What
The third Offset Strategy is designed to start a conversation about indopacific security.
The Chinese military of today is a completely different animal to the PLA of just ten years ago. Stealing advanced US blueprints for stealth fighters, bombers, hypersonic missies, ships, subs and ICBMs, the PLA has built a ‘knock-off’ conventional order of battle that may not be technologically perfect but has sufficient mass to check-mate the US military in the first island chain. Traditional third offset strategy thinking is all about technology as the solution to mass. After all, the second offset strategy used exactly this model to corral the soviets. This 1980s thinking completely misses the point. No one gains from a shooting war. Unlike the Cold War Soviet economy, the US and Chinese economies are deeply intertwined.
So what advantage does the US have to mitigate, if not defeat, the growing preponderance of Chinese power? Special Operations Forces. Over the past twenty years, US SOF has perfected human network centric warfare against non state actors. The brilliance of low profile, small footprint, high tech, clandestine forces, arrayed against vulnerable long term human networks that service Xi’s top priority, the Belt and Road Initiative, provides the US with a cost effective, long term, durable means with which to keep the PRC in check. Not to defeat them. That would create more problems than it would solve. We just want to disrupt them so that they focus inward and remain under the threshold of major conventional warfare. This book explains how to achieve this.
Who
The National Security Desk (NSD) is the nom de guerre of a strategist who has lived, studied, and worked across the Indo‑Pacific, Europe (UK & NL), and now the United States. Educated at Cambridge (PhD), the Australian National University’s Research School of Asia Pacific Studies, and the University of Sydney, NSD has served as a defense official for both the Australian and U.S. governments. His roles have included Special Director for Strategic Policy at RAAF Headquarters, Principal Strategist for Counter‑Weapons of Mass Destruction at U.S. Special Operations Command, and and U.S. War College Professor.
Why
The West has been engaged in a Hybrid World War for over a decade — a conflict whose contours remain obscure not only to the public but to many strategists. ThirdOffset exists to illuminate that reality as it is manifested in the Indopacific and to build the tools required to navigate it. NSD’s work is driven by anticipatory intelligence and serious analytical tradecraft — not novelty for its own sake, but disciplined creativity grounded in empirical evidence, logical structure, alternative sensing methods, and rigorous scientific method. The aim is to confront groupthink, expose cognitive blind spots, and generate practicable strategic solutions for a world already in motion.
Freedom Isn’t Free
Almost no one in media, academia, or the think‑tank world can write with the freedom I have. Many know what’s coming but silence themselves out of fear — fear of losing a job, fear of being labeled extreme, fear of calling the moment for what it is. But time is running out.
Every Substack I write is free. I do this because I believe in the Constitution, I see the path to war, and I feel a responsibility to warn.
If you choose to support the work with a paid subscription, thank you.
And if a subscription is too much, a one‑off tip is always welcome — caffeine and amber nectar help keep the lights on.
Please also don’t be shy about sharing and commenting on your social media channels. The expands the community and makes us all stronger and better.
Join the crew
Please subscribe and get engaged in the debate! We really want to hear from you. Your feedback will help us shape our content. No one has a corner on the innovation market. We want this substack to be a shared resource for the best ideas in the community for improving our national security.
We welcome recommendations for topics and submissions from others interested in guest posting on our site
Contact us here:
NationalSecurityDesk@pm.me
Authors comment policy
Hopefully this will not be necessary for substack. Nevertheless, I recognize this is a highly contentious subject and passions are raging. I come to this from a national security policy expert position.
So it might be worthwhile to set the ground rules up front.
Substantive, evidence based, well formulated discussion and disagreement are welcome.
Sources: If you make a point please include a quality source to help the reader check the facts claimed. A quality source is one the adheres to high journalistic standards, including multiple independent source verification, and a clear distinction between factual reporting and editorial/opinion. All media is biased to one degree or another. It is impossible to avoid. Being aware of these biases and the issue of quality is important.
Enlarge this fascinating media bias chart by ad fonts media.
Dismissing a point based on a source can be justified if it is an obviously poor source. However, I would prefer that a quality counter source is supplied to make a point and I endeavor to do this myself.
Partisanship. I have been highly critical of the current and past administrations. Criticizing one side does not automatically equate to support for the other.
An argument is a connected series of evidence-based statements to establish a definite proposition. This may form the basis of a hypothesis. These should then be tested against competing hypotheses. This is a dialectical process (debate) where differences are identified, mutual concessions made and joint resolutions are agreed upon (hypothesis, antithesis, synthesis).
Unacceptable responses include
‘What about’ ism. Example "Well what about [totally random unconnected propaganda with no evidence"]. That is not an answer to a well formulated proposition. Only an equally well formulated and explained proposition can be used as a counter.
Ad hominem attacks - name calling, rudeness, all caps, attacks based on identity or assumed identity.
It is important to try and be aware of cognitive biases. We all do it. Awareness helps avoid it.
List of 50 Cognitive biases.
List iof 30 logical fallacies.
List of 15 common data fallacies.
I reserve the right to delete a contribution or ban anyone I believe is trolling, being rude, will not make a substantive counter argument or routinely ignores these basic guidelines.
