Hardpoints

95% of all international internet traffic — every email, financial transaction, and military communication crossing the ocean — runs through undersea cables that are almost entirely unguarded. Russia and China figured this out. And they're using it.

- Why dragging an anchor across a cable is legal under international maritime law — and why that's exactly the point

- A Swedish submarine commander's assessment from this week's NATO meeting: "We're not at peace, but we're not at war"

- How the U.S. did this first in 1971 — Operation Ivy Bells — and why our Cold War underwater surveillance infrastructure (SOSUS) has since atrophied

- Neal's Ramadi 2005-2006 insurgency parallel: why a smaller, nimbler force doesn't need to win, it just needs to be a pain in the butt

- The asymmetric defense problem: cables are thousands of miles long, unbuilt for hardening, and one cut takes out the whole line

- Where the startup opportunities actually are: undersea drone fleets, cheap mesh sensor networks, faster cable repair — and why NATO has money for this

- Why distributed wind and solar might be the real answer to energy infrastructure security — and why Mike and Neal are already talking to the DoD about it

Hardpoints is hosted by Mike Smith (CEO of Aclymate, former U.S. Navy FA-18 pilot) and Neal Rickner (CEO of Airloom, former Marine Corps FA-18 pilot). Every week: energy security, national security, and the startup economy.

There's $2 trillion a year flowing into energy — and almost none of it is reaching the startups that could actually change things. Mike and Neal break down the full investment stack, and don't pull punches on where the money is going wrong.

Why $2 trillion sounds huge but early-stage clean energy VC has declined three years running — and how AI ate the rest

Mike's case that nuclear fusion is a scam: the Trump Media/$6B fusion merger, Sam Altman's track record, and what an MIT nuclear fusion PhD actually says about its odds

Why enhanced geothermal is the one legitimate moonshot — proven tech, perfect US geology, and a potential CO₂ capture angle nobody's talking about

The green hydrogen myth: 70% energy loss, no infrastructure, and why Japan bet on the wrong horse

Grid tech's real enemy: not the technology, the regulators

Trump paying $1 billion to stop an 80%-complete offshore wind project — and who actually picks up that tab

Hardpoints is hosted by Mike Smith (CEO of Aclymate, former U.S. Navy FA-18 pilot) and Neal Rickner (CEO of Airloom, former Marine Corps FA-18 pilot) — two founders with skin in the game on energy and national security.

The Iranian regime broadcast a message on national TV: parents, go tell your children not to protest — and if something happens to them, don't complain. Then five to eight million people went to the streets anyway. The government admitted to 3,100 dead. Our guest estimates 15,000 to 20,000.

In this episode:

Why Moein Mahmoudi — former Tehran energy startup operator, still has family in Iran — gives the war a "soft no" on producing real regime change

- The January protests: the largest Moein has seen in 33 years, every city, every small town

- What "regime change" actually means, and why swapping one IRGC-connected figure for another isn't it

- How sanctions built a two-tier economy: the regime's connected insiders run oil empires while ordinary Iranians earn $85/month

- The Strait of Hormuz reality check: oil futures at $100/barrel, physical barrels selling at $180 — and what that's doing to EVs, fertilizer, and U.S. industrial competitiveness

- Why China now installs more than half the world's new industrial automation equipment — and is starting to build the robots too

Hardpoints is hosted by Mike Smith (CEO of Aclymate, former U.S. Navy FA-18 pilot) and Neal Rickner (CEO of Airloom, former Marine Corps FA-18 pilot). Every week: energy security, national security, and the startup economy — the real dynamics behind the headlines.

"This episode of Hardpoints tackles a threat that sounds hypothetical—but isn’t: Chinese military-linked operators are already inside parts of the U.S. power grid, quietly mapping systems, learning terrain, and waiting.

Mike and Neal break down what the grid actually is (spoiler: not one single system, but a patchwork of 3,300 utilities, co-ops, regional operators, and vulnerable infrastructure), and why the distinction between IT systems and OT systems matters so much. They explain how modernization brought efficiency—smart meters, remote monitoring, digital control—but also opened doors that used to stay shut. Enter Volt Typhoon, the Chinese unit with the coolest name and one of the most chilling missions: not stealing data, but preparing the battlefield.

The conversation gets into the real strategic implications:

- Why grid access is less about theft and more about temporary denial of capability

- How turning off power at the wrong moment could disrupt fueling, command and control, logistics, and military response in a Taiwan scenario

- Why even a short disruption could cause civilian panic and economic paralysis far beyond the battlefield

- What Ukraine and Russia have already shown us about cyber + physical attacks on critical infrastructure

- And why replacing damaged grid hardware—especially transformers—is nowhere near as simple as flipping a switch

They also go hard at the institutional failure behind it all: the federal office responsible for grid cybersecurity published its first strategic plan after six years of existence. Mike and Neal ask the obvious question: what exactly were they doing the whole time? And even where the goals sound right—hardening infrastructure, protecting defense-critical energy assets, improving energy delivery—the funding contradictions are glaring.

Also in the episode:

- A mailbag note on Iran, oil, EV adoption, and the politics of high gas prices

- Goods, bads, and others: spring break anticipation, deep pessimism about the U.S. position in Iran, wildfire fears in Colorado, Neal’s new e-bike commute, podcast platform glitches now fixed, and the still-unfinished saga of SBIR reauthorization

Hardpoints is the podcast about energy security in the startup economy—what’s changing, what it means, and why it matters."

"In this episode of Hardpoints, Mike and Neal zoom out from the daily headlines to unpack the big geopolitical logic of oil war—and why the U.S. may be repeating one of history’s most dangerous patterns. Starting with the often-overlooked role the U.S. oil embargo played in pushing Japan toward Pearl Harbor, they ask a sharp question: when great powers weaponize energy, do they actually gain leverage—or just create the conditions for a bigger disaster?

That history becomes the frame for the present. The U.S. is squeezing Iranian oil, seizing Venezuelan oil, and trying to contain Chinese access to energy flows—while at the same time easing pressure on Russian oil to keep prices from spiking at home. The result is a strategic picture that feels less like grand strategy and more like a contradiction machine: China gets pressured, but not panicked; Russia gets boxed in, then handed new revenue; and Iran keeps enough leverage to make the Strait of Hormuz a lasting pain point.

Mike and Neal break down the central tension in plain English: energy is not just another commodity. It’s what militaries move on, what economies run on, and what gives states room to maneuver. That means embargoes and sanctions are never just financial tools—they are strategic pressure campaigns, and history shows that countries under extreme pressure do not always back down. Sometimes they lash out. Sometimes they adapt. Sometimes they find new partners and wait for you to blink first.

The conversation then turns to China’s position, and why Beijing may be in better shape than many Americans realize. Thanks to years of aggressive investment in EVs, solar, wind, and industrial policy, China is less vulnerable to oil disruption than it would have been a decade ago. It still needs massive imports, but it has built more resilience, more domestic energy leverage, and more strategic patience. In Mike’s view, that means China can afford to let the U.S. absorb more of the economic and political pain while it waits for the right moment to tighten the leash on Iran—or not.

From there, the discussion gets even more uncomfortable: is the U.S. accidentally helping Russia? By loosening pressure on Russian oil to manage domestic fuel prices, Washington may be helping refill the Kremlin’s war chest even as Russia continues its assault on Ukraine. Neal frames Ukraine as the key domino in the current global order: if the U.S. signals that borders can be changed by force and allies are conditional, the second- and third-order effects spread far beyond Eastern Europe.

They also dig into what this means for Israel, Iran, and the wider Middle East. If this conflict doesn’t produce regime change in Tehran—and both hosts are skeptical that it will—then what exactly stabilizes? More Marines? More strikes? More sanctions? Or just a region that is now even harder to settle, with fewer off-ramps and more actors incentivized to keep the pressure on? Mike argues that the medium- and long-term picture looks bleak: the U.S. may have weakened Iran militarily in the short run, but at the cost of worsening its strategic position over time.

The episode closes by widening the lens one more time. This is not just about oil prices, tankers, or one regional conflict. It is about whether the U.S. is giving up the role of global hegemony without admitting it, and whether China is quietly doing what rising powers do best: making fewer mistakes while the incumbent power burns energy, money, credibility, and lives. There’s also reader mail, some March Madness energy, baseball talk, weather weirdness, and a little catharsis about why Twitter still feels like voluntarily walking into a sewer.

If you want an episode that connects history, energy markets, war, China, Russia, and America’s shrinking strategic discipline, this one does exactly that."

In Episode 37, Mike and Neal tackle one of the darkest and most consequential questions to come out of the Iran strikes: who killed 175 schoolgirls at a girls’ elementary school near the Strait of Hormuz? Early official narratives tried to muddy the waters, but the evidence points to a grim possibility—a U.S.-made Tomahawk cruise missile hit the school three times. So how does something like that happen?

Drawing on their firsthand military experience, Mike and Neal break down how a strike like this is actually planned. From the targeting cycle and collateral damage assessments, to prebuilt strike packages and Tomahawk mission planning, they explain the machinery behind modern warfare in terms normal people can actually follow. This is not abstract punditry—it’s two former military aviators walking through the process and showing where the chain may have broken down.

The core of the conversation is accountability. If this was not intentional, then what failed? Was outdated intelligence pulled off the shelf? Was a military facility converted into a school without the targeting package being updated? Did planners miss obvious visual cues in overhead imagery that should have identified the site as civilian? Mike and Neal argue that while war is chaotic, this kind of mistake is still preventable—and the standard for the most capable military in the world has to be higher.

They also get into the information war that followed. Why did the White House try to suggest Iran had somehow bombed its own school? Why do false narratives appear so quickly after high-casualty events? And what happens when political leaders default to spin instead of admitting error and learning from it? The episode draws a sharp line between the tragic fog of war and the refusal to tell the truth afterward.

From there, the discussion widens to the broader campaign. Mike explains why Tomahawks were likely used early in the strikes before air superiority was established, and why stand-off weapons change the nature of target verification. Then the focus shifts to the Strait of Hormuz: if one of the Navy’s basic missions is to keep sea lanes open, why is the strait still effectively closed? The guys unpack the strategic incentives facing Iran, the limits of convoy operations, the risks to merchant shipping, and why neither markets nor navies can simply wave a wand and make global energy chokepoints safe again.

The episode also includes reader mail, a quick debate over how long the Iran war may last, and the usual goods, bads, and others—from Neal dodging a DC trip for one more week, to Mike worrying that winter itself may be dying in the American West.

This one is blunt, technical, and morally serious. If you want a grounded conversation about military targeting, strategic deception, accountability in war, and the real-world consequences of getting it wrong, Episode 37 is one of the heaviest Hardpoints conversations yet.

In this episode of Hardpoints, Mike and Neal break down the opening days of a rapidly escalating war with Iran.

Following Operation Epic Fury - coordinated U.S. and Israeli strikes targeting Iran’s nuclear sites, missile infrastructure, and regime leadership—the conflict expands across the region. As of March 2 (the recording date), Khamenei is dead, four American servicemembers have been killed, Iran is striking back against U.S. bases, and the fight is spilling into Lebanon. Neal (a former Iraq war pilot) and Mike (a former targeteer) walk through what most headlines miss: what daylight strike operations mean for risk, how air defenses and “pucker factor” shape the first hours, and why tactical dominance doesn’t automatically translate into strategic success.

They dig into the hard questions:

- If Iran built a deep succession bench, what does “regime change” even mean operationally?

- Does the “80% oppose the regime” theory translate into action - or does pressure cause the population to rally around the flag?

- What happens if there’s no viable alternative power structure and Iran slides toward failed-state chaos?

- What does this conflict mean for the Strait of Hormuz, regional basing access, and global energy markets?

- And what lessons are China and Russia drawing - especially as U.S. credibility and the post-WWII order feel increasingly fragile?

The episode closes with a mailbag note on defending nuance in energy debates, plus goods/bads/others - from an 86-year-old father being honored for building community college foundations, to winter beach weather in February, to the U.S. government escalating pressure on Anthropic, and the accelerating reality of AI writing its own code - raising unsettling questions about where humanity fits in the intelligence spectrum as the world changes faster than we can absorb.

Hardpoints is the podcast about energy security in the startup economy - what’s changing, what it means, and why it matters.

Episode 34 tackles a seismic shift in U.S. climate policy: the administration’s February 12 move to strike down the EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding—the legal foundation underpinning nearly every major federal climate regulation for the past 17 years.

Mike and Neal break down what the Endangerment Finding actually did (and why it mattered), what its removal means for tailpipe rules, methane limits, power plant standards, and the broader regulatory framework—plus the real near-term impact: years of courtroom battles and massive uncertainty for businesses trying to plan, invest, and build.

They debate whether this change will meaningfully alter emissions trajectories in the short term, why state-level leadership (and global market forces) may keep climate action moving anyway, and what this moment signals for founders and investors navigating climate and energy startups. Neal argues it’s a collective action gut-punch; Mike counters that it’s a reminder people and companies still have agency—and that “in spite of” can still drive progress.

Also in this episode:

A mailbag note from the drone world on “not invented here” culture—and why requiring a flight medical for FPV competition feels like innovation going backwards

Goods, bads, and others: startup teams showing up on a Saturday, geopolitical posturing near Iran, Mike’s dog becoming his walking buddy, ICE warehouse spending, and why the accelerating pace of AI-written code has huge implications for careers, parenting, and the future

Episode 33 dives straight into the collision between national security priorities and AI safety red lines.

Mike and Neal unpack a brewing showdown: the Pentagon is pressuring major AI labs to sign onto an “any lawful use” policy by July 11, while Anthropic resists—refusing to allow its models to be used for fully autonomous weapons (no human-in-the-loop) or mass surveillance of Americans. The hosts break down what’s at stake in the kill chain, why “legal” doesn’t always mean “ethical,” and how a supply chain risk designation—typically reserved for foreign adversaries—could become a nuclear option against a U.S. startup.

They also explore the power dynamics: Anthropic’s growing enterprise dominance (including developer tooling like Claude Code), the implications of AI systems writing the software that improves themselves, and what it means when government leverage can threaten an entire business model—not just a contract.

Plus: a quick mailbag roundup (including a tipping debate), Neal’s snowy road trip with his boys, Mike’s “home is where my wife is” moment, and a shared worry about a too-warm Colorado winter and what that could mean for wildfire season.

Hardpoints is the podcast about energy security in the startup economy—what’s changing, what it means, and why it matters

Neal’s back from Munich with a ground-truth readout from the security ecosystem surrounding the Munich Security Conference—and the headline is simple: in Europe, Ukraine isn’t one topic among many. It’s the topic. Speaker after speaker, conversation after conversation, the tone is existential: how does Ukraine win, how does Europe sustain support, and what does the continent do if American leadership keeps wobbling?

From there, the conversation widens into what might be the most uncomfortable “vibe shift” Neal heard in real time: a defense company pitching “secure supply chain” on a slide… and proudly listing “no U.S. parts” right alongside “no Chinese parts.” The guys unpack what that implies—trust, procurement risk, political whiplash, and the slow-motion reality that allies can’t build their security posture around a partner they can’t predict.

They also dig into the major themes orbiting Munich: talk of strengthening a European pillar in defense, large-scale joint procurement, and the incentives (and resentment) that could drive Europe to build more capacity at home rather than defaulting to American primes forever. Then it gets even thornier: the push for AI governance in security, including the principle of humans in the loop for lethal decisions. Mike and Neal wrestle with the hard tradeoff—war rewards speed and tight OODA loops, and machines will always outpace people—so what would it take to make human-in-the-loop rules real instead of ceremonial? Are we headed toward a world of automated “murder TV” at scale, and if so, is there any realistic version of arms control that can slow it down?

Finally, Munich’s lens expands beyond Europe: the Global South becomes a strategic battleground, especially as China’s Belt & Road investments build infrastructure, influence, and supply-chain leverage. And in a moment of peak irony, climate change gets elevated as a primary security threat—right as U.S. policy trends in the opposite direction. The episode wraps with listener mail (including a bleak emissions fact that hits hard), plus the weekly goods/bads/others: ski week plans get rained out, baseball hope springs eternal, and Aclymate feels like it’s catching a tailwind.

If you’ve been looking for a clear, candid snapshot of how Europe is thinking about security right now—and what that means for alliances, defense industry, and the next phase of geopolitics—this one’s for you.