Arctic is no longer an American issue alone. NATO allies — Canada, Denmark, Norway — all face the same northern pressure. China brands itself a “near-Arctic state” and seeks influence in waters that directly border allied territory. Coordinated exercises like Northern Edge and Arctic Edge are proof that alliances matter. Shared domain awareness and investment in icebreaking and seabed security will be vital. If America steps back, allies are left exposed — and adversaries will fill the gap.

The Bottom Line
Alaska’s Arctic waters are an overlooked but critical front in U.S. homeland defense. The Coast Guard may be on point, but the Navy’s presence under the ice and in the chokepoints is just as important. Together, they demonstrate that the U.S. is watching, ready, and committed to protecting its northern approaches.

Let’s roll.

September 3, 2025September 3, 2025

American Naval Dominance: Not a Birthright, But a Choice We Must Make Again

How one Naval officer’s warning and one strategist’s vision show us the path forward

Introduction

In June 1943, the USS Essex arrived at Pearl Harbor, followed shortly by the USS Yorktown. These weren’t just two more ships—they were harbingers of American naval dominance. By August 1945, the U.S. Navy commanded 6,768 ships, dwarfing every other navy on earth. For a brief, shining moment, America achieved total maritime supremacy.

That moment, as Commander Benjamin Armstrong reminds us in his prescient Proceedings article, was fleeting. More importantly, it wasn’t inevitable. “American naval dominance is not a birthright,” Armstrong writes. “It cannot and should not be assumed in the 21st century.”

The Choice Before Us

Today, we face another inflection point remarkably similar to the one Alfred Thayer Mahan confronted in 1890. Then, as now, America had to choose between maritime greatness and strategic irrelevance.

Mahan saw an America that had grown economically powerful but remained strategically vulnerable. His solution wasn’t just to build ships—it was to educate the American people about why naval power mattered. Through articles in The Atlantic, books that shaped presidents, and tireless public advocacy, Mahan created the intellectual foundation for American naval expansion.

The result?

White Fleet, the Panama Canal, and the naval infrastructure that would prove decisive in two world wars.

History’s Pattern: The Sine Wave of American Naval Power

Armstrong’s analysis reveals a crucial truth: American naval strength has never followed a straight line. Instead, it follows what historian Craig Symonds calls a “sine wave”—peaks and troughs dictated not by strategic logic, but by how Americans view their role in the world.

After the War of 1812, when the Royal Navy had blockaded American ports and burned Washington, Congress appropriated $8 million for naval construction—the largest appropriation to that point. Americans had felt vulnerability firsthand, and they acted.

But by the 1850s, southern politicians saw the Navy as a tool of federal overreach. The fleet shrank. After the Civil War, America turned inward, focusing on western expansion. The Navy withered to just 38 ships by 1886.

Then came the 1890s economic expansion, Mahan’s influence, and renewed American ambition. The Navy grew again, reaching its “Second to None” peak during World War I, only to shrink again during the peace dividend of the 1920s.

The pattern is clear: American naval power rises and falls based on American choices, not strategic necessity.

The 1940 Moment: When America Chose Dominance

The most instructive parallel to today came in June 1940. As German forces overwhelmed France, Chief of Naval Operations Harold Stark requested $4 billion to increase the fleet by 70 percent. Congress didn’t just approve it—they doubled it, appropriating over $8 billion for the Two-Ocean Navy Act.

That wasn’t a military decision or even an executive branch decision. It was the American people, through their representatives, choosing naval dominance. Three years later, that choice manifested as the Essex and Yorktown sailing into Pearl Harbor, beginning America’s brief moment of total maritime supremacy.

Today’s China Challenge: Mahan’s Nightmare Realized

Mahan warned that America’s geographic advantages were temporary. He feared a day when a rising power could challenge American access to global markets and trade routes. That day has arrived.

China launches a new warship every month. We launch one every two years. By 2030, China will field 460 ships to our 290. More troubling, they’re building in contested waters—the South China Sea that carries $3.4 trillion in annual trade, including the supply chains that stock every American store and factory.

This isn’t just a military problem—it’s an economic catastrophe waiting to happen. Every iPhone, every car part, every prescription drug that crosses the Pacific depends on naval power to guarantee safe passage. When China can stop our ships, they can stop our economy.

The Mahan Model for Modern Advocacy

Just as Mahan educated Americans about naval power’s economic importance, we must connect naval dominance to modern prosperity. The tech industry that depends most heavily on Pacific trade should lead this effort—after all, they collectively enabled China’s rise through technology transfer and manufacturing partnerships.

Apple’s entire business model assumes free navigation of sea lanes China now contests. Tesla’s Shanghai factory means nothing if Chinese warships can interdict the ships carrying Tesla vehicles to American ports. Amazon’s global supply chain collapses without the Navy to keep shipping lanes open.

These companies have the resources and self-interest to fund a sustained campaign for naval investment. A small fraction of their cash reserves could support the kind of public education that creates political will for a 500-ship Navy.

The Choice Point: Repeating 1940

Armstrong’s historical analysis points to an uncomfortable truth: “The size and shape of the fleet have ebbed and flowed across history. American naval dominance is not a birthright… American naval dominance is a choice.”

We are at such a choice point now. Like 1940, we face a rising challenger, contested sea lanes, and an American public largely unaware of the stakes. Like 1940, we need both strategic vision and public will.

The strategic vision exists—military leaders have clearly articulated the need for over 500 ships and increased naval spending. What’s missing is the public education and political mobilization that translates vision into funding.

The Path Forward: GDP and Political Will

Currently, America spends roughly 1% of GDP on naval forces. In 1940, when we chose dominance, we spent over 8%. Even achieving a modest increase to 2% of GDP would fund the 500-ship Navy our strategists say we need.

But that requires the American people to make the same choice their grandparents made in 1940: that naval dominance isn’t a luxury, but a necessity.

Like Mahan 130 years ago, we must educate Americans about the connection between naval power and their daily prosperity. We must show them that the choice isn’t between military spending and domestic priorities—it’s between naval investment and economic vulnerability.

Conclusion: The Mahan Moment

Alfred Thayer Mahan changed how Americans thought about naval power through sustained public advocacy. He connected abstract strategic concepts to concrete economic interests. He made the case that naval power wasn’t optional for a trading nation—it was essential.

Commander Armstrong’s warning gives us the historical framework. Mahan’s example gives us the method. China’s challenge gives us the urgency.

The question isn’t whether America can afford naval dominance. The question is whether we can afford to lose it. In 1940, Americans chose wisely. The prosperity and security of the next 50 years depends on whether we choose as wisely today.

American naval dominance isn’t our birthright. But it can be our choice—if we make it while we still can.

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

Let’s Roll.

September 2, 2025September 2, 2025

Adversaries Inside Our Homeland: A Call to Strengthen the U.S. Navy

Introduction
Most people don’t realize it yet. We are already in a quiet w@r. Not with bombs. Not with missiles. But with fentanyl, with financial schemes, and with cyber attacks. These are not random hacks — they are deliberate intrusions aimed straight at America’s lifelines.

Targeting America’s Core Systems
They target our banks — draining trust from the financial system.
They map our pipelines — threatening the flow of oil and gas that heats our homes.
They burrow into our power grids — carrying the ability to shut down American cities.
They test our hospitals and emergency networks.
They infiltrate our communications — preparing to cut the way America speaks, trades, and defends itself.

And now, they even target our homes and businesses. The devices we plug in. The networks we rely on. Even solar panels and batteries made overseas — carrying hidden back doors that could one day flip a switch against us.

Banks. Grids. Solar.

Why Americans Should Care
This is not only about us. Our allies are targeted too. These attacks seek to divide, to weaken the bonds that keep freedom strong. A crisis in one corner of the world can ripple across oceans — and into our own homes.

The Navy and the Nation
Our strength rests on both our sailors and our civilian maritime industry. Civilian ships move the goods America needs. Our Navy protects those ships and the sea lanes they travel. Together, they keep our nation alive and our economy moving.

As Rear Admiral Mike Studeman, U.S. Navy (Retired) has said:
“The reality is that adversaries have insinuated themselves in our homeland… and continue to exploit our society from the inside out.”

A Call to Action
That’s why today I am asking you: Call Congress. Tell them to support our sailors. Find your Representative or Senator at USA.gov. Use your voice. Every call is logged. Every message counts.

Demand that Congress fund emergency shipbuilding. And strengthen the Navy’s fleet.

Conclusion
The future of America depends on us — on our sailors, on our civilian maritime, on our citizens, and on a Navy that protects them all.

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

Let’s Roll.

August 27, 2025August 27, 2025

The Quiet War We’re Already In: Cyber, Fentanyl, and the CCP’s Strategy of Attrition

Introduction

As a former destroyer sailor from the ’70s, a Navy veteran who served on the Henry B. Wilson (DDG 7), and later a telecom and web technology executive, I don’t take words like “war” lightly. But we need to face facts: the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has already launched a quiet war against America and our allies.

It doesn’t look like Pearl Harbor or Midway. Instead, it comes as millions of cyberattacks, poisoned streets, disinformation campaigns, and infiltrations into our critical infrastructure. The weapons are different, but the intent is the same: weaken America from the inside out until resistance collapses.

Two voices recently captured this reality:

Retired Rear Admiral Mike Studeman, former Commander of the Office of Naval Intelligence, warned: “The reality is that adversaries have insinuated themselves in our homeland and continue to exploit our society from the inside out. This is the quiet and costly national crisis we have insufficiently mobilized to address.”
Another security analyst summarized it bluntly: “Massive list of aggressive actions against the US by China, but two stand out: 1) cyber attacks on critical infrastructure, and 2) subsidizing fentanyl to addict our citizens. The CCP is an existential threat to our democracy and we must treat it as such.”

These aren’t exaggerations. They’re the facts on the ground — and in cyberspace.

Cyber Siege: The First Strike of Modern Conflict

The Hudson Institute’s August 2025 policy memo makes it plain: Taiwan now faces an average of 2.4 million cyberattacks per day. These intrusions target energy grids, logistics, medical systems, and semiconductors. Hudson’s conclusion is chilling: in a crisis, Beijing could disable Taiwan’s systems “without expending a single missile.”

This isn’t theory. It’s the same playbook Russia used against Ukraine in 2022, starting with cyberattacks to degrade command and control. The difference is that Taiwan is at the center of global supply chains, producing 90 percent of the world’s advanced semiconductors. If its networks go dark, the shockwaves would slam every corner of the global economy — including the U.S. Navy’s shipyards and weapons programs.

Fentanyl: War in Our Streets

While Taiwan faces digital siege, America faces chemical siege. CCP-linked networks subsidize the production of fentanyl precursors that end up killing tens of thousands of Americans each year. This is not just crime — it’s a form of warfare. An addicted, divided society is weaker, less resilient, and less able to project power abroad.

Just as cyberattacks aim to paralyze a nation’s systems, fentanyl undermines its people from within. Together, they form a strategy of attrition: weaken the United States until it can no longer lead.

Why Americans Should Care

PRC-backed groups like Volt Typhoon have already penetrated U.S. critical infrastructure in places like San Diego, Norfolk, and Houston.
Our communities are flooded with fentanyl that is subsidized and trafficked through networks linked to China.
Our economic security hangs on supply chains that Beijing can disrupt with a few keystrokes.

The CCP doesn’t need to invade to weaken us. They’re already doing it.

Implications for the Navy
A Navy cannot fight if its logistics, communications, and supply lines are compromised. If Taiwan falls prey to a digital siege, our fleets in the Pacific will face an even harder fight — one fought without the semiconductor edge or the industrial resilience we’ve taken for granted.

The Navy will inevitably be tasked with cleaning up the mess: defending supply chains, securing sea lanes, and protecting American infrastructure from further exploitation. That means cyber resilience and industrial revival are as critical to naval readiness as shipbuilding or new destroyers.

Implications for Our Allies
Hudson warns of a dangerous ambiguity: there is no Indo-Pacific cyber alliance. Would Japan, South Korea, or Australia respond to a Chinese cyberattack on Taiwan? Would Washington retaliate in kind? The lack of clarity undermines deterrence — and gives Beijing confidence.

We need joint cyber defense drills, clear doctrine, and public-private coordination on resilience — not after a crisis, but now.

Conclusion
We are already at war — just not in the way most Americans imagine. The CCP’s cyberattacks, fentanyl subsidies, and influence operations are part of a long game of attrition. Admiral Studeman is right: this is a “quiet and costly national crisis” we’ve failed to mobilize against.

Hudson is right too: resilience is deterrence. America must strengthen its cyber defenses, rebuild its industrial base, and support Taiwan’s ability to withstand a digital siege. At the same time, we must recognize how Silicon Valley’s past choices — offshoring technology and handing Beijing the keys — helped create this vulnerability.

The sooner we admit the war has already begun, the sooner we can rally the Navy, our allies, and the American people to win it.

August 22, 2025August 23, 2025

The Hawks Were Right: China’s Drive for Tech Independence and U.S. Security Risks

Introduction
Thanks to Tom’s Hardware for spotlighting the latest chapter in U.S.–China tech tensions. Their reporting underscores a key point: America’s security is tied to technology policy. And those who warned about selling cutting-edge chips to Beijing in the first place—the so-called “China hawks”—are now watching these events unfold with an all-too-knowing smile.

What Happened
China recently ordered its top tech companies to halt purchases of Nvidia’s H20 AI chips. This comes after U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Washington’s goal was to make China “addicted” to U.S. technology. While blunt, his remark struck a nerve, evoking the painful history of the Opium Wars and China’s “Century of Shame.”

The Hawks Were Right
For years, U.S. lawmakers and analysts skeptical of Beijing’s intentions argued that selling advanced U.S. chips—even at a “watered down” level—would only fuel China’s ambitions. They warned that the short-term profits were not worth the long-term risk: once Chinese firms learned from U.S. technology, they would double down on building domestic alternatives and reduce their reliance on America. That is exactly what we are witnessing now.

At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we have been sounding the alarm on this same pattern. Just as the hawks predicted, the policies of short-term gain have fed into long-term vulnerabilities. Our mission is to ensure the American public understands these risks and rallies behind a stronger Navy — one prepared for the challenges of tomorrow.

China’s Long-Term Drive for Self-Reliance
It’s important to note that this isn’t simply a reaction to Lutnick’s remark or recent export bans. For more than a decade, Beijing has been methodically working to reduce exposure to Western technology:

Made in China 2025 (2015) — A state-led plan to dominate sectors like semiconductors, AI, robotics, and aerospace by producing up to 70% of key components domestically.
Semiconductors & Chips — Massive state investment in SMIC and the “Big Fund” to build a homegrown chip industry, with Huawei rolling out its own Kirin processors despite U.S. sanctions.
Cybersecurity & Data — Laws mandating that Chinese data be stored on Chinese servers, cutting Western firms out of core infrastructure.
“Dual Circulation” (2020) — Xi Jinping’s policy to insulate China’s economy from foreign shocks by prioritizing domestic supply chains and technology independence.

These moves show that dependency on U.S. technology was never going to be permanent. Beijing’s strategy has always been to learn, copy, and ultimately replace. The hawks knew it, and the evidence proves them right.

Why It Matters

Economic Competition: Nvidia initially saw huge demand for the H20. But Chinese regulators are now pushing data centers to buy 50% of their chips from domestic firms.
Historical Sensitivities: Lutnick’s “addiction” remark may have been casual in the U.S., but it hit raw nerves in Beijing—feeding nationalist backlash and accelerating decoupling.
Strategic Leverage: Technology is today’s high ground. If America cedes it, it cedes the ability to shape global security and commerce.

Implications for the U.S. Navy
The Navy’s edge rests on secure, reliable, advanced technology—from AI-driven analysis to unmanned systems. If China achieves independence from U.S. tech, the leverage America once had diminishes, narrowing our technological superiority at sea. Hawks warned this might happen—and now it’s becoming reality.

Implications for Our Allies
Allies across Asia and Europe rely on U.S. technology, but if Beijing succeeds in exporting homegrown chip alternatives, it could create cracks in the U.S.-led alliance system. China wouldn’t just compete militarily—it would compete by shaping the world’s tech ecosystem.

Why Americans Should Care
This isn’t just about Nvidia stock or quarterly earnings. It’s about whether America’s long-term security is sacrificed for short-term profit. The hawks who cautioned against empowering Beijing were pointing to this very moment. If China wins the tech race, it strengthens its military, weakens alliances, and challenges the Navy’s ability to keep the seas free and open.

Conclusion
Tom’s Hardware’s reporting shines a spotlight on a dangerous dynamic: America risks repeating past mistakes. Selling technology to Beijing may fill order books, but it also fuels the very rival we’re preparing to deter. The hawks warned us, and their concerns are looking more prescient by the day.

👉 Learn more and join the conversation at StrongerNavy.org

Let’s roll.