The Royal Navy’s execution of Admiral Byng in 1757 reminds us: indecision in war is deadly.
Introduction: The Reality We Face Today
The U.S. Navy is undergoing major leadership changes. Reports indicate that the incoming administration’s new Secretary of Defense, Pete Hedgeseth, is making sweeping moves by dismissing top admirals. Whether this signals a strategic reset or a political maneuver, one thing is clear: leadership in the military is under a microscope.
Bill Cullifer, Founder
In the private sector, where I have spent much of my career, leadership changes are routine—CEOs get fired, boards demand accountability, and shareholders expect results. But in the military, leadership turnover carries far greater consequences—it affects national security, operational readiness, and the morale of those who serve. In a time of rising threats from China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, America cannot afford indecision or mismanagement at the highest levels of command.
To understand the stakes, we need to examine a historical case of military accountability—one that was as brutal as it was instructive. The execution of Royal Navy Admiral John Byng in 1757 sent a chilling message: failure to act decisively in war could cost you everything. The question for us today is: Are we ensuring accountability, or are we risking unnecessary instability in our naval leadership?
A Harsh Lesson from History: The Execution of Admiral Byng
In 1757, Admiral John Byng faced one of the most severe forms of accountability in British naval history. Tasked with defending British interests during the Seven Years’ War, Byng was sent to relieve a besieged British garrison at Minorca. But he was set up for failure—his fleet was under-resourced, and his enemy was well-prepared.
Byng engaged the French in battle, but when his fleet suffered heavy damage, he chose to withdraw rather than risk total destruction. His decision, while arguably pragmatic, was viewed as a failure to act decisively in war.
The British government, eager to shift blame away from its own missteps, made an example of Byng. He was court-martialed, found guilty under the strict new Articles of War, and sentenced to death by firing squad. His execution was meant to send a message: indecision in battle would not be tolerated.
Voltaire, an 18th-century French writer, philosopher, and satirist, famously wrote, “In this country, it is wise to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others.” Byng’s fate, while tragic, reinforced a culture of accountability and decisive action in the Royal Navy that lasted for decades.
Why This Matters Today: The Cost of Indecision
Today, the world is entering a new era of great power competition. The challenges we face are different from those of Admiral Byng’s time, but the stakes are even higher:
China is rapidly expanding its navy, militarizing the South China Sea, and challenging U.S. dominance in the Pacific.
Russia is testing Western resolve, using hybrid warfare and maritime brinkmanship to threaten U.S. and allied interests.
Iran continues to harass U.S. forces in the Middle East, while North Korea remains an unpredictable nuclear threat.
In this environment, the U.S. Navy must embody decisive leadership at every level—on the bridge, in the boardroom, and in Washington. Hesitation, bureaucratic missteps, or weak decision-making will embolden our adversaries and put American lives at risk.
Implications for Americans
National Security: A Navy that acts with precision and decisiveness ensures the safety of our nation, our allies, and global trade routes.
Confidence in Leadership: When naval leaders are empowered to act boldly, it strengthens trust between the military and the American public.
Economic Stability: A strong Navy deters conflict, reducing the likelihood of costly, prolonged engagements that drain our national resources.
Implications for the U.S. Navy
Operational Readiness: Future conflicts will be won by those who can think and act quickly. Our Navy must train, equip, and empower its officers to make bold, effective decisions in real time.
Balanced Accountability: Leadership should be held accountable, but not used as political scapegoats or subject to constant upheaval that weakens continuity and strategy.
Better Strategic Execution: We need faster decision-making at the highest levels to ensure that shipbuilding, force readiness, and modernization efforts align with the evolving threats we face.
Message to Our Adversaries: Peace Through Strength—But Make No Mistake
Let there be no misunderstanding: Americans for a Stronger Navy is committed to peace through strength.
We believe in deterrence, in maintaining stability through overwhelming force, and in ensuring that war remains the last resort, not the first option. But make no mistake—if conflict comes, we do not hesitate.
To China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, we send this message:
* We do not hesitate. Our forces are trained to act with aggression and clarity when the situation demands it.
* We hold our leaders accountable—but we stand behind them when they make tough calls. Our commanders must have the authority to act decisively, without fear of political scapegoating or bureaucratic hand-wringing.
* We are prepared. We recognize that war is a dirty business, and we are willing to fight and win on our terms. We do not seek conflict, but we will never back down from defending our nation, our allies, and our interests.
Strength is what ensures peace. Weakness invites aggression. The U.S. Navy has been, and will remain, the ultimate deterrent to those who wish to challenge American resolve.
Final Thought: The Future of American Naval Power
The U.S. Navy is at a crossroads. We face real threats, and we cannot afford indecisiveness or internal instability.
History teaches us that leaders must be both decisive and supported. Americans for a Stronger Navy will continue advocating for policies that keep our fleet at peak readiness, hold leaders accountable without undermining stability, and ensure that we project strength at sea and beyond.
The time for hand-wringing is over. The time for banging on the table and demanding decisive action is now.
We either lead the seas—or someone else will.
Join us in this fight. Share this message, support a stronger Navy, and ensure that America’s maritime power remains second to none.
Editor’s Note: The status quo isn’t cutting it, and the Navy can’t afford to operate on autopilot. From both an Americans for a Stronger Navy perspective and my personal stance, I want leaders who demand action—admirals who bang on tables, challenge complacency, and push for real solutions. Right now, the Navy is stretched thin, threats are mounting, and bureaucracy is slowing us down. We don’t have the luxury of time. We need decisive leadership, real investment, and a serious commitment to strengthening the fleet—not just rhetoric or incremental tweaks. America’s naval power isn’t guaranteed unless we fight for it. That means confronting tough truths, challenging leadership where necessary, and making it impossible for decision-makers to ignore the urgency of the situation. No more waiting, no more excuses—we need action.
At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we have long advocated for a robust maritime strategy that includes both a stronger U.S. Navy and a revitalized civilian maritime industry. Our commitment to this cause is rooted in a belief that America’s strength at sea is indispensable to its national security, economic stability, and global leadership.
Recently, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) released findings from an investigation into China’s dominance in the shipbuilding, maritime, and logistics sectors, revealing practices that undermine fair competition and threaten American interests. This news reaffirms the urgency of revitalizing our shipbuilding industry—a call echoed by U.S. legislators like Senator John Garamendi and others who are leading efforts to rebuild our maritime capabilities.
What the Investigation Found
The USTR investigation, launched in response to petitions by five unions, highlights how China’s aggressive industrial policies have positioned it as a global leader in shipbuilding. According to USTR Katherine Tai, China builds over 1,700 ships annually—dwarfing the fewer than five built by the United States. The report emphasizes that Beijing’s practices displace foreign firms, foster dependencies, and create significant economic and security risks for the U.S.
Quoting Katherine Tai: “Beijing’s targeted dominance of these sectors undermines fair, market-oriented competition, increases economic security risks, and is the greatest barrier to revitalization of U.S. industries.”
Why This Matters
America’s maritime industry was once the backbone of our global influence and security. Today, it is a shadow of its former self, leaving us vulnerable to external dependencies. The decline of U.S. shipbuilding not only erodes our military readiness but also jeopardizes our economic security, particularly in the face of escalating geopolitical tensions with China.
The implications extend beyond shipbuilding. Logistics, supply chains, and the broader maritime ecosystem are critical to ensuring that America can sustain its global commitments and respond to crises effectively. As Alliance for American Manufacturing President Scott Paul aptly noted: “Failing to take decisive action will leave our shipbuilding capabilities at the mercy of Beijing’s persistent predatory market distortions.”
Legislative Efforts to Revitalize U.S. Shipbuilding
Amid these challenges, leaders like Senator John Garamendi are working to reverse the tide. Garamendi, alongside Senators Mark Kelly and Todd Young, recently introduced the SHIPS for America Act—a comprehensive, bipartisan effort to rebuild the U.S. shipbuilding industry and expand the U.S.-flagged fleet. Key provisions of this legislation include:
Establishing a national maritime strategy and a White House Maritime Security Advisor.
Expanding the U.S.-flagged fleet by 250 ships over the next decade.
Rebuilding the shipyard industrial base with tax credits, financial incentives, and funding for workforce development.
Strengthening regulations to ensure government-funded cargo is transported on U.S.-flagged vessels.
These efforts align closely with our own calls for a balanced strategy that integrates the needs of both the Navy and civilian maritime industries.
What Needs to Be Done
The USTR’s findings, combined with the SHIPS for America Act and related initiatives, offer a roadmap to reclaim America’s maritime leadership. However, this will require decisive action from policymakers, industry leaders, and the American public. We need to:
Invest in shipbuilding infrastructure and workforce development.
Expand the U.S.-flagged fleet to reduce dependence on foreign shipping.
Foster innovation in shipbuilding technologies to compete globally.
Unite bipartisan support for maritime legislation that prioritizes national security and economic resilience.
A Call to Action: Wake Up, America!
The stakes have never been higher. As we outlined in our recent open letter, the decline of America’s maritime capabilities is not just an industry problem—it’s a national security crisis. For too long, we have allowed complacency to erode our standing as a maritime power. It’s time to wake up.
We urge you to contact your representatives and demand support for legislation like the SHIPS for America Act. Share this message with your community, and join us in advocating for a stronger Navy and a revitalized civilian maritime industry.
America’s future at sea depends on it. Let’s make it happen.
Credit to AFP for their reporting on the USTR investigation and to the Alliance for American Manufacturing for their continued advocacy.
On Jan. 31, 1979, Vice Premier Deng Xiaoping and President Jimmy Carter sign historic diplomatic agreements between the United States and China. (Photos: Jimmy Carter Library
Introduction: A Decision Made in Haste
Bill Cullifer, Founder
The December 2024 renewal of the U.S.-China Science and Technology Agreement (STA) has left some Americans questioning its timing and rationale. While the original 1979 agreement aimed to foster collaboration and mutual respect, today’s geopolitical realities demand a more cautious approach. As an American deeply concerned about our nation’s security and technological leadership, I share the frustration of Senators Marco Rubio, Bill Hagerty, and Jim Risch, who criticized this rushed decision. Senator Risch aptly noted, “The era when this agreement made sense is long gone,” a sentiment that reflects the growing consensus among those wary of China’s strategic ambitions.
Historical Context: Cooperation vs. Competition
The STA, first signed under President Jimmy Carter and Premier Deng Xiaoping, symbolized a hopeful era of collaboration. It was a landmark moment in U.S.-China relations, with industries and policymakers believing that shared knowledge could lead to mutual prosperity. However, over the decades, successive administrations—Republican and Democratic alike—failed to reassess the agreement’s implications. Instead, they allowed industries to prioritize market access over national security, kicking the proverbial can down the road.
Now, as the stakes grow higher, the optics of renewing this agreement without public scrutiny are troubling. Worse, the decision was made just before a presidential transition, effectively denying the incoming administration an opportunity to weigh in. This lack of transparency is a glaring issue, especially given how previous agreements with China have often left the U.S. vulnerable.
The Costs of Neglect: Knowledge Shared, Power Shifted
The consequences of this complacency are clear:
Industrial Espionage: Cases like Motorola and Micron Technology illustrate how China has systematically exploited intellectual property to advance its technological and military capabilities.
Military Implications: From stealth fighters to missile technology, stolen innovations have directly bolstered China’s ability to challenge U.S. military dominance.
A Navy Left Holding the Line
While industries reaped profits, the Navy was left to address the fallout:
Countering Advanced Threats: The Navy now faces adversaries equipped with technologies once exclusive to the U.S., making global readiness more challenging.
Strategic Vulnerabilities: Decades of neglect have created gaps in naval capabilities, leaving our sailors to pick up the pieces without the tools they need.
A Call for Accountability and Action
The renewal of the STA should have been an opportunity for reevaluation, not a rushed decision made behind closed doors. While the updated agreement includes some safeguards, such as excluding critical technologies like AI and quantum computing, these measures fall short of addressing the broader risks.
As Dr. Steven T. Wills, Ph.D., Captain (USN Retired), author of Strategy Shelved: The Collapse of Cold War Naval Strategic Planning and Senior Advisor for American for a Stronger Navy, explains: “The renewal of the U.S.-China Science and Technology Agreement must be viewed with a critical eye, especially given China’s consistent exploitation of open collaborations to advance its military and technological objectives. As a former U.S. Navy officer and author focused on strategic naval planning, I’ve seen firsthand how seemingly innocuous decisions can have long-term implications for national security. This agreement, while framed as a step forward in modernizing cooperation, risks overlooking the broader strategic context. If we fail to adopt a comprehensive approach that aligns scientific collaboration with national security, we risk repeating the mistakes of the past—leaving our Navy and national defense community to address the consequences without adequate tools or support. The time for a unified, forward-looking strategy is now.”
Dr. Wills’ perspective highlights a critical point: this isn’t just about protecting intellectual property—it’s about ensuring that strategic decisions today don’t leave the Navy and the broader defense community vulnerable tomorrow.
The renewal of the STA should have been an opportunity for reevaluation, not a rushed decision made behind closed doors. While the updated agreement includes some safeguards, such as excluding critical technologies like AI and quantum computing, these measures fall short of addressing the broader risks.
It’s time to demand:
Comprehensive Evaluation: Policymakers, industry leaders, and defense experts must scrutinize agreements like the STA to ensure they align with national security interests.
Support for the Navy: Our sailors deserve the resources and tools necessary to address the consequences of decades of neglect.
A Unified National Strategy: The U.S. must adopt a cohesive approach to balancing innovation with security, ensuring industries that benefited from globalization contribute to safeguarding national interests.
Conclusion: Enough Is Enough
The optics of this renewal are undeniably poor. It sends the wrong message at a time when China has consistently exploited partnerships for strategic gain. Americans for a Stronger Navy stands for transparency, accountability, and vigilance. We cannot afford to be naïve or complacent when the stakes are so high.
As someone who served in the U.S. Navy during the Cold War, I’ve had enough of watching decision-makers prioritize short-term gains over long-term security. In upcoming podcasts, we will examine this agreement and its implications in greater detail, bringing together experts to discuss how America can reclaim its leadership in science and technology while safeguarding its future.
It’s time for all Americans—especially industries that have profited most—to step up and support the Navy and national security. This isn’t just about science; it’s about our freedom, our future, and our ability to stand strong in the face of growing challenges.