Category: Opinion Piece

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

The Fork in the Sea

An Open Letter to Silicon Valley and the American People

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

If you’re confused by all this, you’re not alone. By “this,” I mean the tangle of headlines, policies, and talking points that have defined America’s relationship with China for the past decade — tariffs and trade wars, tech bans and chip controls, speeches about “decoupling,” and endless debates between the so-called hawks and doves in Washington. There’s a lot to unpack. The truth is, most Americans are burnt out. After years of rising prices, supply chain chaos, and political talk about tariffs and trade wars, people are tired of trying to figure out who’s right, who’s bluffing, and who’s actually working for them. They hear about new restrictions on chips, debates over TikTok, or tariffs on Chinese steel — but they don’t always see how any of it helps put food on the table or keeps the country safe.

Here’s the reality: for years, Washington and Wall Street were divided into two camps. The “China doves” believed that trade, investment, and partnership would bring peace—that if we did business together, China would grow more open and the world would grow more stable. The “China hawks”, on the other hand, warned that the Chinese Communist Party was using that same economic engagement to build leverage, dominate industry, and prepare for confrontation.

The tariffs you’ve heard about—the ones that started during the Trump administration and carried through in various forms—were part of that battle. They weren’t just about steel, aluminum, or semiconductors. They were about whether America would keep surrendering its manufacturing and shipbuilding capacity to a regime that has made no secret of its ambitions in the Pacific.

Most Americans didn’t pick a side. They were too busy working, paying taxes, and hoping someone in Washington would finally get it right. But the truth is, both parties let this happen. We were told that engagement meant peace—when in reality, it built dependency. And now, the same country we helped enrich is threatening our allies, our trade routes, and our future.

That’s why voices like Shyam Sankar’s matter. Over the past week, the Palantir CTO and Hudson Institute trustee laid out a hard truth that America can no longer ignore. In his essay “Why the China Doves Are Wrong,” he calls out a generation of business and technology leaders who misread Beijing’s intentions. These so-called “doves” believed engagement and profit could buy peace. They were wrong.

Sankar singles out Nvidia’s CEO, Jensen Huang, who recently said the future “doesn’t have to be all us or them; it could be us and them.” Sankar’s answer is clear: the Chinese Communist Party doesn’t believe that. Its rise depends on America’s decline—and our own money, technology, and industrial retreat helped make that possible.

He’s right. For decades, U.S. capital and know-how flowed into China, building the very industrial and military capacity that now threatens the free world. America’s overreliance on Chinese supply chains—from semiconductors to shipyards—has turned interdependence into a weapon aimed back at us.

Rebuilding our domestic base—our factories, shipyards, and maritime strength—isn’t nostalgia. It’s national security. Sankar’s warning echoes what many of us have been saying for years: hard power and industrial resilience are the foundation of peace.

At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we believe this isn’t just a policy debate. It’s a call to every citizen. This moment demands that Americans—not just policymakers—take responsibility, stand together, and act before it’s too late.

The Tide Is Turning

For years, Americans for a Stronger Navy has been saying what Shyam Sankar just put into print: we didn’t lose ground to China overnight—it happened one contract, one shipment, one investment at a time. When someone from inside Silicon Valley finally says it out loud, it means the conversation is shifting.

This isn’t about pointing fingers. It’s about facing facts. The same innovation hubs that built the digital future also hollowed out America’s industrial core. And now, even the insiders see it: the CCP isn’t looking for balance—it’s looking for dominance. Sankar’s words confirm what we’ve been warning all along.

Sankar didn’t pull punches. He wrote:

“The U.S. is partially to blame for turning China into a juggernaut. American companies have invested vast sums over decades to build China’s industrial base. … Chinese military contractors securitize weapons contracts in global capital markets, meaning that American pension funds and 401(k) investors have financed missiles aimed at U.S. ships.”

That’s the uncomfortable truth. We financed the very threat we now face. While many Americans were working hard and trusting their savings to grow, their own retirement dollars were indirectly funding China’s military expansion.

This isn’t a partisan issue or a Wall Street issue—it’s an American issue. And fixing it means facing it head-on.

Call to Silicon Valley and the Financial Sector

If there’s one thing Americans know how to do, it’s rebuild. We did it after the Great Depression, after World War II, and after every storm that’s hit this country. But this time, the rebuilding must start with those who helped hollow out the core—our own financial and tech elites.

Silicon Valley didn’t mean to weaken America. Wall Street didn’t set out to fund our rivals. But good intentions don’t excuse bad outcomes. The truth is, while innovators were chasing the next big breakthrough, and investors were chasing the next big return, our shipyards rusted, our supply chains moved offshore, and our industrial base became dependent on the very system now aligned against us.

That’s why this open letter isn’t just a warning—it’s an invitation. We need the same creativity, drive, and innovation that built the digital world to help rebuild the physical one. The next frontier isn’t in code; it’s in steel, in sensors, in shipyards, and in the men and women who keep the seas open and the nation free.

We’re calling on America’s tech and finance leaders to put their talent and capital back to work here at home—where it matters most. Invest in shipbuilding. Partner with maritime innovators. Reimagine logistics, automation, and infrastructure. Help America regain the ability to build, move, and defend.

Because the same companies that helped wire the world now have a moral obligation to help secure it. And if we do this right, we won’t just restore our strength—we’ll rebuild trust between Main Street, Wall Street, and the American people.

Closing: The Hard Truth and the Hope

The American people have every right to feel weary. We’ve been told for decades that global integration would make the world safer, that cheap goods would make us richer, and that innovation alone would keep us ahead. But somewhere along the way, we lost sight of something simple and sacred—the idea that America must be able to stand on her own.

Shyam Sankar reminded us that while our leaders talked about partnership, the Chinese Communist Party was planning for dominance. And he’s right—we built part of that machine. But now we have a chance to build something better: a stronger, more united, and more self-reliant America.

That’s why this isn’t just a letter to policymakers—it’s a letter to all of us. To the shipbuilder and the software engineer. To the machinist and the venture capitalist. To every citizen whose pension, paycheck, or passion helped shape this nation. The future of American power depends on our willingness to face what’s broken and fix it together.

Rebuilding our shipyards and restoring our maritime strength isn’t about preparing for war—it’s about securing peace. It’s about ensuring that no foreign power can hold our economy, our sailors, or our future hostage. It’s about remembering that deterrence isn’t aggression—it’s readiness.

So yes, Americans are tired. We’ve been misled, overextended, and divided. But fatigue is not failure—it’s a signal. A signal that it’s time to get serious, to get focused, and to get back to work.

That’s what Americans for a Stronger Navy stands for—peace through strength, transparency through accountability, and unity through shared responsibility. Together, we can rebuild the strength that keeps us free.

Let’s roll.

Posted on

An Open Letter to War on the Rocks: Protecting Supply Chains Starts with a Stronger Navy

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

To the Editor and Mr. Jesse Humpal,

Your recent commentary, “Supply Chains Are Critical Infrastructure. It’s Time U.S. Policy Caught Up,” correctly identifies supply chains as battlefields targeted by America’s rivals. But while you focus on new legislation and bureaucratic reforms, the real lesson of Maersk, Colonial Pipeline, and Nord Stream is not just a lack of resilience—it’s that corporate offshoring created a moral hazard. For decades, profits were privatized while risks were socialized. Now taxpayers are being asked to underwrite the fallout.

The True Cost of Externalized Risk
Maersk, Colonial Pipeline, and Nord Stream all exposed the same vulnerability: companies prioritized efficiency and profit over redundancy and security. When their fragility became a national crisis, it was the government—and by extension, the American taxpayer—that had to absorb the cost. Legislation like the CHIPS Act or a pharmaceutical reserve may help, but these measures are ultimately subsidies for corporate strategic failures.

The Navy as a Necessary Public Good
The U.S. government should not exist to de-risk private balance sheets. Its mission is to deter adversaries. And only the U.S. Navy has the reach, capability, and mandate to secure the sea lanes, ports, and subsea infrastructure that underpin 90 percent of global trade.

  • The inherent conflict of interest: CEOs answer to shareholders, not to national security.
  • The Navy as the ultimate hedge: no private firm will pay to safeguard global commerce; that burden falls on the fleet.
  • Deterrence through capability: a dominant Navy ensures freedom of navigation, secures subsea lifelines, and guarantees the supply lines needed for both commerce and force projection.

Congress Must Do More
Congress should pass the Promoting Resilient Supply Chains Act, but it must not mistake legislation for deterrence. Protecting the arteries of our economy requires a stronger, larger, and better-resourced Navy. Anything less is subsidizing failure.

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

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.

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.