Heritage warns China's dual-use maritime plans could undermine US posture

A Heritage Foundation op-ed argues the Pentagon must widen its focus from dual-use technology to dual-use maritime infrastructure tied to China. The authors warn these assets could be leveraged to erode U.S. force posture advantages over time.

The Heritage Foundation’s Brent Sadler and Allen Zhang argue that China’s dual-use ambitions extend beyond technology and into maritime infrastructure that could serve military aims. In their op-ed, they say the Pentagon already tracks dual-use technology closely. They claim it is still past time to pay equal attention to dual-use maritime projects and supporting ecosystems.

The central premise is about how dual-use tools travel across domains. The U.S. defense establishment already treats certain civilian-capable systems as security risks because they can be repurposed. Sadler and Zhang push for the same rigor when the “civilian” component takes the form of ports, logistics nodes, or other maritime infrastructure.

Strategically, the authors frame this as a force-posture problem rather than a purely technical one. They argue maritime dual-use can affect how the United States plans, sustains, and positions military forces in contested regions. Over time, even incremental infrastructure developments could complicate U.S. operational assumptions and reduce warning time for planners.

The op-ed does not present a single, named program or a specific incident. It focuses on the policy gap: the Pentagon’s existing dual-use tracking must be complemented by a broader maritime lens. The authors emphasize that maritime infrastructure can intersect with surveillance, access, mobility, and support functions, even when presented under civilian or commercial justifications.

For defense planners, the takeaway is a widening of analytic priorities in the U.S.-China competition. If Washington treats maritime dual-use infrastructure as a distinct category, it can improve risk assessments and posture planning. The immediate consequence is tighter scrutiny of maritime developments tied to China, and a longer-term push to harden U.S. assumptions about sustainment, access, and operational flexibility.