Global warming is changing the way the US trains for and goes to war — affecting war games, weapons systems, training exercises and military installations — according to the Pentagon.
US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel is to tell a high-level meeting of military leaders on Monday that the Pentagon is undertaking sweeping changes to operation systems and installations to keep up with the prospect of rising seas, droughts and natural disasters caused by climate change.
“A changing climate will have real impacts on our military and the way it executes its missions,” Hagel wrote in his introduction to a Pentagon report that was released on Tuesday. “We are considering the impacts of climate change in our war games and defense planning scenarios.”
Illustration: Mountain People
The Pentagon’s strategic planners have for years viewed climate change as a “threat multiplier” — worsening old conflicts and potentially provoking new clashes over migration, and shortages of food and water in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, and opening up new military challenges in the Arctic.
However, with the report, climate change moved from a potential threat to an immediate factor in a wide range of operational and budgeting decisions.
“It makes it a reality that climate change indeed is a risk today and we need to plan, program and budget for it now and into the future,” said Sherri Goodman, chief executive of a military advisory board, a group of former generals and other high-ranking officers that studies US national security.
The report — unveiled at a meeting of more than 30 defense ministers from the Americas and Europe — also signaled the US’ intention to take a lead role at international climate negotiations in Lima in December.
From now on, the US military will factor climate change into a host of day-to-day decisions, a senior US defense official told a conference call with reporters.
“It’s about being baked into things we are already doing and incorporated into all the other things we are doing,” he said.
Those decisions could include war games, training exercises and purchasing decisions — which could all be affected by conditions such as sea-level rise, heat waves and droughts.
War games scenarios would now factor in floods or storms instead of assuming optimal conditions, Goodman said.
“You could make the game more complex with sea-level rise and extreme weather events,” she added.
She said the US navy would have to test sonar and other systems according to possible changes to ocean chemistry and the military will have to adapt to hotter temperatures.
One of the biggest and most costly decisions ahead is the location of about 7,000 US military sites.
As the report acknowledged, US military installations and personnel are already exposed to climate change. The Hampton Roads area in Virginia — which houses the biggest concentration of US forces — already floods during high tides and severe storms, and could see an additional 45cm of sea level rise in the next 20 years.
Meanwhile, military bases in the US southwest are coping with water and electricity shortages, under recurring droughts. Arctic land-based installations are shifting because of melting permafrost, while retreating sea ice is changing naval requirements.
The Pentagon is not planning a wholesale relocation of bases, the officials told the call. However, they said the military was already bringing in sandbags and moving generators out of basements in low-lying areas. It was also shelving ideas for new construction on flood plains.
Other potential changes include cuts to outdoor training exercises because of heat waves, or increased weapons maintenance costs and repairs because of heat and dust.
“As we think about changing weather patterns, we have to think hard about where operations might be conducted and whether we need to change the assumptions about what kind of air breathing conditions ... what kind of sea state we might expect in an operating environment and what impact they might have,” the report said.
The report added that troops could also be at greater risk of infectious diseases, which spread more rapidly in hotter temperatures.
Hagel in comments to reporters at the weekend said the Pentagon anticipated an increase in humanitarian missions, because of natural disasters and recurring famines.
He also said the Arctic presented a growing military challenge.
“We see an Arctic that is melting, meaning that most likely a new sea lane will emerge,” he said. “We know that there are significant minerals and natural deposits of oil and natural gas there. That means that nations will compete for those natural resources. That’s never been an issue before. You couldn’t get up there and get anything out of there. We have to manage through what those conditions and new realities are going to bring in the way of potential threats,” Hagel said.
The Pentagon was first instructed by the US Congress in 2007 to incorporate climate change into its long-term security planning.
However, Republicans in Congress have gone on to block the military from preparing for a warmer future, cutting funds for intelligence gathering or testing low-carbon jet fuels.
Officials told the call that planning for the future would help bring down climate-related costs.
“There is a lot you can do to mitigate risk and lower the cost of risks if you acknowledge the risk exists,” the officials said.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers