Listen to the article
Trump’s new ‘battleship’ should not carry nukes
Producing a new nuclear missile for the Navy would leave us less safe.
December 24, 2025 12:37 AM ET | Andrew C. Weber
A killing at sea marks America’s descent into lawless power
The peremptory strike on a speedboat is a warning to all who serve. Remember your oath.
September 8, 2025 | Jon Duffy
Don’t give up the shipyards
Trump’s first shipbuilding deal must not derail America’s bipartisan strategy to revive the foundations of its seapower.
October 28, 2025 | Hunter Stires
‘Fund first, ask questions later’ is a bad way to go
Handing $156 billion to the Pentagon with no clear plan invites not just waste but danger. Here’s why.
July 31, 2025 | Gabe Murphy
What is Pete Hegseth so scared of?
The Navy needs leaders like Buzz Donnelly.
July 11, 2025 | Jon Duffy
Our nation requires three ARG/MEUs
The Marine Corps commandant underscores the necessity of the Amphibious Ready Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit for projecting American strength and sustaining deterrence.
November 16, 2025 | Gen. Eric Smith
Sinking speedboats with a supercarrier: the lopsided cost of Operation Southern Spear
History suggests what happens when the U.S. military outspends a foe by orders of magnitude.
December 7, 2025 | Peter W. Singer
‘Shadow economies’ are growing. Military planners and operators must take them into account
Black markets prolong wars, defang sanctions, fray alliances, and help rogue governments and groups survive and thrive.
October 2, 2025 | Maj. Benjamin Backsmeier
Military AI needs guardrails—not to slow it down, but to keep it useful
Modifying commercial models isn’t as easy as removing the parts that discourage users from killing people.
September 29, 2025 | Mieke Eoyang
RIP, JCIDS. Let’s stop writing requirements and start solving problems
Time to move from procedural compliance to championing ingenuity and results.
August 25, 2025 | Peter A. Newell
Trump’s terror-prevention cuts leave Americans exposed
Since February, at least five government offices devoted to countering violent or terrorist groups have been slashed or shuttered.
August 10, 2025 | Kris Inman
Read the full article here
22 Comments
Gabe Murphy’s argument that handing $156 billion to the Pentagon without a clear plan invites waste and danger is a stark reminder of the need for transparency and strategic planning in military budgeting, to ensure that funds are allocated efficiently and effectively.
The reference to the killing at sea marking America’s descent into lawless power, as mentioned by Jon Duffy, is a sobering commentary on the state of international relations and the use of military force, echoing concerns about the legality and ethics of such actions.
The discussion about the Navy needing leaders like Buzz Donnelly, as suggested by Jon Duffy, raises questions about the current leadership and its approach to naval operations and strategy, particularly in the face of evolving global threats.
Gen. Eric Smith’s emphasis on the necessity of the Amphibious Ready Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit for projecting American strength resonates, given the current geopolitical climate and the need for effective military strategies.
Kris Inman’s concern about Trump’s terror-prevention cuts leaving Americans exposed is valid, especially given the recent history of slashing or shuttering government offices devoted to countering violent or terrorist groups, which could have significant national security implications.
The mention of the Navy needing leaders who embody the qualities of Buzz Donnelly, as suggested by Jon Duffy, speaks to the broader issue of leadership in the military and its impact on operational effectiveness and strategic decision-making.
Peter W. Singer’s historical analysis of what happens when the U.S. military outspends a foe by orders of magnitude offers valuable insights into the potential outcomes of Operation Southern Spear and similar operations, highlighting the importance of strategic planning.
Kris Inman’s concern about the exposure of Americans to terror threats due to cuts in terror-prevention measures is a critical point that requires immediate attention and a comprehensive strategy to counter violent extremism, both domestically and internationally.
Gen. Eric Smith’s emphasis on the necessity of three ARG/MEUs for the Marine Corps to project American strength and sustain deterrence is a significant argument for maintaining and potentially expanding these capabilities, given the geopolitical context.
Maj. Benjamin Backsmeier’s point about military AI needing guardrails to keep it useful is well-taken, considering the complexities of modifying commercial models for military use, as discussed by Mieke Eoyang in the context of stopping the practice of writing requirements and starting to solve problems.
The discussion about ‘shadow economies’ and their impact on prolonging wars, defanging sanctions, and helping rogue governments survive, as outlined by Maj. Benjamin Backsmeier, points to the complex interplay between economic factors and military outcomes in modern conflicts.
Peter A. Newell’s warning about the dangers of modifying commercial AI models without proper guardrails is critical, given the potential for misuse and unintended consequences, as highlighted in the context of military AI development.
The idea of producing a new nuclear missile for the Navy, as mentioned by Andrew C. Weber, raises concerns about the potential risks and consequences, especially considering the $156 billion handed to the Pentagon with no clear plan, as highlighted by Gabe Murphy.
This lack of planning is indeed alarming and could lead to significant waste and danger, as Murphy pointed out.
Mieke Eoyang’s call to move from procedural compliance to championing ingenuity and results in military planning is forward-thinking, especially in an era where adaptability and innovative problem-solving are crucial for military success.
Jon Duffy’s statement about remembering one’s oath in the face of the peremptory strike on a speedboat is thought-provoking, especially in the context of Operation Southern Spear, which Peter W. Singer discussed as an example of the lopsided cost of military operations.
Gabe Murphy’s critique of the ‘fund first, ask questions later’ approach to Pentagon spending is timely, given the historical context of military spending and the need for transparency and accountability in budget allocations.
Hunter Stires’ argument against derailing America’s bipartisan strategy to revive its seapower foundations by not giving up the shipyards seems prudent, considering the long-term benefits of maintaining a strong naval presence.
The fact that at least five government offices devoted to countering violent or terrorist groups have been slashed or shuttered since February, as reported by Kris Inman, underscores the need for a comprehensive review of terror-prevention strategies and their funding.
Andrew C. Weber’s suggestion that Trump’s new ‘battleship’ should not carry nukes reflects a broader debate about nuclear armament and its role in modern military strategy, considering both deterrence and the risk of escalation.
The mention of ‘shadow economies’ by Maj. Benjamin Backsmeier as a factor that military planners must consider highlights the intricate nature of modern warfare and its economic implications, affecting alliances and the longevity of conflicts.
Jon Duffy’s piece on not giving up the shipyards as part of Trump’s first shipbuilding deal highlights the importance of a bipartisan strategy in maintaining America’s seapower, considering both the economic and strategic implications.