Category Archives: Sailing

Woefully Inadequate Intelligence Analysis in “Worse Than Signalgate”

Ryback’s “Worse Than Signalgate” analysis in The Atlantic of the Zimmermann Telegram affair represents the kind of simplistic, great-man historiography that we’ve spent decades trying to eradicate from serious historical discourse.

The article’s framing of the incident as mere diplomatic bungling rather than a calculated intelligence operation is not merely incomplete—it’s intellectually dishonest.

Let me be perfectly clear: The Zimmermann Telegram was not primarily a story of German incompetence, but rather of British intelligence brilliance in a targeted campaign to neutralize pro-German sympathies in America, particularly those held by influential figures like President Wilson and industrialist Henry Ford.

For those unfamiliar with this pivotal event: In January 1917, German Foreign Minister Arthur Zimmermann sent an encrypted message proposing that Mexico join Germany against the United States if America entered World War I. Germany promised to help Mexico recover territories lost to the U.S. (Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona) and suggested Mexico invite Japan to join this alliance. British intelligence intercepted and decoded this message, then strategically released it to the American public through the press in February 1917. The telegram’s content was so incendiary that it helped overcome Wilson’s resistance to war, despite his previous stance against intervention. What Ryback fails to grasp is that this was not simply a German diplomatic blunder, but a calculated British intelligence operation designed to circumvent pro-German American leadership.

Nigel de Grey, in Room 40 Old Building, was one of the first British officers to partially decrypt the Zimmermann Telegram. William Montgomery then completed the decryption and verified its authenticity, which led Admiral Sir Reginald “Blinker” Hall to devise a cunning plan for public exposure.

It would be like today decoding a Putin memo that revealed Russia interfered with the Presidential election to put Trump in office, is behind the NRA pushing guns even as mass murders spread, and funds campaigns to get Texas and California to secede. Or perhaps even more shrewdly, points out the heated campaign to transfer corporations and manufacturing to Texas is foreshadowing of a Russian campaign for Texas to secede like Brexit.

Ryback’s article conveniently omits there was an extensive German sabotage campaign on American soil—over 40 documented bombing incidents between 1914 and 1917, including the Black Tom explosion that damaged the Statue of Liberty. Wilson’s administration consistently intentionally misdirected blame toward leftists, anarchists, and labor agitators while knowing full well that German agents were the actual perpetrators.

The July 1916 Preparedness Day bombing in San Francisco serves as a perfect example of this deliberate misdirection, with local labor leaders Thomas Mooney and Warren Billings falsely imprisoned while clear ties to German involvement was suppressed.

What makes Wilson’s denialism all the more egregious is that ordinary Americans were acutely aware of the wave of suspicious fires, explosions, and acts of sabotage sweeping the nation. Newspapers from coast to coast reported on these “accidents” at munitions plants, shipping facilities, and infrastructure targets. The pattern was unmistakable to anyone paying attention – a veritable domestic Holocaust of German-orchestrated destruction.

While Americans buried their dead following the Black Tom explosion and the Kingsland munitions plant fire, Wilson’s administration continued its calculated misdirection campaign, attributing these acts to labor unrest or simple industrial accidents. This deliberate obfuscation occurred even as federal investigators privately compiled evidence of German involvement.

When British intelligence finally bypassed Wilson with the Zimmermann Telegram revelation, it wasn’t just exposing German intentions—it was circumventing an American president who had systematically lied to his own citizenry about clear and present dangers on American soil.

Ford’s pro-German involvement is particularly egregious in its omission. Far from being a mere “isolationist,” Ford was actively operating as anti-American, accepting millions in German funds while failing to deliver promised agricultural equipment, as harshly pointed out by congressional rebukes.

His anti-Semitic publications aligned with and promoted German propaganda aims (Hitler and Goebbels both credited Ford for influencing them). His opposition to American entry into the war wasn’t simply isolationism or pacifism but part of a broader ideological position that actively worked to undermine American principles and security interests.

Wilson himself had campaigned on keeping America out of war, implicitly to aid German militant aims, and maintained back-channel communications with German officials well into 1917.

The British intelligence operation around the Zimmermann Telegram therefore must be understood in full context as a sophisticated psychological operation targeting the American public directly, deliberately circumventing high profile pro-German sympathizers even ones in positions of oligarchial power.

Room 40’s work wasn’t merely clever codebreaking; it was a masterful influence operation that recognized the power of public opinion over elite preferences in American politics.

A simple illustration of German military plans destroyed Henry Ford and Woodrow Wilson attempts to keep America aligned with Germany.

Ryback’s framing of Zimmermann as merely delusional misses the obvious wider German strategy of global destabilization—from their support of Irish republicans to their activation of terror networks in British India. The telegram was but one component within a sophisticated global strategy, far from incompetent, that the British correctly identified and countered.

This breezy Atlantic article offers a superficial, decontextualized history that contributes unnecessary flap and noise to a proper understanding of highly skilled intelligence operations, directed public opinion manipulation, or the genuine complexity of Ford and Wilson’s toxic false neutrality. They weren’t neutral, they were actively and directly harming Americans.

The incongruity in Wilson’s leadership – reluctance to confront foreign threats while eagerly suppressing domestic groups – is the cruel understated aspect of his presidency that complicates any conventional narrative of Wilson as principled.

His hesitation to directly condemn German actions, even after American ships were sunk, contrasts sharply with his administration’s swift and brutal responses to perceived domestic threats.

Wilson’s administration was remarkably aggressive in suppressing leftist political movements. The Espionage Act of 1917 and Sedition Act of 1918 were used to imprison hundreds of labor activists, socialists, and anti-war protesters. Eugene V. Debs, who had received nearly a million votes as the Socialist Party presidential candidate, was sentenced to 10 years in prison essentially for giving an anti-war speech.

And yes, Wilson’s racial policies were particularly devastating. His administration resegregated federal offices that had been integrated since Reconstruction. He screened “Birth of a Nation” at the White House, effectively endorsing its racist narrative and helping fuel the revival of the KKK.

The 1919 Elaine Massacre is a perfect example. When Black sharecroppers in Arkansas organized to demand fair payment for their cotton, white mobs attacked them. Rather than protecting these American citizens being attacked for exercising their rights, the Army was deployed by Wilson to attack them further, resulting in the shooting deaths of hundreds of Black Americans by federal troops.

This pattern reveals a deeply troubling aspect of Wilson’s worldview when the Zimmerman telegram landed. The President seemed far more willing to extend understanding and restraint to certain powers, even hostile ones, than to extend basic constitutional protections to Black Americans or his political opponents at home.


Technical Appendix: The British Room 40 Operation in Detail


I’ve called the British intelligence operation clever, but let me elaborate on why this characterization is warranted. While a Zimmermann Telegram brought the power of the public in the United States to bear down on the deeply racist and corrupted President Wilson and his cronies, the British had managed this all without blowing their operation. Room 40 didn’t just see the message and decode it, they used simple espionage theater to keep their war-winning methods a secret.

  • Double Intercept: both an original high-strength cracked cipher version and a weakened known-vulnerable copy from Mexico were used. The latter “internal” communication between America and Mexico gave the British a cover story for how and where they “found” it.
  • Deception by Omission: The Americans were told a true story about American officials caught working on the side of Germany (which meant against America), yet were not told that German communications had been cracked.
  • Protected Assets: Keeping Room 40 a secret meant the British preserved a massive intelligence edge for the rest of the war, similar to how Polish intelligence cracked the Nazi Enigma in WWII and yet are rarely if ever credited properly even to this day.
  • Let the Enemy Fall Into It: The telegram’s authenticity was confirmed by Zimmermann, unaware of British methods.

Although the codebreaking unit in Room 40 had cracked and validated Germany’s top diplomatic cipher, they couldn’t let the Germans find out and shut down a critical intelligence stream. The telegram from Germany to Mexico proposing an alliance against the U.S. needed another path as a plausible origin story.

  • August 5, 1914 — British cable ship HMTS Alert was ordered by Admiralty to cut Germany’s five undersea telegraph cables, just one day after declaration of war. These were the major transatlantic cables that connected Germany directly to North America and other global regions. Notably, Germany saw America secretly as an ally against Britain and thus switched communications to its “neutral” lines, which meant even using American diplomatic channels on the American cables. That’s exactly where British intelligence was listening.
  • January 16, 1917 — Zimmermann’s telegram routes from Berlin to the German ambassador in Washington DC, via the U.S. diplomatic cables that it believed to be secure from the British because American. British intelligence intercept this message and decipher it, realizing important value.
  • February 1–3, 1917 — British agents quietly obtain a second version of the telegram that had been forwarded from Washington DC to Mexico City, due to a less secure cipher widely known to be compromised. Germany also angrily announces that it will immediately resume unrestricted submarine warfare to sink passenger ships, prompting President Wilson to declare to the Senate that he is totally surprised by such a thing and waiting to see any evidence of “actual overt acts” of harm.

    I cannot bring myself to believe that [Germany] will indeed pay no regard to the ancient friendship between their people and our own or to the solemn obligations which have been exchanged between them, and destroy American ships, and take the lives of American citizens in the wilful prosecution of the ruthless naval program they have announced their intention to adopt. Only actual overt acts on their part can make me believe it even now.

    Immediately, German U-boats attacked and sank the Housatonic, and then three days later attacked and sank the 470-ft passenger ship SS California off the Irish coast, killing nearly 50 people in just 10 minutes. Yet again, for at least the second year, Wilson’s calculated and cruel inaction leaves American blood on his hands. On the 12th the schooner Lyman M. Law is sunk.

  • February 19, 1917 — Britain’s Admiral Hall presents the Zimmerman telegram to U.S. officials, explaining it had been discovered in Mexico coming from American diplomatic channels.
  • March 1, 1917 — Unable to continue pretending it has a “neutral” role while allowing years of German attacks killing Americans, alarms about the telegram are rising, and the British propel the news all the way into U.S. newspaper headlines.
  • March 3, 1917 — Zimmermann inexplicably confirms the telegram’s authenticity, removing all doubt in the public eye.
  • March 12, 1917 — steamship Algonquin is sunk, followed four days later by the sinking of the US steamship Vigilancia without warning, killing 15 (including six Americans), and soon after the sinking of the US oil tanker Healdton, killing 21 (including seven Americans).
  • April 6, 1917 — unable to waffle and wiggle any longer, having knowingly allowed horrible attacks on Americans to run unanswered for years, Wilson finally is compelled by public outrage to declare war on Germany.

The Atlantic article fundamentally misses that the Zimmermann event represented a meticulously planned intelligence operation by Britain’s top talent, who embedded a public sentiment campaign within a seemingly neutral document while secretly preserving their ability to continue decoding German communications.

This wasn’t simply German incompetence meeting British luck—it was strategic calculation meeting strategic counter-calculation, a far more nuanced and historically significant interaction. In fact, the deep and careful British intelligence work was so effective that, even a century later, some historians still appear to be confused. They portray Zimmermann as incompetent rather than someone with reasonable expectations of ongoing American sympathy through the toxicity of an extremist pro-German President Wilson—even for Germany’s own territorial ambitions (a historical parallel with differently disturbing modern echoes, like how Trump serves Russia today).

Scientists Use Hops to Power Up Insect-Sized Flying Robots

What they are saying certainly makes a lot of sense, when you think about the mechanics behind a grasshopper being able to fly, versus a … fly.

Insect-scale robots face two major locomotive challenges: constrained energetics and large obstacles that far exceed their size. Terrestrial locomotion is efficient yet mostly limited to flat surfaces. In contrast, flight is versatile for overcoming obstacles but requires high power to stay aloft. Here, we present a hopping design that combines a subgram flapping-wing robot with a telescopic leg. Our robot can hop continuously while controlling jump height and frequency in the range of 1.5 to 20 centimeters and 2 to 8.4 hertz. The robot can follow positional set points, overcome tall obstacles, and traverse challenging surfaces. It can also hop on a dynamically rotating plane, recover from strong collisions, and perform somersaults. Compared to flight, this design reduces power consumption by 64 percent and increases payload by 10 times.

I wrote about this briefly back in 2018, in reference to 1970s research, given the challenges with insect-sized flying robots.

The Insectothopter was plagued by inability to fly in actual weather, as even the slightest breeze would render it useless.

China Reveals Weapon for Deep Sea Cable Attack

Following a series of suspicious recent undersea cable cuts, China has just revealed a weapon (power tool) engineered to disrupt global networks.

The tool, which is able to cut lines at depths of up to 4,000 metres (13,123 feet) – twice the maximum operational range of existing subsea communication infrastructure – has been designed specifically for integration with China’s advanced crewed and uncrewed submersibles like the Fendouzhe, or Striver, and the Haidou series.

Developed by the China Ship Scientific Research Centre (CSSRC) and its affiliated State Key Laboratory of Deep-sea Manned Vehicles, the device targets armoured cables – layered with steel, rubber and polymer sheaths – that underpin 95 per cent of global data transmission.

Naval Integrity Breach: Chinese Hackers Crash Second U.S. Military Ship in a Month

A catastrophic demonstration of information warfare: The Solong container ship’s unnatural trajectory into a U.S. military oil tanker bears all the hallmarks of sophisticated navigation system compromise

The USS Harry Truman collision on February 12th appeared to be just an isolated incident. Now we know it was merely the opening act.

The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) was involved in a collision with the merchant vessel Besiktas-M at approximately 11:46 p.m. local time, Feb. 12, while operating in the vicinity of Port Said, Egypt, in the Mediterranean Sea.

Barely a month later, a far more devastating crash has unfolded off England’s coast—this time targeting a chartered U.S. military fuel supply line.

Just before 10 a.m. local time (6 a.m. ET), a Portuguese-flagged container ship called the Solong careered into the oil tanker, called the Stena Immaculate, which was at anchor in the North Sea about 10 miles off the English coastline, according to the ship tracking tool VesselFinder.

What demands our immediate attention: Weather reports from nearby coastal stations indicated misty conditions with limited visibility that morning, potentially making the ships’ crews even more reliant on their electronic navigation systems. The 2005-built Portuguese-flagged Solong was traveling at full cruising speed—16 knots—when it slammed broadside into the anchored Stena Immaculate. Let me be absolutely clear: such a collision at 8.23 m/s directly into the 183-meter length of a stationary high-sided oil tanker is beyond negligence—it represents a catastrophic systems-level breakdown or, more likely, deliberate external manipulation.

Following the COLREGS (International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea), the Solong would need “ample time” for avoidance, which in this case was around 12 minutes before the crash (3.2 nautical miles away). Without getting too far into the weeds Rule 5 logically requires maintaining a proper lookout by all available means, Rule 7 requires determining if risk of collision exists, and Rule 8 mandates taking action to avoid collision early enough. Rule 18 says Stena Immaculate had an absolute right of way and Solong is required to take ALL measures to avoid.

The mystery isn’t a mystery

Let’s consider the huge violations at play here.

  1. Vessels are required to have continuous visual and radar watch
  2. Vessels have redundant navigation systems (AIS, ECDIS, radar)
  3. Vessels follow clear procedures for giving way and avoiding collisions

There’s zero ambiguity, such that a broadside crash at full speed (hitting the side of the anchored tanker) suggests serious failures across watchkeeping, navigation, and vessel control systems. This does not appear to be merely coincidental navigational failures, given the severity and scope of the multi-level system failure and a decision point so far away as to make it seem intentional.

In other words visual lookouts should have had view of a 183-meter vessel from 12-14 miles away on a clear day, without any doubt in their direct path like a huge wall blocking their plotted route. On March 10th visibility was apparently limited to two miles. STCW requirements for vessels of Solong’s size mandate a minimum of one qualified officer of the watch and a dedicated lookout at all times while underway, so this isn’t a hypothetical. Radar systems would have detected the Stena Immaculate as a clear hazard. AIS (Automatic Identification System) would have clearly shown the stationary hazard. ECDIS (Electronic Chart Display and Information System) would have clearly shown it as well.

Therefore what we are dealing with seems almost certain to be sophisticated electronic warfare defeating container ship navigation systems. Two things are particularly interesting.

First, military vessels run heightened security and navigation protocols. However, a chartered military vessel is a known giant loophole in regulations that is exploited by the U.S. military specifically to avoid high standards of safety (to lower cost of operations). Upwards of 90% of Military Sealift Command logistics depend on chartered commercial vessels.

This somewhat explains why the first attack on a Navy vessel was minor, foreshadowing more attacks, whereas the second attack targeting a chartered military vessel was catastrophic. Defense Logistics Agency’s tanker fleet operates with minimal security protocols compared to actual Navy-run combat-ready vessels, clearly resulting in a huge difference in outcomes from these two military targets.

Second, container ships like Solong are potentially staffed irregularly, maybe even illegally, and of minimum maintenance levels meaning systems often are degraded (competition degrades safety). Panama “topped the list” of worst safety practices. You can hopefully understand how the ships and their crew become soft targets riddled with vulnerabilities for sophisticated electronic warfare.

…shipowners were trying to “get away with treating seafarers like some sort of modern-day slaves”. Panama topped the list of abandonments by flag states with 23…

Ship abandonment is a huge safety problem, as signaled by the flag the Solong was flying underway. Panamanian-flagged vessels typically have 15-20% smaller crews than comparable vessels under European flags, with less stringent qualification requirements. What we’re talking about today is directly related to ship crew being in a state of degradation and even abandonment.

To be even more clear, hopefully without saying too much, any poorly-staffed ship built in 2005 also means an ECDIS running on Windows XP without patches. GPS spoofing would have meant fake signals gradually poisoning legitimate data, and navigation systems showing altered positions. For example, back when I worked with a team of military experts testing the woefully insecure Tesla designs, the car thought it was driving through the ocean instead of on land yet continued accelerating to full speed. Careful observers of this blog may remember I gave a keynote presentation in 2016 about these exact integrity breach problems of “automation”.

2016 BSidesLV Ground Truth Keynote: Great Disasters of Machine Learning

Opening slide from my 2016 keynote talk about Tesla “driverless” being a manslaughtering threat to society, starting from a naval gazing perspective.

Satellite communications (SATCOM) operate out-of-date protocols vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks. Someone who wanted to fake election results or corrupt vote numbers might hook up a polling station to the SpaceX Starlink, as the most obvious example of this class of vulnerability. And then maritime navigation systems don’t use any integrity controls, such as package signatures, when they connect to the raw Internet for software updates… need I go on?

Perhaps you can see why as soon as I saw a 16 knot container ship broadside crash under a Panamanian flag, I got even more knots in my stomach.

The deliberate driverless crash vector

From a technologist sailor’s perspective the broadside collision in misty conditions suggests the Solong’s navigation systems were showing completely different information than reality. With visibility potentially limited to just two miles, the crew would be highly dependent on easily compromised electronic systems.

Dangerous confusion on the bridge would be enabled by underqualified or unqualified obedient crew, who chose not to override the system. Crew members probably lacked training or experience to understand how to react to discrepancies, they likely were fatigued (reduced reaction capacity), and honoring a hierarchical bridge culture (overly compliant workers) that discouraged any human challenge to automated systems.

This is not novel, but rather the past lesson from known electronic warfare tactics that exploit “automation bias” in humans who misplace trust in machines. It’s why Tesla has been killing up to 20 people a month as if that’s the new normal, versus the Ford Pinto killing around that many in its entire production run and getting labeled as unsafe at any speed.

Even when contradictory information is available, false faith in electronic data comes from a culture of outsized promotion by “automation” conmen like Elon Musk coupled with screen-addiction in a way that induces poor decision-making.

The progression from minor incident (USS Harry Truman) to catastrophic collision (Stena Immaculate) fits with how threat actors typically escalate, testing capabilities, learning from outcomes, and adjusting tactics. The fact that both targeted US military interests within a short timeframe strongly suggests deliberate action rather than coincidence.

To counter such threats would require both technical measures (signal authentication, system redundancy, electronic countermeasures) and human factors solutions (better training, revised protocols, enhanced watchkeeping). However, the economic pressures in commercial shipping work directly against implementing many of these protective measures.

This has to be China

And now for some pure speculation about China being the most likely threat. That’s right, I’m calling it out now.

  • Technical capability: China has demonstrated sophisticated electronic warfare capabilities, including GPS spoofing, radar jamming, and cyber intrusions. They often hint with technology about battlefield dominance strategy.
  • Target selection: A military fuel tanker specifically hit suggests understanding U.S. Navy logistics in a very symbolic way. China always been uneasy about the “long lines” of U.S. naval power projection using at-sea replenishment and global fuel supply chains.
  • Signals pattern: A progression from minor test on a major warship (symbolic aircraft carrier) to a catastrophic attack on a random commercially operated logistics infrastructure fits with Chinese strategic thinking about sending a signal pattern about full capability while targeting lesser support systems rather than combat platforms.
  • Maritime flex: China has been rapidly developing both conventional and asymmetric naval capabilities related to sea dominance.
  • Plausible deniability: Electronic warfare attacking integrity of commercial vessel systems provides easy obfuscation and fog, making attribution nearly impossible yet also obvious, a hallmark of Chinese asymmetric psychological operations.

The focus on a container ship colliding with a military tanker is particularly telling. Military planners around the world know the underbelly of U.S. naval logistics vulnerabilities. Global reach always depended on refueling capabilities and supply chains, as I’ve written about many times before. Using a container ship to strike a military charter tanker, the hackers demonstrated they’re thinking strategically about how every container ship in operation now has to be seen as a weapon to limit U.S. naval power projection without direct confrontation.

Starting with the USS Harry Truman, the aircraft carrier that represents the pinnacle of American naval power projection, and then progressing to a logistics vessel, shows a loud and proud messaging strategy with more red flags than a Chinese military parade.

We’re looking at a bright warning flare on a calm sea against the black of a moonless night, lighting up not just technical capabilities but America’s entire strategic awareness and institutional response capacity.

Hey Trump, we can hit your crown jewels, and we can cut off your legs. Make a move on Greenland and maybe watch as we make Taiwan disappear. We could take Hawaii and Alaska while we’re at it, thanks to your doctrine of distracted degraded defense.

Who’s really asleep at the wheel here?

As defense resources and attention are completely diverted into literally ordering all hands on deck just to find the word “gay”, and censor “gender” and dismiss non-white troops… attacks against critical naval infrastructure reveal the true nature of devastating blind spots developing rapidly in American security.

Books have been pulled off the shelves at U.S. military schools around the world pending a “review” for diversity concepts and language. …among those that disappeared from the shelves of Ramstein High – Fahrenheit 451, 1984, To Kill a Mockingbird and Catcher in the Rye.

Imagine being a high school student at Ramstein who must now learn Chinese to read “1984” — a novel explicitly warning against totalitarian thought control — because their own American military has banned it. The devastating irony cuts deep: as Chinese hackers demonstrate the ability to crash U.S. military vessels at will, America’s defense establishment busies itself with purging literature that could help the next generation recognize and resist exactly this kind of authoritarian manipulation. This isn’t just censorship; it’s strategic self-sabotage.

It’s not an exaggeration to say the Department of Defense now operates under a headless-chicken leadership lurching from crisis to crisis, attacking its own students, troops, and veterans while simultaneously alienating allies in Mexico, Canada, Europe, and Ukraine. This self-sabotaging chaos has created the perfect opportunity for China to demonstrate its capability of neutralizing all U.S. naval power projection through precisely targeted asymmetric information warfare.

The question looms: who would even stand up for an erratic, unreliable “crazy chicken” America against these attacks on global shipping safety? Allied deterrence has evaporated. And what of nuclear deterrence? Can it possibly remain credible when delivery systems—planes, ships, and missiles—can’t navigate, can’t target, and remain vulnerable to debilitating supply-chain attacks from multiple vectors, including from within our own harbors and airports? We’ve entered an era where America’s military supremacy faces checkmate not by direct confrontation, but simply by corrupting integrity of our vulnerable information systems.

Hackers have announced a new security paradigm of devastating integrity breaches: every commercial vessel can potentially become a guided weapon against essential military targets. This multiplies the challenge for naval protection exponentially, perfectly aligned with the Chinese People’s Liberation Army “systems destruction warfare” doctrine that targets critical node vulnerabilities of support systems rather than direct engagement.

The obvious question is whether an utterly distracted President Musk can recognize and respond to this long-time emerging modern technology threat that he himself can be blamed for facilitating. At least 54 people have been killed in by his lack of integrity control in Tesla Autopilot navigation systems (that I’ve warned about since 2016), far more than even domestic terrorism.

What these two maritime incidents expose to the trained eye isn’t just a technical vulnerability—it’s the Tesla effect of strategic blindness in American “business knows best” cultism. We’ve built a military doctrine on overwhelming force projection while neglecting its fragile information architecture hidden behind a Potemkin village of technological showmanship. China isn’t demonstrating anything new to security professionals—they’re simply exploiting what we’ve known for years: integrity matters most in the navigation systems that direct every vessel, every mission, every supply line.

This is the inevitable culmination of a decade prioritizing dazzling “driverless” fantasies over fundamental safety protocols. The tragic irony: as America’s military leadership scrambles to purge words like “diversity” and “inclusion” from its vocabulary, they’re effectively dousing themselves in jet fuel while China stands ready with matches.

The writing has been on the wall for years. I’ve been pointing to it since 2016. But reading requires critical thinking—something increasingly difficult to cultivate when the DoD is literally removing books that teach it from military school shelves.