Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Earth The Military Science

Pentagon Unveils Plan For Military's Response To Climate Change 228

An anonymous reader writes Rising sea levels and other effects of climate change will create major problems for America's military, including more and worse natural disasters and food and water shortages that could fuel disputes around the world, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Monday. From the article: "The Pentagon's 2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap (PDF) describes how global warming will bring new demands on the military. Among the report's conclusions: Coastal military installations that are vulnerable to flooding will need to be altered; humanitarian assistance missions will be more frequent in the face of more intense natural disasters; weapons and other critical military equipment will need to work under more severe weather conditions. 'This road map shows how we are identifying — with tangible and specific metrics, and using the best available science — the effects of climate change on the department's missions and responsibilities,' Hagel said. 'Drawing on these assessments, we will integrate climate change considerations into our planning, operations, and training.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pentagon Unveils Plan For Military's Response To Climate Change

Comments Filter:
  • Now please raise the defense budget 12% per year, so that we may relocate naval bases to higher ground and do more maintenance on equipment damaged by severe weather.

    Colonel Trout

  • ... we'll need more money.

  • by lesincompetent ( 2836253 ) on Monday October 13, 2014 @06:28PM (#48135321)
    If i recall correctly, similar reasoning was adopted by Mr. Homer J. Simpson while addressing his car's engine issue as he proceeded to string a strip of duct tape over the blinking warning light.
  • by rolfwind ( 528248 ) on Monday October 13, 2014 @06:48PM (#48135479)

    US Military could count as it's own country in oil usage. They also do a fair bit with reusable energy: []

    And I know several other projects. But for Military readiness, it would be nice if they put a few billion more into supporting something like algae biodiesel or fusion and a few billion less into one more aircraft carrier (correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the current fleet has around 11, more than the rest of the world combined?)

    Off the top of my head, America's strategic reserve can cover fuel use for 60 days. However, since the biggest threat to America isn't any type of invasion force (no viable one exists), it would likely be economic and since the days of Hurricane Katrina, we've been shown to be unable to cope with peoples' extended needs.

    So the Leadership's strategy should be to wean the country off of it's most dire dependencies. It should almost be the military's strategy as it would only positively effect them, but that runs counter to global force projection and stamping out the latest fires around the world.

    • Oh, you mean like this []?

      Legislation in both chambers of Congress would limit the Department of Defense's ability to buy alternative fuels, reflecting congressional Republicans' criticism of Pentagon efforts to green the military.

      A $554 billion defense spending bill approved by the House earlier this month would limit DOD's ability to produce or procure biofuels if the cost exceeds the price of traditional fossil fuel.

      Oh, you mean the opposite of that.

      But seriously, as the other response said, the glut

    • we're building more aircraft carriers because they have to be replaced. Enterprise was just retired after 50 years and is being decommissioned. The Kitty Hawk class are all retired now. Nimitz is 42 years old -- yes, its keel was laid in 1968 and it entered service in 1972. It takes 4-5 years to build one of these floating cities. There may be 10 of them (not counting Enterprise and Ford); but, one is usually in the yard being refit (15 year overhaul cycle -- Lincoln is currently in the yard) and there
      • Just to be pedantic, I think that's "clean" or "zero-emissions," since we probably don't actually want a nearby supernova to refresh our uranium supply.
  • Funny to see (Score:4, Insightful)

    by grimJester ( 890090 ) on Monday October 13, 2014 @07:01PM (#48135591)
    Funny to see a branch of the US government that actually has to deal with reality.
    • Reality? How do you figure?

      • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        Sea level rise due to human caused climate change. Of course the rest of the economy is still blindly buying underwater front. This contrast is going to grow more and more interesting as time goes by. Rabid right wingers denying climate change and sea level rise whilst their beach front properties go under water and they demand government assistance.

        • I don't think you will find many denying "climate change". The climate is always changing. It the old "man made" global warming/global cooling claims that many will deny.

    • Funny to see a branch of the US government that actually has to deal with reality.

      They also have a plan for invading Canada. So, that tells you how realistic they have to keep it.

      • by gtall ( 79522 )

        Yep, and I'll bet that gets updated yearly since it was produced long ago. In fact, the Canada section of the U.S. Military is right now planning for Total Snow Control to take the Canadian Maple Syrup Harvest to prevent Quebec separatists from taking it and waging sugar war on the U.S. There's just nothing the U.S. Military isn't prepared for.

        • Yep, and I'll bet that gets updated yearly since it was produced long ago.

          Last I heard it was updated in the 90s

    • and is not going to shoot at eclipses any more, to try and kill the dragons? excellent.

  • Mine shafts []
  • To me this just looks like a way to get defense contractors' snouts into the rich green money trough.

  • by Snufu ( 1049644 ) on Monday October 13, 2014 @08:15PM (#48136119)

    Of course! Just bomb climate change into submission. Why didn't we think of this sooner?


  • Really Ebola isn't all that bad and it just might make people think a bit. Every day our immune systems face too many attacks. We reject most of the attacks and any losses are subtle and probably not noticable at all. But international travel is causing way too many attacks upon our immune systems and at a certain point we weaken and are vulnerable to any common germ or virus. In order to curtail all too frequent exposures to diseases we need to ban long distance travel almost completely. Or another
  • by Karmashock ( 2415832 ) on Tuesday October 14, 2014 @12:11AM (#48137647)

    What about San Francisco?


    Then most coastal US military bases are probably fine too. There might be some on a couple pacific islands that are having a hard time... but I believe the last time I checked every single one of them was due to erosion and not the rising of global sea levels.

    Furthermore, what are we talking about as of now?... 7 centimeters or something? Any harbor that could be made viable or non-viable by 7 fucking centimeters was an accident waiting to happen in the first place. I'm quite sure that the vast majority of harbors have far more robust tolerances.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by phantomfive ( 622387 )
      Speaking of Manhattan, as predicted [], the West Side Highway in New York is currently under water. It's a tragedy we didn't listen sooner.
    • That begs the question, does our failure to evacuate coastal cities prove that our military bases are safe? The answer to that question is no. In fact, the fact that we are not evacuating coastal cities does not prove anything. That's because there's no evidence that we will evacuate cities when we should. In fact, the global pattern is to ignore problems until they become unignorable, with few exceptions.

  • Because #poisoningthewell was already taken.

  • As the US continues to decline we may well reach a tipping point at which riots and crime begin to run rampant. Food prices have increased severely enough already to induce anger and fear in the public. A loss of security in employment, loss of wealth due to the housing crash as well as a right wing infested congress may be just enough to cause serious chaos in the streets. With the wealthy not being prosecuted and a government unwilling to follow the law the conditions are just to ripe for a

Karl's version of Parkinson's Law: Work expands to exceed the time alloted it.