Contingency Planning (SAG?) for Global/Domestic Security Issues due to Climate Change

Brakpier

Swinger
I have always had the impression, not least through personal participation, that various scenarios are played out iot inform the future direction of Defence Planning. Usual suspects might include nuclear terrorism, cyberthreats, Russians being naughty somewhere in Eastern Europe and so on, but where are we on climate change induced security issues? I can remember having discussions at Staff College on 'Water Wars' (control of the River Jordan a likely candidate) but nothing else. Do we, for example, need to beef up our littoral capabilities in preparation of rising sea levels and its attendant impact on a significant percentage of the world/domestic population? Is there a plan for the evacuation of low lying areas of the UK? How do we anticipate the military supporting the Govt if we experience a series of hotter summers and dryer winters leading to very serious water shortages (civil unrest)?

I appreciate that SAG scenarios are classified and therefore cannot/will not be disclosed on the internet, but thoughts can certainly be shared, including some 'what if?' crystal ball-gazing......
 

Daxx

MIA
Book Reviewer
Just arm the Environment Agency. Simples.
 

Attachments

Brakpier

Swinger
are you stalking my internet history or have you been looking at too many BBC future articles?

Publications | Global Catastrophic Risk Institute
An interesting overview of a wide range of threats, including a couple that hadn't occurred to me. It's good to see some academics giving it some serious thought; much of it chimes with recent Yuval Noah Harari's publications (well worth a read). I still think it begs the question "what long-term planning/strategies are the MOD studying?", if at all.

Time to check out these BBC Future articles.......
 
An interesting overview of a wide range of threats, including a couple that hadn't occurred to me. It's good to see some academics giving it some serious thought; much of it chimes with recent Yuval Noah Harari's publications (well worth a read). I still think it begs the question "what long-term planning/strategies are the MOD studying?", if at all.

Time to check out these BBC Future articles.......
Curious to focus on the MOD - look at Government & civil defence planning in the round

Who has the longer view and where does the decision/budget authority sit?

The Politicans in charge? (Attention currently elsewhere and in this space, the only decent one in the last couple of decades was John Prescott - the driving force behind the 2004 Civil Contingency Act)
The Civil Service? ( Cabinet office Civil Contingencies Secretariat - UK resilience lead)
The Home Office? (Police - default lead blue light service works for them)
The 3 Services? (who have some Defence Contribution tasks, but normally as a service provider in support of the lead Government department)
 

Brakpier

Swinger
Curious to focus on the MOD - look at Government & civil defence planning in the round

Who has the longer view and where does the decision/budget authority sit?

The Politicans in charge? (Attention currently elsewhere and in this space, the only decent one in the last couple of decades was John Prescott - the driving force behind the 2004 Civil Contingency Act)
The Civil Service? ( Cabinet office Civil Contingencies Secretariat - UK resilience lead)
The Home Office? (Police - default lead blue light service works for them)
The 3 Services? (who have some Defence Contribution tasks, but normally as a service provider in support of the lead Government department)
The nucleus of my MOD centric approach stems from a recent Washington Post report that four top U.S. military officials testified before Congress that they continue to see climate change as a significant security threat. In the meantime their Commander-In-Chief still sees climate change as a Chinese ploy and his attitude has permeated into other govt depts. This suggests to me that the Pentagon quietly takes things seriously, and is therefore their national lead, albeit under the radar.

So, whilst you are quite correct that it shouldn't fall to the MOD to take the lead, and must focus on it's 7 Military Tasks, I think there could be scope for the 'tail to wag the dog' and provide an informed view on potential, longer term, security issues relating to climate change and stimulate coherent long-term strategic planning.

Militarily it might not be a particularly sexy subject, and might even invite 'snowflake' comments, I just wondered what sort of debate (if any) was being conducted, either informally or formally - I certainly don't recall any during my involvement with JFC a couple of years ago.
 
The nucleus of my MOD centric approach stems from a recent Washington Post report that four top U.S. military officials testified before Congress that they continue to see climate change as a significant security threat. In the meantime their Commander-In-Chief still sees climate change as a Chinese ploy and his attitude has permeated into other govt depts. This suggests to me that the Pentagon quietly takes things seriously, and is therefore their national lead, albeit under the radar.

So, whilst you are quite correct that it shouldn't fall to the MOD to take the lead, and must focus on it's 7 Military Tasks, I think there could be scope for the 'tail to wag the dog' and provide an informed view on potential, longer term, security issues relating to climate change and stimulate coherent long-term strategic planning.

Militarily it might not be a particularly sexy subject, and might even invite 'snowflake' comments, I just wondered what sort of debate (if any) was being conducted, either informally or formally - I certainly don't recall any during my involvement with JFC a couple of years ago.
Different cultures. US takes defence seriously and proactively, UK takes the principle of prep to fight the last war and defend one's career ladder far more seriously....

Any way, as any fule knoes , the answer is always heavy metal with tracks...

E2A: on a less flippant note, here is the FEMA US Mil relationship better analysed
Improving DoD Support to FEMA's All-Hazards Plans

Since most emergency planning these days derives from civil defence plans and approaches developed during Cold War, I would suggest one can't really compare Cheyenne Mountain with Corsham
 
Last edited:

Brakpier

Swinger
Different cultures. US takes defence seriously and proactively, UK takes the principle of prep to fight the last war and defend one's career ladder far more seriously....

Any way, as any fule knoes , the answer is always heavy metal with tracks...

E2A: on a less flippant note, here is the FEMA US Mil relationship better analysed
Improving DoD Support to FEMA's All-Hazards Plans

Since most emergency planning these days derives from civil defence plans and approaches developed during Cold War, I would suggest one can't really compare Cheyenne Mountain with Corsham
I share your cynicism, but heavy metal with tracks? Sounds like Cold War planning to me. ;)
 
Okay, maybe I should be more clear.
Pro word no Wah.
More tanks seems to have been the standard UK Military solution/request/silver bullet to everything in the last defence reviews.
To wit, A2020R was about getting an Armoured division out the door, albeit with 2 Brigades that were STRIKE(now a new staff buzzword to be applied to every situation. Military equivalent of Agile).

Even in the face of the apocalypse, I expect someone in Main Building to say that more tanks couldn't hurt the situation...
 
Last edited:

Latest Threads

Top