Posted on Oct 15, 2014
The ways global climate change threats may affect servicemembers
18.1K
268
107
9
9
0
Climate change is now being looked at as a national security threat. Rising global temperatures, increasing sea levels and intensifying weather activities will challenge global stability, says Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. The changes could even lead to food and water shortages, disease and clashes over refugees and resources.
On Monday, Hagel unveiled a “Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap” to several defense ministers at an international meeting in Peru. He stressed leaders inside and outside the military need to set aside the intense political debate over the issue. Hagel says our armed forces have to prepare for all possible threats to keep our country secure. This includes our military bracing for a global warming crisis that will cause sea levels to rise 12 to 18 inches over the next 20 to 50 years.
Flooding and erosion will threaten military installations’ infrastructure and training areas, including port facilities such as San Diego, Hawaii and Norfolk, Virginia. The number of humanitarian assistance missions will increase. Climate changes can create new health risks by expanding infectious disease zones and boosting health service demands. Bases in the West will have to consider new water management programs to handle droughts, as dust can ruin military equipment and increase equipment costs.
Hagel outlined a list of potential changes for the Defense Department, including how all branches will be affected:
Marine Corps: Rising sea levels could make it harder to mount amphibious landings.
Air Force: Changing weather patterns could make it more difficult to fly for investigation and surveillance missions.
Navy: New ship technology might be needed to maneuver in the Arctic icy waters, in facing new zones of competition as new fossil fuel and mineral deposits become accessible.
Army: Soldiers may need to help manage instability caused by flooding in densely populated coastal areas, where mass-migration creates chaos and a breeding ground for extremist groups.
National Guard: More severe weather, such as hurricanes, tornadoes and wildfires, will cause serious damage that will require more support from members.
The Pentagon is assessing the vulnerability of more than 7,000 bases and installations around the world. As the assessment winds down, leaders are reviewing all budget plans, war game scenarios and off-the-shelf operational contingency plans to determine if revisions are needed in light of projected impact of global warming.
Can key decision-makers put aside their political differences and focus on preparing for climate changes? Given what Hagel has outlined, how will preparing for global warming threats affect you and your service?
On Monday, Hagel unveiled a “Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap” to several defense ministers at an international meeting in Peru. He stressed leaders inside and outside the military need to set aside the intense political debate over the issue. Hagel says our armed forces have to prepare for all possible threats to keep our country secure. This includes our military bracing for a global warming crisis that will cause sea levels to rise 12 to 18 inches over the next 20 to 50 years.
Flooding and erosion will threaten military installations’ infrastructure and training areas, including port facilities such as San Diego, Hawaii and Norfolk, Virginia. The number of humanitarian assistance missions will increase. Climate changes can create new health risks by expanding infectious disease zones and boosting health service demands. Bases in the West will have to consider new water management programs to handle droughts, as dust can ruin military equipment and increase equipment costs.
Hagel outlined a list of potential changes for the Defense Department, including how all branches will be affected:
Marine Corps: Rising sea levels could make it harder to mount amphibious landings.
Air Force: Changing weather patterns could make it more difficult to fly for investigation and surveillance missions.
Navy: New ship technology might be needed to maneuver in the Arctic icy waters, in facing new zones of competition as new fossil fuel and mineral deposits become accessible.
Army: Soldiers may need to help manage instability caused by flooding in densely populated coastal areas, where mass-migration creates chaos and a breeding ground for extremist groups.
National Guard: More severe weather, such as hurricanes, tornadoes and wildfires, will cause serious damage that will require more support from members.
The Pentagon is assessing the vulnerability of more than 7,000 bases and installations around the world. As the assessment winds down, leaders are reviewing all budget plans, war game scenarios and off-the-shelf operational contingency plans to determine if revisions are needed in light of projected impact of global warming.
Can key decision-makers put aside their political differences and focus on preparing for climate changes? Given what Hagel has outlined, how will preparing for global warming threats affect you and your service?
Climate Change
Command Post
Environment
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 48
3
3
0
All I can say to this is you can't fight God. If the Earth is getting hotter then it's just something you gotta deal with. Protecting yourself from the elements is an individual responsibility.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
What I find interesting in the Global Warming debate is that it is used as political football for creating a massively profitable economical sector. Personally I think that the history of Ice Ages signifies that the Earth is on a cycle of warming and cooling, and that whether the "scientists" like it or not, there are some things that they just might never understand. That being said, as one of my least favorite people in this world once said, "What difference does it make?"
It should be everyone's priority to find ways of creating a sustainable economy that is less damaging to the environment. Neither shackling the economy under repressive regulations, nor doing nothing is the right answer. Regardless of whether "global climate change" is happening, or whether humans have anything to do with it, it is without argument in the best interest of the world to create cleaner, less damaging, methods of doing things. Perhaps, if we spent a fraction of the effort being wasted on global climate summits and "proving climate change exists" into just creating efficient and economical ways of producing goods and services we wouldn't be having these discussions.
The reality is, the "Climate Change" concept has created a $300 Billion a year and up industry, and Washington insiders *cough* Kerry *cough* are lining their pockets and putting the attention on unsustainable methods to keep the debacle going... I mean, if we allow businesses to buy and sell pollution rights that will fix it right?
It should be everyone's priority to find ways of creating a sustainable economy that is less damaging to the environment. Neither shackling the economy under repressive regulations, nor doing nothing is the right answer. Regardless of whether "global climate change" is happening, or whether humans have anything to do with it, it is without argument in the best interest of the world to create cleaner, less damaging, methods of doing things. Perhaps, if we spent a fraction of the effort being wasted on global climate summits and "proving climate change exists" into just creating efficient and economical ways of producing goods and services we wouldn't be having these discussions.
The reality is, the "Climate Change" concept has created a $300 Billion a year and up industry, and Washington insiders *cough* Kerry *cough* are lining their pockets and putting the attention on unsustainable methods to keep the debacle going... I mean, if we allow businesses to buy and sell pollution rights that will fix it right?
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
The conclusions of Hagel and others like him are faulty... they are based on junk science that is "proven" with COMPUTER MODELS, which are regularly found to be wrong. That isn't real science, its hocus pocus and chicanery.
(2)
(0)
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Evidence of the Medieval Warm Period in Australia, New Zealand and Oceania
By Sebastian Lüning Geoscientist and co-author of ‘The neglected Sun’ The climate of the pre-industrial past is of greatest importance to the ongoing climate discussion. Current climate can only be...
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
If there were anything to it, then there would simply be a lesser chance that I would be both cold and wet in any given situation.
I'm all for it.
I'm all for it.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
They won't. Im in disbelief the SECDEF even listed it as a threat. Mind boggling. In any case, threats will be met with the same adapt and overcome mentality that we have used to overcome all previous threats..
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Climate change? You mean a naturally occurring phenomenon? Yeah, there's absolutely no threat.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
This is definitely not a matter of national security and in my opinion global warming does not exist. Furthermore, there is no evidence that humans contribute directly to this. Global warming is political. Now let's see how many people get upset over this.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I think the military needs to start training people for the worse case scenarios and for adverse weather conditions. They can use weather stimulators to assist with that training.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Saying the so-called AGW is an emergent disaster is a bold faced lie. The format is also leading. There is no consensus but there are political commentaries leading people too lazy or too stupid to understand that this is no slam dunk but our representatives are using this as a means to an end. $$$
(1)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
Climate changes all the time. While what environmental groups and some political organizations have over stated and falsified climate change, there is a danger to our service. That danger is tax dollars being taken from our defense to be wasted on change in climate that we cannot change.
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Lt Col (Join to see) In my 35+ years as a Weather Observer, Forecaster and Meteorologist I have noticed that most change occurs naturally and that incidental changes happen because of normal causes. Like Volcanoes and their lava flows in the oceans that affect climate. There are many more causes and usually the people who attribute the effects of let's say the Bermuda High to Climate Change, does not know that this system is migratory and semi-permanent. So if the High backs off and there is a lot rain people might claim climate change when it is just a normal cycle.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
What I see is a lot of hubris over a lot of issues (ice caps, rising sea levels, etc.) and the implications that the things we are doing (in the U.S.A. specifically) is the direct cause.
We now kind of lump everything into one general category and then state we must do something. What is that? Do we REALLY understand the planet? No!! Do we really understand the upper air features which most often predicate things at the surface like temperatures, moisture, winds and so on? No!
We know that people are hurting the environment but the favorite whipping boy is oil. This seems to be a politically driven aspiration with those 'EVIL R' trying to poison our kids. Pollution must be cleaned up for the welfare of all. We do not put mercury in our waters for a reason. We do not put wind mills in a bird sanctuary also for a reason.
What has evolved is a high tech way of spreading half-truths and then demonizing opinions that deviate from the status quo. If Robert Oppenheimer and his minions did not coalesce then solving the compression issue would not have happened. This is not an endorsement for nukes but an honest and well thought-out explanation of atmospheric processes and earth sciences which may explain the issue rather than just assume that AGW is the overwhelming reason.
And this and many other things that draw my attention. If we think we have a handle on weather then we err but we are making strides as we begin to understand Upward Vertical Motion and the subsequent Downward force of air.
And lastly is Kyoto., the IPCC and the Administration's marginalization of Meteorologists. The point is not constructive chat but an end run similar to Heatlhcare Reform. As a Meteorologist naturally I become irritated with the hubris and deception.
We now kind of lump everything into one general category and then state we must do something. What is that? Do we REALLY understand the planet? No!! Do we really understand the upper air features which most often predicate things at the surface like temperatures, moisture, winds and so on? No!
We know that people are hurting the environment but the favorite whipping boy is oil. This seems to be a politically driven aspiration with those 'EVIL R' trying to poison our kids. Pollution must be cleaned up for the welfare of all. We do not put mercury in our waters for a reason. We do not put wind mills in a bird sanctuary also for a reason.
What has evolved is a high tech way of spreading half-truths and then demonizing opinions that deviate from the status quo. If Robert Oppenheimer and his minions did not coalesce then solving the compression issue would not have happened. This is not an endorsement for nukes but an honest and well thought-out explanation of atmospheric processes and earth sciences which may explain the issue rather than just assume that AGW is the overwhelming reason.
And this and many other things that draw my attention. If we think we have a handle on weather then we err but we are making strides as we begin to understand Upward Vertical Motion and the subsequent Downward force of air.
And lastly is Kyoto., the IPCC and the Administration's marginalization of Meteorologists. The point is not constructive chat but an end run similar to Heatlhcare Reform. As a Meteorologist naturally I become irritated with the hubris and deception.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google