Category: Opinion Piece

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

Introuction

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.

Posted on

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

U.S. and allied navies sailing in formation
Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

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

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

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.

Posted on

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

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

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.

Posted on

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

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

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.

Posted on

An Open Letter: The Real Story Behind USS Harry S. Truman’s Red Sea Deployment

USS Henry S Truman

By Bill Cullifer, Founder, Americans for a Stronger Navy

I write today in response to the deeply troubling article titled “It Was Supposed to Be a Show of Force — USS Harry S. Truman’s Return From the Red Sea Has Become a Humiliation for U.S. Navy,” published by Indian Defence Review, which fundamentally mischaracterizes one of the most challenging naval deployments in recent memory.

Whether this represents clickbait journalism or genuine editorial perspective, it raises several critical concerns that extend far beyond this single article. First and foremost: Is this the thanks we give to the men and women who spent over eight months away from their families, conducting combat operations in one of the world’s most dangerous maritime corridors?

The Real Numbers Tell a Different Story

Let’s examine what the USS Harry S. Truman and her crew actually accomplished:

  • Over 250 days at sea in a combat environment
  • 11,000 sorties flown against legitimate military targets
  • 1.1 million pounds of ordnance deployed with precision
  • Zero pilot fatalities despite equipment challenges
  • Continuous protection of one of the world’s most critical shipping lanes

These are not the metrics of failure. These are the achievements of professional sailors executing their mission under extraordinary circumstances.

The Human Cost of Service

Behind every sortie, every watch standing, every maintenance cycle, there are real people. Sailors who missed birthdays, anniversaries, and holidays. Young men and women who wrote letters home while dodging Iranian-supplied drones and missiles. Chiefs and petty officers who worked around the clock to keep aircraft flying and systems operational.

When equipment failed—as it inevitably does in the harsh maritime environment—these same sailors adapted, improvised, and continued the mission. When accidents occurred, they responded with professionalism and ensured their shipmates survived.

Understanding Modern Naval Warfare

The article’s characterization of the deployment as a “humiliation” reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of 21st-century naval operations. The Houthis, backed by Iran, represent exactly the kind of asymmetric threat our Navy faces globally. There are no clean victories against an enemy that hides among civilians, uses commercial vessels as shields, and employs disposable drone swarms.

The fact that commercial shipping continues to face challenges doesn’t diminish what the Truman accomplished—it highlights the complexity of the threat environment and the limitations of any single military response to a multi-faceted geopolitical problem.

Equipment Losses in Context

Yes, three F/A-18 Super Hornets were lost during the deployment. Each represents significant cost and operational impact. But let’s be clear about what this means: In over 11,000 sorties, with zero pilot fatalities, we experienced a loss rate of 0.027%. By historical standards of naval aviation, particularly in combat operations, this is remarkable.

More importantly, each incident led to immediate safety reviews, procedural improvements, and lessons learned that will protect future sailors and aviators. This is how professional military organizations operate.

The Broader Information Warfare Concern

This incident highlights a troubling trend in how military operations are portrayed in global media. The USS Truman’s heroic service received minimal positive coverage during their deployment, yet a sensationalized critique gains international attention through platforms like Google News.

Recent investigations have documented serious concerns about foreign influence in news distribution. Three CCP-controlled media outlets enjoy hosting and promotion privileges on Google’s flagship news platform, according to reporting by the Washington Examiner. Additionally, Google has blocked more than 1,000 Glassbridge sites from Google News and Google Discover since 2022 due to coordinated pro-China influence operations.

American taxpayers funded the development of these information distribution technologies, yet we now see them potentially weaponized to undermine public confidence in U.S. military operations. Whether intentional or not, sensationalized coverage that diminishes American military achievements serves the strategic interests of our adversaries.

Our Sailors Deserve Better Recognition

The truth is that our sailors’ remarkable service barely made the news during their deployment. While they were conducting combat operations under dangerous conditions, the media largely ignored their daily acts of courage and professionalism. Yet sensationalized criticism spreads quickly through algorithmic news distribution systems.

The Truman’s deployment served multiple strategic purposes beyond immediate tactical outcomes:

  • Alliance building: Working alongside international partners in a coalition environment
  • Deterrence: Demonstrating sustained American presence in a critical region
  • Experience: Providing irreplaceable combat experience to a new generation of sailors
  • Intelligence: Gathering critical data on enemy capabilities and tactics

These strategic benefits don’t fit neatly into headlines, but they represent the real value of sustained naval presence operations.

A Call for Perspective

Military operations are complex, multi-dimensional endeavors that rarely produce clean victories or clear defeats. The men and women of the USS Harry S. Truman served with distinction in a challenging environment, accomplished their assigned missions, and returned home safely.

They deserve our gratitude, not sensationalized criticism that reduces their service to clickbait headlines.

As supporters of our military personnel, we can and should hold our military leadership accountable for strategic decisions, equipment readiness, and operational effectiveness. But we must do so in a way that honors the sacrifice and professionalism of the sailors who execute these missions.

The crew of the USS Harry S. Truman didn’t return home in “humiliation.” They returned home as combat veterans who served their country with honor in one of the world’s most dangerous regions.

That’s a story worth telling accurately.

Americans for a Stronger Navy, an organization dedicated to supporting U.S. naval personnel and advocating for robust maritime security. He can be reached at [contact information].

Posted on

America’s Fleet Readiness Crisis: What 80% Really Means

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

Introduction

If you’ve been following along, you know we’ve been sounding the alarm for some time now—raising concerns not out of fear, but out of duty. At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we don’t profit from defense contracts or feed the industrial complex. We’re here because the facts are in: the Navy is falling short of the readiness our nation demands—and we must do better.

The U.S. Navy is aiming for 80% surge readiness by 2027—but it’s stuck at 60%. That 20% gap could determine whether America deters conflict—or invites one.

Brent Sadler, Senior Fellow for Naval Warfare and Advanced Technology at The Heritage Foundation and author of U.S. Naval Power in the 21st Century: A New Strategy for Facing the Chinese and Russian Threat, put it bluntly:

“It won’t happen until more ships enter the fleet to drive operational tempo down to 30%.”

Top Navy leaders have echoed this urgency. As one Navy official said plainly:

“We must increase our fleet readiness to 80% by 2027 to meet global security demands and deter peer-level threats.”

That’s the heart of the problem—and a major reason we’re sounding the alarm.

From the Indo-Pacific to the U.S. Southern border, the Navy is being stretched dangerously thin. The ships we have are aging, overworked, and under-maintained. Meanwhile, new construction is lagging—leaving sailors to shoulder an impossible burden, and the nation exposed.

At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we don’t advocate fear—we advocate responsibility. We believe war is preventable, but only if America wakes up and acts.

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

Let’s move beyond slogans. Let’s build understanding, accountability, and strength—before the next crisis comes knocking.

Posted on

America’s Cyber Crisis Hits the Deck: The Tech Sector, China, and Why a Stronger Navy Matters 

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

Introduction

This week, we saw confirmation of what we’ve feared—and been warning about—for over 18 months: America’s digital defenses have been compromised, and it’s our Navy that’s left exposed.

According to Politico, a sweeping cyberattack has been launched by at least three Chinese state-linked hacking groups: Violet Typhoon, Linen Typhoon, and Storm-2603.

Their target? Microsoft’s SharePoint servers—used widely across the federal government, including DoD and Navy-linked systems.

Microsoft, in a Tuesday blog post, acknowledged the severity of the breach. Independent security experts at Mandiant and Censys corroborated the finding: more than 100 organizations globally are believed to be affected—including multiple U.S. federal agencies, some tied to national defense.

The flaw? An unpatched vulnerability in Microsoft’s on-premise SharePoint product.
The result? Remote access into sensitive systems.
The fallout? Still spreading.

And it’s not the first time. In 2023, Chinese actors breached the emails of the U.S. Ambassador to China and the Commerce Secretary, also by exploiting Microsoft misconfigurations. It’s a pattern—and one we can no longer afford to ignore.

Why Americans Should Care

Here’s the hard truth: this breach is a symptom of a larger failure—one that involves the defense-industrial complex, Big Tech, and complacency at the highest levels of oversight.

  • Pentagon systems supported by China-based engineers
  • Software flaws ignored or inadequately patched
  • Critical U.S. infrastructure reliant on foreign nationals in adversarial countries

And now? The U.S. Navy, tasked with protecting global stability, must operate with compromised tools—while companies like Microsoft continue to make billions from government contracts.

It’s not just bad policy. It’s a national security liability.

Implications for the Navy

  • SharePoint vulnerabilities can compromise logistics, intel coordination, and real-time decision-making.
  • At least two Navy-related systems are believed to be among the dozens affected.
  • The breach arrives as the Navy pushes toward a critical readiness benchmark.

Acting Chief of Naval Operations Admiral James Kilby put it plainly:

“We must exercise strategic discipline, increase surge readiness, and protect scheduled maintenance. Our goal is to achieve an 80% combat-surge ready posture by 2027. We are currently at 60% readiness—and that gap is unacceptable.”

The Navy wants to prevent war, not provoke it. But readiness is the only deterrent adversaries understand. And right now, we are dangerously behind.

My Message: Fix, Educate, Mobilize

I’m not writing this to indict. I’m writing to fix and educate.

This crisis has serious implications. The threats are real. And the probability of conflict is rising.

I don’t believe in fear-mongering—but I do believe in calling things by their name. What we are seeing—again—is a system-wide breakdown in how we protect the digital backbone of our military.

This is what I’ve been shouting about for 18 months. Not because I enjoy sounding the alarm—but because someone must.

The taxpayers are left holding the bill.
The sons and daughters of those I served with are left to face the danger.
And the Navy is left to grovel for support to do what only they can—protect this nation at sea and abroad.

What We’re Doing About It

That’s why I launched Americans for a Stronger Navy—to demand accountability, readiness, and real reform.

And that’s why we’re rolling out:
Charting the Course: Voices That Matter—a 24-part educational series exploring:

  • The outsourcing of our military tech infrastructure
  • The erosion of our domestic workforce
  • The choke points in our digital and maritime defenses
  • Concrete ways to fix what’s broken

We’ll spotlight reforms in procurement, workforce development, public-private partnerships, and cybersecurity strategy.

Because the tech sector is culpable—and I call on them now to help us fix this. They helped get us into this mess. They must help get us out.

Final Word

  • Big Tech failed.
  • Oversight failed.
  • The Navy must now bear the consequences.

We’re not just talking about ships and steel—we’re talking about the servers, systems, and software that power warfighting in the 21st century.

And if we don’t wake up, the next war won’t wait.

👉 Join the movement at StrongerNavy.org
Support those who serve. Strengthen what they stand for.