By The CNA Corporation

WEAPONS SYSTEMS AND PLATFORMS

Operating equipment in extreme environmental conditions increases maintenance requirements at considerable cost and dramatically reduces the service life of the equipment.   In Iraq, for instance, sandstorms have delayed or stopped operations and inflicted tremendous damage to equipment.   In the future, climate change whether hotter, drier, or wetter will add stress to weapons systems.

A stormier northern Atlantic would have implications for U.S. naval forces²⁾.  More storms and rougher seas increase transit times, contribute to equipment fatigue and hamper flight operations.   Each time a hurricane approaches the U.S. East Coast, military aircraft move inland and Navy ships leave port.   Warmer temperatures in the Middle East could make operations there even more difficult than they are today.   A Center for Naval Analyses study showed that the rate at which U.S. carriers could launch aircraft was limited by the endurance of the flight deck crew during extremely hot weather²⁾.

BASES THREATENED BY RISING SEA LEVELS

During the Cold War, the U.S. established and maintained a large number of bases throughout the world.   U.S. bases abroad are situated to provide a worldwide presence and maximize its ability to move aircraft and personnel.   Climate change could compromise some of those bases.   For example, the highest point of Diego Garcia, an atoll in the southern Indian Ocean that serves as a major logistics hub for U.S. and British forces in the Middle East, is only a few feet above sea level.   As sea level rises, facilities there will be lost or will have to relocated.   Although the consequences to military readiness are not insurmountable, the loss of some forward bases would require longer range lift and strike capabilities and would increase the military’s energy needs.

Closer to home, military bases on the eastern coast of the United States are vulnerable to hurricanes and other extreme weather events.   In 1992, Hurricane Andrew ravaged Homestead Air Force Base in Florida so much that it never reopened; in 2004 Hurricane Ivan knocked out Naval Air Station Pensacola for almost a year.   Increased storm activity or sea level rise caused by future climate change could threaten or destroy essential base infrastructure.   If key military bases are degraded, so, too, may be the readiness of armed forces.

MILITARY OPERATIONS

Severe weather has a direct effect on military readiness.   Ships and aircraft operations are made more difficult; military personnel themselves must evacuate or seek shelter.  As retired Army Gen. Paul Kern explained of his time dealing with hurricanes in the U.S. Southern Command, “A major weather event becomes a distraction from your ability to focus on and execute your military mission.”

In addition, U.S. forces may be required to be more engaged in stability operations in the future as climate change causes more frequent weather disasters such as hurricanes, flash floods, and extended droughts.

The Arctic: A Region of Particular Concern

A warming Arctic holds great implications for military operations.   The highest levels of planetary warming observed to date have occurred in the Arctic, and projections show the high northern latitudes warming more than any other part of the earth over the coming century.   The Arctic, often considered to be the proverbial ?anary?in the earth climate system, is showing clear signs of stress¹⁾.

The U.S. Navy is concerned about the retreat and thinning of the ice canopy and its implications for naval operations.   A 2001 Navy study concluded that an ice-free Arctic will require an “increased scope of naval operations”³⁾.   That increased scope of operations will require the Navy to consider weapon system effectiveness and various other factors associated with operating in this environment.   Additionally, an Arctic with less sea ice could bring more competition for resources, as well as more commercial and military activity that could further threaten an already fragile ecosystem.

Energy Supplies Are Vulnerable To Extreme Weather

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) is almost completely dependent on electricity from the national grid to power critical missions at fixed installations and on petroleum to sustain combat training and operations.   Both sources of energy and their distribution systems are susceptible to damage from extreme weather.  

The U.S. national electric grid is fragile and can be easily disrupted.   Witness the Northeast Blackout of 2003, which was caused by trees falling onto power lines in Ohio, the U.S.A.   It affected 50 million people in eight U.S. states and Canada, took days to restore, and caused a financial loss in the United States estimated to be between US$4 billion and US$10 billion4).   People lost water supplies, transportation systems, and communications systems (including Internet and cell phones).   Factories shut down, and looting occurred.

As extreme weather events become more common, so do the threats to national electricity supply.

One approach to securing power to DoD installations for critical missions involves a combination of aggressively applying energy efficiency technologies to reduce the critical load (more mission, less energy); deploying renewable energy sources; and “islanding” the installation from the national grid.   Islanding allows power generated on the installations to flow two ways onto the grid when there is excess production and from the grid when the load exceeds local generation.   By pursuing these actions to improve resiliency of mission, DoD would become an early adopter of technologies that would help transform the grid, reduce load, and expand the use of renewable energy.

For deployed systems, the DoD pays a high price for high fuel demand.   In Iraq, significant combat forces are dedicated to moving fuel and protecting fuel supply lines.   The fuel delivery situation on the ground in Iraq is so limited that the Army has established a “Power Surety Task Force” to help commanders of forward operating bases cut the number of fuel convoys by using energy more efficiently.   Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer, USMC, commander of the multinational force in the Anbar province of Iraq, asked for help in August 2006.   His request was for renewable energy systems.   According to Gen. Zilmer, “reducing the military’s dependence on fuel for power generation could reduce the number of road-bound convoys...   ‘Without this solution [renewable energy systems], personnel loss rates are likely to continue at their current rate.   Continued casualty accumulation exhibits potential to jeopardize mission success....’” Along a similar vein, Lt. Gen. James Mattis, while commanding general of the First Marine Division during Operation Iraqi Freedom, urged, “Unleash us from the tether of fuel.”

Energy-efficiency technologies, energy conservation practices and renewable energy sources are the tools forward bases are using to stem their fuel demand and reduce the “target signature” of their fuel convoys.

Numerous DoD studies dating from the 2001 Defense Science Board report “Core Capable Warfighting Through Reduced Fuel Burden” have concluded that high fuel demand by combat forces detracts from our combat capability, makes our forces more vulnerable, diverts combat assets from offense to supply line protection, and increases operating costs.   Nowhere are these problems more evident than in Iraq, where every day 2.4 million gallons of fuel is moved through dangerous territory, requiring protection by armored combat vehicles and attack helicopters⁵⁾.

DoD planners estimate that it costs US$15 to deliver one gallon of fuel from its commercial supplier to the forward edge of the battlefield and about US$26 to deliver a gallon of fuel from an airborne tanker, not counting the tanker aircraft cost.   Furthermore, DoD’s procedures for determining the types of systems it needs do not take these fuel burden considerations into account.   DoD should require more efficient combat systems and should include the actual cost of delivering fuel when evaluating the advantages of investments in efficiency^{6, 7)} DoD should have an incentive to accurately account for the cost of moving and protecting fuel and to invest in technologies that will provide combat power more efficiently.   Deploying technologies that make nations’ forces more efficient also reduces greenhouse gas emissions.   The resulting technologies would make a significant contribution to the vision President Bush expressed in his State of the Union speech when he said, “America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.”

Given the human and economic cost of delivering fuel to combat forces and the almost total dependence on the electric grid for critical missions, DoD has strong operational economic incentives to aggressively pursue energy efficiency in its combat systems and its installations.   By investing at levels commensurate with its interests, DoD would become an early adopter of innovative technologies and could stimulate others to follow.

ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES

Climate change threats also create opportunities for constructive engagement such as stability operations and capacity building.   The U.S. military helped deliver relief to the victims of the 2005 Indian Ocean tsunami because it is the only institution capable of rapidly delivering personnel and materiel anywhere in the world on relatively short notice.   DoD Directive 3000.05, issued in 2006, provides the mandate to conduct military and civilian stability operations in peacetime as well as conflict to maintain order in states and regions.   The Combatant Command’s Theater Security Cooperation Program, which seeks to engage regional states, could be easily focused on climate change mitigation and executed in concert with other U.S. agencies through U.S. embassy country teams.   The objective would be to build the host nation military’s capabilities and capacity to support civilian government agencies.   It also enhances good governance and promotes stability, making failed states and terrorist incursion less likely.   Because many climate change problems cross borders, it could also promote regional communication and cooperation.

If the frequency of natural disasters increases with climate change, future military and political leaders may face hard choices about where and when to engage.   Deploying troops affects readiness elsewhere; choosing not to may affect alliances.   And providing aid in the aftermath of a catastrophic event or natural disaster can help retain stability in a nation or region, which in turn could head off U.S. military engagement in that region at a later date.

The CNA Corporation is a nonprofit institution that conducts in-depth, independent research and analysis.   For more than 60 years the firm has helped bring creative solutions to a vast array of complex public-interest challenges.  For more information, please visit http://SecurityAndClimate.cna.org.

REFERENCES   1) Pittenger, R., and R. Gagosian. 2003. Global Warming Could Have a Chilling Effect on the Military. Defense Horizons, Number 33, October 2003 2) Center for Naval Analyses, CRM D0008026.A2/Final. 2003. Susceptibility of Carrier Flight Deck Crewmen to Heat Stress (U). A Jewell, T. A. Roberts, K. M. DeBisschop. March 2003 3) U.S. Navy, Office of Naval Research, Naval Ice Center. 2001. Naval Operations in an Ice-Free Arctic: Symposium. April 17-18, 2001. 4) U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force. 2004. Final Report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United States and Canada: Causes and Recommendations. April 2004. https://reports.energy.gov/ 5) Boot, Max. Our Enemies Aren? Drinking Lattes. 2006. Los Angeles Times, July 5, 2006 6) Department of Defense, Defense Science Board. 2001. Task Force on Improving Fuel Efficiency of Weapons Platforms. More Capable Warfighting Through Reduced Fuel Burden. January 2001 7) The MITRE Corporation, JASON Program Office. 2006. Reducing DoD Fossil-Fuel De-pendence. Report # JSR-06-135. September 2006

For more information, please send your e-mails to swm@infothe.com.

ⓒ2007 www.SecurityWorldMag.com. All rights reserved.