Australian gov't dismiises US claims about sending bombers to Australia

According to Tony Dumb Dumb, B-1 bombers are NOT headed for Australia

US official misspoke on B-1 bombers being based in Australia: Tony Abbott

US official ‘misspoke’ about sending B-1 bombers to Australia amid S. China Sea dispute

RT,

15 May, 2015

Amid rising tensions with Beijing in the South China Sea, the US plans to station “B-1 bombers and surveillance aircraft” in Australia, a Pentagon official told Senate committee. However, the DoD assured Australia that their representative “misspoke.”

In addition to moving Marine and Army units around the region, Washington will be “placing additional Air Force assets in Australia as well, including B-1 bombers and surveillance aircraft,” the US Defense Department's Assistant Secretary for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs, David Shear, said during testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) on Wednesday, as quoted by Foreign Policy.

Australian Defense ministry however denied the claim, announcing that their US colleagues assured them Shear “misspoke” during his testimony.

"We are aware of the comments made by a US official in Congressional testimony overnight. The US government has contacted us to advise that the official misspoke," the Australian defence spokesman said as cited by Reuters.

The notion of sending bombers to Australia is not an entirely new idea; it was floated in 2013 by the then-commander of the Pacific Air Forces, Gen. Herbert 'Hawk' Carlisle, though it never transpired.

Shear stated that US military movements will also be taking place in other countries in the region, including the “deployment of Global Hawks and F-35s in Japan.” He also said that Washington will be adding to the stock of V-22s in the country.

In addition, he stated that the US will have four Littoral Combat Ships in Singapore by 2020.

“We're deploying high-speed vessels to Singapore and Guam. We're putting a new Virginia class submarine in Guam as well, so we'll have no shortage of capabilities and assets throughout the region to back our diplomacy...”

The US Department of Defence (DoD) is thus “ensuring that US interests in the South China Sea are adequately protected,” Shear said according to DoD press release.

The US is increasing military presence in the region, amid what it perceives as Beijing's highly assertive presence there. It follows China's recent island and airstrip construction in the disputed waters.

“We claim the right of innocent passage in such areas, and we exercise that right regularly, both in the South China Sea and globally,” Shear said, accusing China of aggression.

China began reclaiming territory in the South China in 2014. The waters are also claimed by other countries in the region – Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, and the Philippines – which are trying to bolster their position there.

Shear stressed that all of the claimants except Brunei have developed outposts in the South China Sea's Spratley Islands. Of those countries, Vietnam leads the pack with 48 outposts. The Philippines and China are tied with eight outposts, while Malaysia has five and Taiwan has one.

According to him, China's reclamation of 2,000 acres since 2014 “dwarfs the efforts of all other claimants.”

“China’s actions could pose a range of military implications… such as developing long-range radars and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft to berthing deeper-draft ships and developing a diversion airfield for carrier-based aircraft,” says a DoD press release, citing Shear’s words.

China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on Wednesday it was "deeply concerned" by reports about the US sending ships to the South China Sea and demanded a clarification.

"Freedom of navigation certainly does not mean that foreign military ships and aircraft can enter another country's territorial waters or airspace at will," ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said.

China's Foreign Ministry argues that the country is entitled to national defense building, which is for the “sole purpose of safeguarding national independence, sovereignty, and national integrity.”

Beijing has called on Washington to “abandon its Cold War mentality” and stop “doing or saying anything that jeopardizes bilateral relations and military-to-military mutual trust.”

US bombers not Australia-bound, says PM

The Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott says he has been assured United States B-1 bombers are not bound for Australia.

Radio NZ,

15 May, 2015

The American Assistant defence secretary David Shear told a Congressional hearing that the long-range bombers and surveillance aircraft would soon be based in Australia as a deterrent to what America described as China's "destabilising effect" in the region.

The Pentagon has since said the assistant secretary misspoke.

Before the clarification, China's foreign ministry expressed serious concern with a spokesperson, saying the country would "resolutely uphold its territorial sovereignty".

Mr Shear also told the congressional hearing on the South China Sea the deployment of air assets to Australia was in addition to the doubling of US marines bound for Darwin, leaving their current base in Japan

Russia's delivery of S-300's to Iran

Israel May Send Arms to Ukraine if Russia Delivers S-300 to Iran – Reports

Sputnik News,

14 April, 2015

Israel reportedly may start sending arms to Ukraine in response to Russia’s decision to lift its embargo on the delivery of the S-300 missile system to Iran.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Israel may start sending arms to Ukraine in response to Russia’s decision to lift its five-year embargo on the delivery of the S-300 missile system to Iran, NRG reports Tuesday, citing unnamed Israeli military source.

According to NRG, Israeli government has not made any decisions yet on sending weapons to Ukraine.

Earlier on Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Russian president in a phone conversation that the planned delivery of the S-300 missile systems to Iran will undermine stability in the Middle East and increase Tehran's belligerence.

Putin to Netanyahu: Iranian S-300 Missiles Pose No Threat to Israel

On Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin lifted the embargo on delivery of the S-300 systems to Tehran.

The deal between Russia and Iran on the delivery of five S-300 PMU-1 systems worth $800 million was agreed on eight years ago, but was suspended by then President Dmitry Medvedev after the UN Security Council slapped Iran with an arms embargo over concerns that Tehran was making weapon-grade uranium to use it in warheads.

Russian top diplomat Sergei Lavrov said earlier that the ban had become obsolete, citing progress in the nuclear talks between Iran and the six world powers that will eventually see UN sanctions phased out.

'Solved!': Iran Eager to Implement S-300 Contract With Russia

Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan hopes the Russia-Iran contract will take on an operational aspect.

Sputnik News,

16 April, 2015

MOSCOW (Sputnik) – The issue of delivering Russian S-300 missile defense systems to Tehran has been solved, Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan said Thursday.

“The issue is solved,” Dehghan said in response to the possible delivery of the missile defense systems.

“Six years ago we signed a contract with Russia and some of the points of the contract will comply with these conditions. We hope that this contract will take on an operational aspect,” he said.

On Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin revived the deal on the delivery of S-300 missile systems to Tehran, suspended in 2010 after the UN Security Council introduced sanctions against Iran over concerns it was developing nuclear weapons.

The following day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Putin in a phone conversation that the delivery of the S-300s would undermine stability in the Middle East and increase Tehran's "belligerence."

On April 2, Iran and six world powers, including Russia, China and the United States, agreed on a framework for a deal to ensure the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program, which involves a gradual phasing out of sanctions against Tehran.

The final agreement between Iran and the international mediators is set to be achieved by June 30, 2015.

Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad S-300s?

Eric Draitser

NEO

16 April, 2015

The executive order issued by Russian President Vladimir Putin, which lifts the ban on the export of weapons systems to Iran, has been met with sharp condemnation by Israel, and admonishment from the United States. While Moscow has yet to make a final decision on if/when it will begin supplying the S-300 air defense missiles to Iran – Tehran purchased the system under a 2007 contract left unfulfilled by Russia as a result of the UN-imposed arms embargo – it is clear that the opssibility alone signals a significant shift in the geopolitics of the region.

On the one hand, Iranian air defenses would be significantly upgraded with an advanced weapons system such as S-300 which, though not exactly new, is still very much capable of defending the country’s airspace from any potential attack, be it Israeli or US. On the other hand, the possible delivery of the S-300s is a symbolic step towards integrating Iran into a broader non-NATO security architecture taking shape under the leadership of Russia and China.

While BRICS has come to be the watchword of multi-polarity, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) has emerged as a military-security-intelligence alliance, on top of being an economic and political forum for Sino-Russian relations. The possibility of Iran joining this alliance both through participation in SCO summits, and in practice through military and non-military contracts as well as other forms of cooperation, signals a watershed both for Iran, and the non-western world. Where, just a few years ago, the US and its allies could dictate the terms of relations between Iran and other states, today it simply cannot, nuclear deal or no nuclear deal. The S-300s are only the tip of the iceberg.

What This Means for Iran and the Region

First and foremost, Iran is going to have the opportunity to exist, at least to some extent, on an equal footing on the international stage. Though it is still unclear the specifics of the finalized agreement, including the odious sanctions regime and the extent to which it will actually be lifted, what is certain is that Iran will have much more leeway to pursue economic cooperation with potential partners internationally.

Naturally, various propagandists from Washington to Tel Aviv have taken the opportunity to use Russia’s move to lift the ban as a signal of the “disastrous” policy of “appeasement” by the Obama administration. Commenting on Russia’s decision, Israeli intelligence and international relations minister Yuval Steinitz said that it was:

A direct result of the legitimacy that Iran is receiving from the nuclear deal that is being prepared, and proof that the Iranian economic growth which follows the lifting of sanctions will be exploited for arming itself and not for the welfare of the Iranian people… Instead of demanding that Iran desist from the terrorist activity that it is carrying out in the Middle East and throughout the world, it is being allowed to arm itself with advanced weapons that will only increase its aggression.

Such comments are perhaps far more revealing than Mr. Steinitz might realize. The overt admission in his statement is that Israel sees Iranian economic growth as the true threat to Israel (read Israeli hegemony). In direct contradiction to the droning propaganda about Iran wanting to “wipe Israel from the map,” Steinitz here quite correctly, though perhaps inadvertently, admits that Iran’s economic potential is what makes it a regional threat. While he includes the obligatory references to Iranian “terrorist activity” and “aggression,” Steinitz provides a window into the thinking of Israeli strategic planners who see in Iran a potential economic powerhouse that would lure western and non-western investment alike, not the least of which coming from western energy companies.

As Bloomberg noted in late March on the eve of the framework agreement, “[Iran] is emerging again as a potential prize for Western oil companies such as BP, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Eni SpA and Total SA. The Chinese can also be expected to enter the race, while U.S. companies, more burdened by sanctions and legacy, will be further down the pack...‘Iran is the big prize…The resource size is very attractive.’” Seen from this perspective, both the US and Israel stand to be major losers from the nuclear deal as Iran is allowed to pursue critical investment from international partners.

But the issue is not merely about investment, for if it were, Israel and the US would likely be able to control the debate. Instead, Russia’s potential delivery of the S-300s changes the strategic calculus for Washington and Tel Aviv, as their principal leverage – the threat of the use of force ranging from limited air strikes to all out war – will be considerably weakened, if not totally nullified. For, while Steinitz and others may talk of “advanced weapons that will only increase [Iran’s] aggression,” they know perfectly well that S-300s are defensive weapons whose function is to protect the integrity of a given country’s airspace from either missiles or aircraft. In this way, Israel and the US are far more concerned about losing their strategic advantage than they are of any aggressive posture from Iran.

There is still more for the US and Israel to be concerned about, namely what Iran might be able to do with increased military and technological cooperation with Russia. It could provide Iran the opportunity to up their material and technical support for Syria and Hezbollah in the continued fight against ISIS and Al Qaeda throughout the region. This of course would be disastrous to the regime change agenda of the US-NATO-GCC-Israel in Syria which, despite more than four years of an internationally orchestrated and supported terrorist war, shows no signs of capitulating. Taken in total, the S-300s would both symbolically and concretely alter the balance of power in the region.

The Geopolitical Significance

One should be careful not to understate the importance of this move by Russia. Aside from the obvious strategic importance such a defensive weapons system holds for a besieged country like Iran, there is the symbolic importance internationally. From all indications Russia and Iran are moving considerably closer, as evidenced by the recent military cooperation agreement signed by the defense ministers of the two countries.

Russia and Iran have a number of issues of mutual interest, from questions regarding the conflict in Syria, to Caspian region resources and security, to energy exports and world markets. Such complex international issues require not only close cooperation, but a mutually beneficial understanding in a variety of spheres; that is precisely what worries the US and Israel above all. But, unfortunately for Washington and Tel Aviv, the integration of Iran into a non-western, multi-polar order goes far deeper.

The emerging potential for Iran’s entry to the Russia-China led SCO would fundamentally alter the balance of power in Asia, especially in light of the growing consensus that both Pakistan and India will also join the SCO. Such a development would see a new power bloc in Asia, one that includes the economic and military power of China and Russia, with the emerging economy of India and, to a lesser degree, Pakistan: both military powers in their own right.

It is self-evident the degree to which such an alliance represents a threat, let alone a counterweight, to the decades-long hegemony of NATO and its proxies. Coupled with the emergence of the economic institutions associated with the BRICS – the BRICS Development Bank, and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) – which could provide a much needed alternative to the US-EU dominated IMF and World Bank, the contours of a new economic and military order become more apparent.

While of course all of these important developments are far beyond the simple lifting of the ban on S-300s to Iran, they are connected. For, as Iran becomes a viable military and trading partner for Russia, it becomes more integrated into the global political and economic system. Today, it may simply be a defensive missile system, but the potential tomorrow is boundless. Planners in Moscow and Tehran understand this, as do those in Tel Aviv and Washington. For this reason, S-300s are far more than missiles: they are the symbol of a multi-polar future.

Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City, he is the founder of StopImperialism.org and OP-ed columnist for RT, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The sale of the Russian SA-20 to Iran

From the crazies at the Daily Beast.

Putin’s Missile Could Make U.S. Attacks on Iran Nearly Impossible

This nuke deal with Iran had better work. Because the Kremlin is lifting a ban on selling a powerful air defense system to Iran that would render an airstrike on Tehran’s nuclear weapons facilities nearly impossible

Photo Illustration by Emil Lendof/The Daily Beast

the Daily Beast,

13 April, 2015

The delivery of the new weapon, called the Almaz-Antei S-300PMU-1—known as the SA-20 Gargoyle in NATO parlance—would effectively force the U.S. to rely on its small fleet of stealth aircraft to strike targets inside Iran in case the mullahs make a dash for the bomb. But even those aircraft might have a difficult time.

“This would be a huge deal depending on where they [the S-300s] are based…The Persian Gulf would be an interesting place to fly,” said one senior defense official with experience on multiple stealth aircraft types. “These new [surface-to-air missiles] change the whole complexion…It’s a big move.”

According to a report from Russian state media, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree on Monday that would allow the sale of the fearsome S-300 air defense system to Iran.

“[The presidential] decree lifts the ban on transit through Russian territory, including airlift, and the export from the Russian Federation to the Islamic Republic of Iran, and also the transfer to the Islamic Republic of Iran outside the territory of the Russian Federation, both by sea and by air, of air defense missile systems S-300,” reads the Kremlin statement, according to RIA Novosti.

The U.S. government has lobbied Russia hard for years to prevent the sale of the S-300 to Iran. In 2010, convincing Putin to suspend the sale of the S-300 to Iran was heralded as a major foreign policy coup by the Obama administration. In many ways, it was one of the central achievements of the so-called reset in relations with Moscow, said Heather Conley, a Russia expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Since then, of course, relations with Russia have cooled to nearly Cold War levels of hostility. Making life difficult for American policy makers is once again a Kremlin priority. “Mr. Putin’s policies are not designed to assist the West or to make our jobs and ability to affect policy much more difficult,” Conley said. “It’s also reminder to Washington and other Western capitals that they have some cards to play here.”

Another factor that might be motivating Moscow is that with the Russian economy in shambles, Moscow needs all of the economic stimulus it can get. The missile deal with Iran would reportedly net Russia more than $800 million.

The air defense system is “a complete game changer…That thing is a beast and you don’t want to get near it.”

Last year, analysts predicted that if the U.S. sanctions of the Russian economy grew too tight, the Kremlin would respond by selling S-300s to Tehran. “I could see as part of this deal [between Tehran and Moscow] that they would agree to transfer advanced missiles to Iran,” Mark Dubowitz, the executive director of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, told The Daily Beast at the time. “If Putin became angry enough over the West’s financial punishment of Russia, he could put in play the S-300 deal.”

The Kremin’s decision now sends a signal to Tehran that the sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table are done—even before a final nuclear agreement is signed. “Clearly, this is the sanctions regime already starting to crack and fall apart in anticipation there will be an agreement [on nuclear issues with Iran] on June 30,” Conley said. “This is the first major signal that regime is coming to an end.”

From a practical military standpoint, the sale of the S-300 would directly challenge the U.S. position that “all options are on the table” should Iran try to subvert the nuclear deal. The addition of the powerful missile defense system would make punitive airstrikes against Iran extremely difficult.

Many U.S. defense officials from the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps agree that the Russian missile system effectively renders entire regions no-go zones for conventional jets like the F-16 or Navy F/A-18 Hornet. Currently, only high end stealth aircraft like the $2.2 billion B-2 Spirit—of which the Air Force has exactly 20—and the high performance F-22 Raptor can safely operate inside an area protected by the S-300 and its many variants. The Pentagon’s $400 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will eventually be able to operate inside those zones, too. But according to multiple sources within the Pentagon and defense industry, no warplane now operating can remain inside those well-defended areas for long.

A senior U.S. Marine Corps aviator said that if Russia delivers the S-300 missile to Iran, it would fundamentally change U.S. war plans. “A complete game changer for all fourth-gen aircraft [like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18]. That thing is a beast and you don’t want to get near it,” he said.

The sale of the S-300 also would neutralize any possibility that Israel could take unilateral action against Iran, one senior Air Force commander noted. The S-300 would effectively prevent the Israeli air force from attacking Iran until the F-35 is delivered to that nation.

“I find it almost hilarious that the Russians are saying, ‘It’s an entirely defensive system and cannot attack anyone, including Israel,’” the senior officer said. “But it also essentially makes Iran attack-proof by Israel and almost any country without fifth-gen [stealth fighter] capabilities. In other words, Iran, with the S-300, can continue to do what they want once those systems are in place without fear of attack from anyone save the U.S. Brilliant chess move…”

But even when Israel receives the F-35, the relatively short-range stealth fighter can only carry a pair of 2,000-pound bombs—which are not likely to be adequate for the most heavily fortified Iranian targets. Some of the Iranian facilities are likely to require the use of the massive 30,000-pound GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) that can only be carried by the American B-2 stealth bomber.

An attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities was going to be a daunting task, even under the best of circumstances, another Air Force official with extensive experience flying stealth aircraft said. The targets are deeply buried—which makes them hard to crack open with bombs—and the facilities are scattered all over the place. The Air Force’s tiny fleet of B-2 stealth bombers would have to do most of the work because only those aircraft have the range and weapons needed to hit those targets properly. The introduction of any version of the S-300 would make that extremely difficult job much more challenging, the official said.

But the exact number and exact location of where the S-300s are placed makes a big difference, the official said. That’s further compounded by the fact that the S-300 system is mobile—and can move at a moment’s notice.

If there is a large number of those S-300 air defense systems in place, even pilots flying stealth jets like the B-2 and F-22 Raptor would be find the mission to be extremely difficult. “If they’re all over every square inch of the country, then it doesn’t matter what you put out there—it’s going to be a challenge,” the Air Force official said.

But it’s not just Iran. If Russia and China continue to sell advanced air defenses around the world, the overwhelming majority of current U.S. warplanes will be unable to fight in many parts of the globe. “We are very concerned with the proliferation of big [surface-to-air missiles]…now in Crimea, Kaliningrad, and Iran if this is true,” said one senior U.S. Air Force official. “We’re being denied access faster than we can appreciate, in my opinion.”

That said, there are some ways in which older non-stealth jets can fight in areas protected by these new missiles, one senior Air Force official said. But it would be very risky. “It would be really classified to discuss specific SAM [surface-to-air missile] counter tactics, but you know that the ‘double digits SAMs’ [which is what Air Force pilots call the S-300 and its variants] give all of the fourth-gen jets great pause,” the official said.

One way would be to use a combination of miniature air-launched drones carrying jammers to try and spoof the S-300’s radars by giving it false targets, another Air Force official said. Those drones would have to be combined with stealthy long-range missiles to eliminate the Russian-built air defenses.

It would also be very helpful to have a jamming aircraft to try and suppress the S-300’s radar from a distance—which is where the Navy comes in. “[The Navy’s] EA-18Gs [carrier-based jamming aircraft] with their ALQ-218 [electronic sensor] will detect, fix, and track that weapons system,” said a former senior naval aviator. “Once you have it fixed, they can jam and you can employ weapons from range to destroy it.”

But the problem is that the S-300 is a mobile system and thus moves every so often; U.S. pilots can never be sure where a weapon is at any given time. “Well, yes...you can kill it” with the right cruise missile, said Mark Gunzinger, an air power analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington. “This assumes, of course, that the S-300 launcher remains at a fixed location after a standoff cruise missile is launched at it.”

Iran 'Very Excited' About Russian S-300 Ban Repeal

Iranian public figures expressed great excitement and hope for improved relations with Russia after the ban on S-33 air defense shipments was lifted.

Putin signs decree lifting ban on delivering S-300 to Iran

Russia protects its borders

Russia Deploys Troops, Robots Along Entire "2nd Middle East" Arctic Belt

Zero Hedge,

22 October, 2014

On the heels of Sweden's military deployment (following the discovery of a damaged Russian sub), it appears Russia is taking no chances with its access to Arctic resources.As Reuters reports, the Russian defense minister announced today that Russian military units will be deployed along the entire Arctic border from Murmansk to Chukotka in 2014.

Interfax adds that combat robots are also being deployed to protect Russian oil and gas infrastructure in the harsh environment of the Arctic. This should be no surprise as The Guardian notes, the Arctic’s hydrocarbon resources nevertheless exert a powerful pull. It has been compared to "a second Middle East", with oil and gas reserves thought to represent 17% and 30%, respectively, of the global total.

This of course, is nothing new...

On 11 October, in an attempt to forestall such criticism, the Russian defence ministry announced plans to build “a regional environmental centre [...] to prevent pollution in areas where Russian forces are deployed”. Russian troops systematically receive “training and briefings on environmental safety and compliance with legislation”, deputy minister Dmitry Bulgakov added. But it will take more than this to reassure the western powers.

But is a major escalation along such a massive border...

*  *  *

And finally, Interfax reports, Combat robots to protect Russian oil and gas infrastructure in Arctic

Undersea combat robots will be protecting Russian oilrigs and transportation networks in the Arctic region at some point, Deputy General Director of the Russian Foundation for Advanced Research Projects, Chairman of the Foundation's Scientific and Technological Board Vitaly Davydov told Interfax-AVN.

"The Foundation is not designing robotic sharks but it is working on undersea robots and autonomous gadgets capable of protecting infrastructure, controlling the waters and detecting, tracking and, if necessary, destroying a potential enemy. The prospective machinery may be deployed on the sea bottom and specialized submersibles," he said.

So far, the Foundation is focused not so much on defense issues as on mineral development projects, Davydov said.

"The rivalry in this region will be centered on its natural resources. A key task to be solved in the Arctic is access to mineral resources, first and foremost, hydrocarbons. This goal can be achieved through the completion of numerous tasks in the discovery, production and transportation of resources, sub-glacial operations and infrastructural security. This is the target of the Foundation's research programs," he said.

*  *  *

As The Guardian concludes, The Arctic, which is governed by international maritime law, is also the focus of other disputes. Canada regularly carries out military exercises in its Arctic territory. Relations between Ottawa and Moscow have cooled significantly since the start of the Ukraine crisis.

The Pentagon's climate wars

Climate wars are already being fought, but under a different name

Pentagon: We Could Soon Be Fighting Climate Wars

Mother Jones,

13 October, 2014

In one of its strongest statements yet on the need to prepare for climate change, the Defense Department today released a report that says global warming "poses immediate risks to US national security" and will exacerbate national security-related threats ranging "from infectious disease to terrorism."

The report, embedded below, builds on climate readiness planning at the Pentagon that stretches back to the George W. Bush administration. But today's report is the first to frame climate change as a serious near-term challenge for strategic military operations; previous reports have tended to focus on long-term threats to bases and other infrastructure.

The report "is quite an evolution of the DoD's thinking on understanding and addressing climate threats," said Francesco Femia, co-director of the Center for Climate and Security. "The Department is not looking out into the future, it's looking at what's happening now."

DOCUMENT

PAGES

TEXT

Zoom

p. 1

p. 2

p. 3

«

Page 1 of  20

»

The report identifies anticipated climate impacts to basic military operations, training and testing procedures, infrastructure, and supply chains. It doesn't recommend specific policy changes or detail costs. Rather, it issues a general call for DoD agencies to build climate change into their procedures and to ensure climate change is accounted for in any collaborations with foreign governments and private contractors.

The threat posed by climate change to military bases has long been acknowledged by the Pentagon; a survey of the climate vulnerability of more than 7,000 military facilities worldwide is due to be completed soon. In May, for example, a report prepared by 11 retired military commanders found that the cluster of 29 installations near Virginia's Chesapeake Bay that together house more than 20 percent of the Navy's fleet could experience up to seven feet of sea level rise by 2100.

Today's report also placed special focus on impacts that are likely to sweep US troops into action in the short term, a sign that top brass are increasingly concerned about "the probability that climate change will increase the likelihood of conflict in strategically significant parts of the world," Femia said. Water shortages in the Middle East could benefit terrorist organizations, who can exploit hunger and unrest to tighten their grip on locals. Increased shipping traffic in the melting Arctic could spark political tension between polar nations. Increasing prevalence and severity of natural disasters worldwide will become a more significant burden for military-led relief efforts.

Although the report is a product of a 2009 order by President Obama for all federal agencies to evaluate climate risks to their operations, Femia said the strong language is more the result of bottom-up agitation from troop commanders who are witnessing climate change first-hand. Last year, for example, Navy Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, the top US military commander in the Pacific, singled out climate change as a principal concern for his operations.