he individual branches of the United States military are tasked with organizing, training, and equipping their respective services for all eventualities. This is an exceptionally complicated task. Forecasting adversary capabilities, anticipating technological trends, navigating political and budgetary pressures, and factoring innumerable other variables creates a complex equation and often conflicting outcomes. The stakes could not be higher—get it right and conflicts can be deterred or, should they occur, won swiftly and decisively; get it wrong and the nation faces existential risk and service members' lives will be lost.
The strategic, operational, and tactical variables are challenging enough, but factoring in a dynamic environment—the climate—is an increasingly important part of planning. Weather certainly always has been, and will be, a consideration, but a changing climate is a relatively new emergent consideration. Sherri Goodman, the first ever Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (Environmental Security), recounts her career in public service and as a distinguished think tank leader, to shift the military’s thinking on the environment and climate change in her new book “Threat Multiplier.”
Goodman is one of those countless unknown (to the public) bureaucrats whose work, dedication, and commitment to service has truly shaped government policy and affected not inconsiderable change. The Department of Defense is often rightly criticized for being a slow–moving behemoth, resistant to change and prone to fighting the last war. Yet Goodman shows it is possible, through diligent staff work, persistent efforts, politicking, and a not inconsiderable amount of fortuitous timing, to shift the course of the five–sided battleship.
Much of the change Goodman recounts was indeed slow and incremental, with larger policy shifts coming because of innumerable, smaller adjustments. In one instance she manages to convince the Marines that the trees and forests in which they train should be better protected. The Marines with typical aplomb designate them as obstacles, around which training should take place, rather than run through or over. Similarly, protected tortoises in California receive a sort of right–of–way protection.
“Threat Multiplier” is two books in one. There is her deeply fascinating autobiography of the Pentagon knife fights that shaped her career in environmental stewardship. As she writes, her career went from ‘weapons to waste,’ starting first with the nuclear weapons enterprise during the tail end of the Cold War and transitioning to the clean–up of the very facilities that built the components of America’s nuclear arsenal. The exigencies of the Cold War put priority on delivery and not sustainability or environmental standards.
An interesting consideration is the renewed attention to and prioritization of the modernization of the nuclear arsenal. This necessitates the resumption of fissile material processing, plutonium pit production for the new W87–1 nuclear warhead, and upgrading of the entirety of a hitherto under–invested enterprise. Ensuring that these modernization efforts meet modern environmental standards will almost certainly receive high levels of oversight and scrutiny.
The peace dividend that resulted from the end of the conflict with the Soviet Union saw the closure of countless bases across the country as part of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) effort. Closing these facilities often necessitated considerable clean–up, with some locations turning into Superfund sites receiving EPA funding and clean–up oversight. Reducing the number of active bases also generated efficiency and environmental benefits, consolidating operations and drawing down overall military activity—a sort of environmental peace dividend.
The arrival of the Clinton administration and renewed attention to the environment and climate led to Goodman’s appointment. Tasked with improving the Pentagon’s environmental footprint, she fought an uphill battle with the Department of Defense’s bureaucracy, Congressional backers, and the services themselves to improve energy efficiency, adopt higher environmental standards, and change the military’s footprint.
Environmental stewardship also opened opportunities for post–Cold War cooperation with Russia. While in the Department of Defense she worked with her Russian counterparts to secure liquid nuclear waste that had been dumped into the waters off Norway. This led to bilateral exchanges and cooperation, which are unimaginable now. Looking to the future, bi– and multi–lateral cooperation on climate change remains a hope for some to improve relations. If nothing else, without China, no meaningful progress on addressing climate change is possible.
Looming in the background of Goodman’s account is the politics of climate change. In some of her recounting, politics is a useful tool through which she gets projects across the line. In others, the fight over climate change stands as an obstacle to her efforts to shift the military toward a greener footing. The BRAC process was exemplary of this effort. Here she recounts the challenges of determining who owned what facility, with the services often pointing the finger at each other amidst Congressional politicking as no representative or senator wanted to see their favored facility shutter.
Then there is the second half which provides a global survey of a changing world and how it is affecting operational theaters and the military’s response to these changing conditions. For the military it is not a question of what is causing the climate to change, it is a matter of how climate change affects training, planning, and, ultimately, warfighting. In some ways that distinction makes it easier to make real changes.
For Goodman, her departure from an exceptional career in public service was followed by creation of the Center for Naval Analyses Military Advisory Board. There, she brought together retired generals and admirals to look at the challenge and threat of climate change, generating influential reports, leading to the coining of the titular phrase, “threat multiplier.” At CNA, the Military Advisory Board explored the theater–level impact of changing weather patterns and shifting climatic dynamics and how they would impact military operations. This leads naturally to a tour de horizon of America’s global footprint and how individuals in uniform were recognizing the changes at hand and adapting in response.
In Afghanistan, convoy operations supplying distant forward operating bases put service members in harm’s way—improving fuel efficiency reduced the number of trucks needed to operate these long logistics chains. The thawing of sea ice in the Arctic opens new avenues for polar operations, meaning the U.S. Navy needs to become more adept at operating in colder climates with changing and dynamic weather. Russia and China are looking to exploit the northern sea route, emerging as a viable pathway due to climate change, hence the U.S. Navy will find itself there, as well. Regional climate impacts such as drought and desertification will lead to population migration—as was seen in Syria, where environmental conditions were a contributing (though not defining) factor in political instability. In aggregate, a changing climate is truly a ‘threat multiplier’—it is not exclusively a threat itself, though varying and intensifying weather can and does affect operations, but it does exacerbate political, economic, and security tensions.
The effects of climate change are, however, not limited to overseas operations. In 2018, Hurricane Michael, a category five storm, struck Tyndall Air Force Base causing catastrophic damage and impacting operations. As gulf waters warm, the intensity of storms has increased. This puts bases in the path of storms at increased risk for operational impacts. The Space Force’s (and indeed NASA’s) footprint along Cape Canaveral, Florida, is also at risk of rising ocean levels. While a significant storm could halt space launch operations temporarily, climate change could well put those launch pads underwater indefinitely, dramatically affecting America’s ability to access space.
Climate change also opens opportunities for the Department of Defense in military diplomacy. Goodman recounts how the military is involved in ecological programs with partners and allies. This may sound a bit odd—the military should be about fighting and winning wars—but working with their counterparts in foreign services on critical environmental issues engenders goodwill and strengthens bilateral ties. This is vital for operating in diverse and complex locations, where the fighting could well take place.
Success on the battlefields of today and tomorrow requires considering all possible variables, and climate change is an increasingly critical planning driver. Goodman’s “Threat Multiplier” explores the challenges of shifting the thinking within the Pentagon, but also how military operations will change in the future as a result of climate change. The world is warming, and so too will the battlefields of the future.
a global affairs media network
Military adaptation in a warming world
Photo by Simon Wilkes from Unsplash.
November 9, 2024
Sherri Goodman’s "Threat Multiplier" reveals how climate change alters military planning, from Arctic readiness to base security and global partnerships, writes Joshua Huminski.
T
he individual branches of the United States military are tasked with organizing, training, and equipping their respective services for all eventualities. This is an exceptionally complicated task. Forecasting adversary capabilities, anticipating technological trends, navigating political and budgetary pressures, and factoring innumerable other variables creates a complex equation and often conflicting outcomes. The stakes could not be higher—get it right and conflicts can be deterred or, should they occur, won swiftly and decisively; get it wrong and the nation faces existential risk and service members' lives will be lost.
The strategic, operational, and tactical variables are challenging enough, but factoring in a dynamic environment—the climate—is an increasingly important part of planning. Weather certainly always has been, and will be, a consideration, but a changing climate is a relatively new emergent consideration. Sherri Goodman, the first ever Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (Environmental Security), recounts her career in public service and as a distinguished think tank leader, to shift the military’s thinking on the environment and climate change in her new book “Threat Multiplier.”
Goodman is one of those countless unknown (to the public) bureaucrats whose work, dedication, and commitment to service has truly shaped government policy and affected not inconsiderable change. The Department of Defense is often rightly criticized for being a slow–moving behemoth, resistant to change and prone to fighting the last war. Yet Goodman shows it is possible, through diligent staff work, persistent efforts, politicking, and a not inconsiderable amount of fortuitous timing, to shift the course of the five–sided battleship.
Much of the change Goodman recounts was indeed slow and incremental, with larger policy shifts coming because of innumerable, smaller adjustments. In one instance she manages to convince the Marines that the trees and forests in which they train should be better protected. The Marines with typical aplomb designate them as obstacles, around which training should take place, rather than run through or over. Similarly, protected tortoises in California receive a sort of right–of–way protection.
“Threat Multiplier” is two books in one. There is her deeply fascinating autobiography of the Pentagon knife fights that shaped her career in environmental stewardship. As she writes, her career went from ‘weapons to waste,’ starting first with the nuclear weapons enterprise during the tail end of the Cold War and transitioning to the clean–up of the very facilities that built the components of America’s nuclear arsenal. The exigencies of the Cold War put priority on delivery and not sustainability or environmental standards.
An interesting consideration is the renewed attention to and prioritization of the modernization of the nuclear arsenal. This necessitates the resumption of fissile material processing, plutonium pit production for the new W87–1 nuclear warhead, and upgrading of the entirety of a hitherto under–invested enterprise. Ensuring that these modernization efforts meet modern environmental standards will almost certainly receive high levels of oversight and scrutiny.
The peace dividend that resulted from the end of the conflict with the Soviet Union saw the closure of countless bases across the country as part of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) effort. Closing these facilities often necessitated considerable clean–up, with some locations turning into Superfund sites receiving EPA funding and clean–up oversight. Reducing the number of active bases also generated efficiency and environmental benefits, consolidating operations and drawing down overall military activity—a sort of environmental peace dividend.
The arrival of the Clinton administration and renewed attention to the environment and climate led to Goodman’s appointment. Tasked with improving the Pentagon’s environmental footprint, she fought an uphill battle with the Department of Defense’s bureaucracy, Congressional backers, and the services themselves to improve energy efficiency, adopt higher environmental standards, and change the military’s footprint.
Environmental stewardship also opened opportunities for post–Cold War cooperation with Russia. While in the Department of Defense she worked with her Russian counterparts to secure liquid nuclear waste that had been dumped into the waters off Norway. This led to bilateral exchanges and cooperation, which are unimaginable now. Looking to the future, bi– and multi–lateral cooperation on climate change remains a hope for some to improve relations. If nothing else, without China, no meaningful progress on addressing climate change is possible.
Looming in the background of Goodman’s account is the politics of climate change. In some of her recounting, politics is a useful tool through which she gets projects across the line. In others, the fight over climate change stands as an obstacle to her efforts to shift the military toward a greener footing. The BRAC process was exemplary of this effort. Here she recounts the challenges of determining who owned what facility, with the services often pointing the finger at each other amidst Congressional politicking as no representative or senator wanted to see their favored facility shutter.
Then there is the second half which provides a global survey of a changing world and how it is affecting operational theaters and the military’s response to these changing conditions. For the military it is not a question of what is causing the climate to change, it is a matter of how climate change affects training, planning, and, ultimately, warfighting. In some ways that distinction makes it easier to make real changes.
For Goodman, her departure from an exceptional career in public service was followed by creation of the Center for Naval Analyses Military Advisory Board. There, she brought together retired generals and admirals to look at the challenge and threat of climate change, generating influential reports, leading to the coining of the titular phrase, “threat multiplier.” At CNA, the Military Advisory Board explored the theater–level impact of changing weather patterns and shifting climatic dynamics and how they would impact military operations. This leads naturally to a tour de horizon of America’s global footprint and how individuals in uniform were recognizing the changes at hand and adapting in response.
In Afghanistan, convoy operations supplying distant forward operating bases put service members in harm’s way—improving fuel efficiency reduced the number of trucks needed to operate these long logistics chains. The thawing of sea ice in the Arctic opens new avenues for polar operations, meaning the U.S. Navy needs to become more adept at operating in colder climates with changing and dynamic weather. Russia and China are looking to exploit the northern sea route, emerging as a viable pathway due to climate change, hence the U.S. Navy will find itself there, as well. Regional climate impacts such as drought and desertification will lead to population migration—as was seen in Syria, where environmental conditions were a contributing (though not defining) factor in political instability. In aggregate, a changing climate is truly a ‘threat multiplier’—it is not exclusively a threat itself, though varying and intensifying weather can and does affect operations, but it does exacerbate political, economic, and security tensions.
The effects of climate change are, however, not limited to overseas operations. In 2018, Hurricane Michael, a category five storm, struck Tyndall Air Force Base causing catastrophic damage and impacting operations. As gulf waters warm, the intensity of storms has increased. This puts bases in the path of storms at increased risk for operational impacts. The Space Force’s (and indeed NASA’s) footprint along Cape Canaveral, Florida, is also at risk of rising ocean levels. While a significant storm could halt space launch operations temporarily, climate change could well put those launch pads underwater indefinitely, dramatically affecting America’s ability to access space.
Climate change also opens opportunities for the Department of Defense in military diplomacy. Goodman recounts how the military is involved in ecological programs with partners and allies. This may sound a bit odd—the military should be about fighting and winning wars—but working with their counterparts in foreign services on critical environmental issues engenders goodwill and strengthens bilateral ties. This is vital for operating in diverse and complex locations, where the fighting could well take place.
Success on the battlefields of today and tomorrow requires considering all possible variables, and climate change is an increasingly critical planning driver. Goodman’s “Threat Multiplier” explores the challenges of shifting the thinking within the Pentagon, but also how military operations will change in the future as a result of climate change. The world is warming, and so too will the battlefields of the future.
