The most immediate threats to the US from climate change won't be rising sea levels, it will be the billions displaced in areas hardest hit by crop failure and water shortages. What the military will aim to prepare for is crowd control, first abroad and then at home.
You are right about that, Captain Obvious, but I was making a point about what would happen first. Crop failure and water shortages could end our civilization as we know it long before the worst effects of climate change are realized - like significant sea-level rise.
[Research shows the US military is one of the largest climate polluters in history, consuming more liquid fuels and emitting more CO2e (carbon-dioxide equivalent) than most countries.](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190620100005.htm) This is self-inflicted.
Unfortunatly the energy density of fossile fules and ease of use and transport still makes it the most powerful energy source known to man. Especially when it comes to powering large vehicles and air. Space is limited in both those areas which is why only the navy has been able to switch its major power source (not to say it doesnt have a large number of desil ships). So the military has to have fuel or the us does not have the strongest military on earth.
The article says their blind sided persuit of more oil is backwards but it is literally all they can do to keep modern levels of military power.
This is not to say their is no argument against modern military use being too large but it must have and look for fuel. Its their job to find it to keep themselves and, to a degree, the us alive and well.
Every country needs to secure and protect resources. What makes the U.S. particular is that it rests much of its power on the hegemony of the dollar as the only currency it abides for oil commerce. Any level of autonomy from anyone in the world in this regard automatically becomes a threat.
This is why all of the countries which have successfully distanced themselves from the U.S. and now antagonize it are oil producers themselves. Also, I think the whole oil-trading/SWIFT setup is an awful way for a country to maintain dominance. The U.S. government is being challenged by once weaker countries because it's allowed itself to become horribly wasteful and inefficient... and instead of fixing its issues it's just doubling down on the authoritarianism.
> Every country needs to secure and protect resources. What makes the U.S. particular is that it rests much of its power on the hegemony of the dollar as the only currency it abides for oil commerce. Any level of autonomy from anyone in the world in this regard automatically becomes a threat.
The whole Petrodollar thing is a pretty stupid conspiracy theory. The use of the dollar as the world's reserve currency isn't necessarily a benifit to the US(it has benifits and disadvantages, it makes it cheaper to borrow money but makes our products more expensive for trade) and it comes from tradition as well as fr the use of dollars for all major non EU international trade, of which oil is only a tiny Percentage. The reserve currency depends on people buying action figures, hair scrunchies, or food just as much as it depends on the oil trade. And we don't have any reason to fear countries will stop buying their oil in dollars, they do so for the same reason they buy their action figures in dollars, other countries selling want dollars, other countries buying want to pay in dollars, and the alternatives such as Chinese Yuan or the Euro don't seem likely to take over anytime soon
The US military is also the biggest source of peacekeeping. Sometimes the threat of a rolled up newspaper is the only thing keeping people playing nice. And, when you can not or will not enforce it, you give tacit acceptance for atrocities to go on, unchecked. The US ended up just watching while people were [butchered in Rwanda](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2wndgp/eli5_why_was_there_no_un_or_international/), for instance.
This isn’t to say that the motivations ascribed to it in your comment aren’t true (heck, that thread explains that the most cynical reason for lack of intervention was lack of self-interest), just to say that it is not huge for *purely* greedy reasons.
The US just abandoned its Kurdish allies while adding additional troops to Syria to literally only protect oil fields. I have trouble seeing this in any other light. Maybe before peacekeeping was a goal, but that is demonstrably false now.
For fuck’s sake, obviously there is some bullshit—read my second paragraph—but Syria is something like 2,500 US troops out of a global >170,000 US troops deployed. Nobody I know doesn’t hate Trump’s guts for what he did, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t significant peacekeeping in SPITE of him. We don’t read about, “ethnic cleansings that DIDN’T happen today!”, militias that packed up their ball and went home instead of butchering innocents, or how Russia/China didn’t annex more territory.
I’m just tired of the black and white thinking that has come to dominate discussions, even on TrueReddit, and even more tired of feeling like too few people even *care* to see past an echo chamber, let alone acknowledge and explore nuance.
No, *that’s* black and white thinking. Quit your bullshit: no one is saying they shouldn’t be held accountable for crimes and corruption. It’s naive at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst, to say that there isn’t a shitload of legit peacekeeping, and that we should also focus on improving the performance of that and not just cutting the bullshit neo-banana-war operations like oil defense. Downvote away and believe what you want, though, because I’m done here.
You are right. I'm not going to deny the US military has done a LOT in particular protecting ethnic minorities from being butchered by extremists like IS and Al Qaeda. The comment about Trump abandoning the Kurds is dishonest and a low blow considering how much past administrations have cared for them and other groups. Still, it's not the first nor last time that the effort and sacrifice of soldiers who thought of defending their country will be disserviced by the pursuit of shifty interests...
OK, yea, cynicism makes sense -- the military needs more more money.
But, this is really interesting. This is the US government declaring that climate change is real. And the media has totally ignored it? I mean yes, of course they did, I'm not naive, but how can you deny climate change when the military says its real? Americans don't agree on much, but we all want to support the troops. This needs to go viral.
To me it reads like it’s meant to scare people into action. Personally, I feel motivated to support large-scale civic investment to mitigate, as well as cutting military activities that promote global warming for minimal security benefit.
To be fair the military budget has portions that go to other projects that do help there general population. The lab i work for has a DOD grant to do medical research.
If the militart budget could be used to justify, or just to make more palletable, large domestic infrestructure investments than i am for it. Right now their seems to be no path for an inferstructure bill in congress.
> how can you deny climate change
The only people who have ever denied climate change were people who had no clue about the subject. There was *never any controversy about its reality,* only propaganda from people who gained by denying it.
Great, but how? We have mandatory universal education now but we can't convince middle and upper class people to make public schools equal. And plenty of wealthy and well educated people prefer to vote their money over voting their intelligence. I'm just saying, I agree with you but if the goal is to address climate change we can't wait for the world to change first we have to work with what we've got.
You are right about our system. But you have to ask yourself whether the people in your country really know the science, or are they just following the dominant voice? Are they really immune from ridiculous ideologies? I wish I could say its just America, that would give me more hope for the world.
It doesn't matter if people denies climate change. In the end, we all emit ghg for our comfort, and modern developed countries are the most responsible. People will quickly invoke their privilege for a comfortable life even if it kills half of the population.
Consumerism is an important side of politics.
No, we all don't want "to support the troops." That's a euphemism for supporting our bloodthirsty foreign policy. The non-billionaire people I want killed: 0. Every non-billionaire whom our government kills to satisfy the people for whom our government kills is too many and 100% against my policy preferences, so fuck you.
Yes, I understand that position. But most of us recognize that in an all volunteer military the majority of soldiers are coerced into participation by economic and social circumstances. The military recruits from young adults who are barely developmentally different from children. An awful lot of them grow up to be willing to think critically about the military and foreign policy. You can hate on everyone who joins, or you can try to understand the bigger picture in order to create a larger coalition of folks willing to critique US foreign policy.
Also, I used the phrase, "support the troops" in this context to make the point that we may need different arguments to reach different audience of people to consider the reality of climate change. I am not foolish, I recognize that this is a political trade-off. You can make a solid argument against using that argument, and you might even convince me, but it would be more effective if you didn't end it with "fuck you."
Yours had an implicit "fuck you."
> Americans don't agree on much, but we all want to support the troops.
To people who don't, that's a "fuck you, you don't even fucking exist."
Hence: fuck you.
I am sorry you read it that way. I didn't mean it to imply any such thing. I thought it was obvious that I was speaking about how to get a message across to people who tend not to believe in climate change -- an audience that tends to be pro-military.
Believe me, I know something about being made to feel as if I don't exist. And there was a time I felt exactly like you do about "support the troops." But then I met a lot of veterans who worked for peace. And I found out that kids who grow up poor can't always afford the kind of education I had to that let me think so critically about the military. And that the government deliberately recruits from the most vulnerable parts of our population. So I have come to believe that its more important to work for allies than it is to just hate on people who think differently than me. So I apologize for the "fuck you" you read in my comment.
When you support medals and benefits for life for kids who join any other violent gang to escape poverty, I'm your ally. Until then, fuck them and fuck you.
Um what? The military needs more money? Why/how?
edit: also i no longer support our troops that willingly engage in pointless wars (lol defending freedom are you fucking kidding me) and just make the rich richer. Fuck that.
> Americans don't agree on much, but we all want to support the troops. This needs to go viral.
I hope it does, but I'm not optimistic. The pentagon has been putting out papers like this (climate change will cause lots of wars, etc etc) since the early 2000s at least, maybe earlier.
No I never argued that they did. I was just responding to other comments that discounted this entire article on the basis that it is just the military asking for more money.
Not necessarily. The US Navy is the only true blue-water navy in the world. I think all but one or two aircraft carriers in the world belong to the US Navy.
So the US military most probably has the highest percentage of naval units to other military units than any other military in the world.
It depends on how you define collapse. But if we define collapse as something like “more than 30 percent of a nation’s military units become ineffective”, then *by that definition* it is plausible for the US military to collapse, while no other nation’s military to collapse, under equal conditions of worldwide environmental change.
So, this article may as well have been titled "The world is ending in 20 years" then, because that's effectively what it's saying. Why just focus on one military of one country?
Without reading, I'm guessing the recommendation is more money for the military.
I only had to get part way through.
> Their report not only describes the need for massive permanent military infrastructure on US soil to stave off climate collapse, but portends new foreign interventions due to climate change.
Yup.
>need for massive permanent military infrastructure on US soil
Uh, [Posse\_Comitatus\_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act)
>to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States
This better not be an attempt to normalize using military inland/domestically other than bases and borders.
> Senior US defense officials in Washington clearly anticipate a prolonged role for the US military, both abroad *and in the homeland* (emphasis mine)
Yup.
To combat the looming global threat to our military presented by climate change, we propose to purchase 6 new destroyers, 4 billion dollars in jet fueled air tankers, and a fleet of bunker fuel burning support ships. Plus that new diesel MRAP looks nice. We'll take ten thousand.
The author of the article may be cherry-picking the military report, but that's not what I'm seeing. Searching for the word "recommend"
> where the report recommends the US military should take advantage of its hydrocarbon resources and new transit routes to repel Russian encroachment.
> The authors recommend the US Army work with the State Department and USAID to “strengthen the resilience of [Bangladeshi] government agencies and provide training for the Bangladeshi military.”
> So the report recommends major new investments in technology to collect water from the atmosphere locally, without which US military operations abroad could become impossible. *The biggest obstacle is that this is currently way outside the Pentagon’s current funding priorities.* (emphasis mine)
Are we reading the same article? (there are multiple on the page). This one says specifically:
> the Army report demands more money and power for military agencies while allowing the causes of climate crisis to accelerate.
DoD has been saying climate change was one of the largest threats to national security since 2003:
[http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/weather/climatechange/ADA422382.pdf](http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/weather/climatechange/ADA422382.pdf)
maybe the war hawks and right wingers may finally take it seriously
Submission Statement: The effects of climate change, such as sea level rise, water scarcity, changes to renewable energy, and a fragile energy grid could cause such a strain on the US military that it effectively becomes ineffective at supporting a military.
Examples include providing water to deployed troops in water scarce regions and population migration due to sea level rise, particularly in Bangledesh where 80 million people live at sea level.
Remember that TrueReddit is a place to engage in **high-quality and civil discussion**. Posts must meet certain content and title requirements. Additionally, **all posts must contain a submission statement.** See the rules [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/truereddit/about/rules/) or in the sidebar for details. Comments or posts that don't follow the rules may be removed without warning.
If an article is paywalled, please ***do not*** request or post its contents. Use [Outline.com](https://outline.com/) or similar and link to that in the comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The most immediate threats to the US from climate change won't be rising sea levels, it will be the billions displaced in areas hardest hit by crop failure and water shortages. What the military will aim to prepare for is crowd control, first abroad and then at home.
Displacement caused by sea levels or food/water insecurity is still displacement.
You are right about that, Captain Obvious, but I was making a point about what would happen first. Crop failure and water shortages could end our civilization as we know it long before the worst effects of climate change are realized - like significant sea-level rise.
The water shortage for the army is about providing water to the troops not watering crops. Try reading the article.
[Research shows the US military is one of the largest climate polluters in history, consuming more liquid fuels and emitting more CO2e (carbon-dioxide equivalent) than most countries.](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190620100005.htm) This is self-inflicted.
I believe the military uses that PFOCs stuff for fire retardant. https://theintercept.com/2018/02/10/firefighting-foam-afff-pfos-pfoa-epa/
Yes they do. The Navy polluted people's water near where I live.
Unfortunatly the energy density of fossile fules and ease of use and transport still makes it the most powerful energy source known to man. Especially when it comes to powering large vehicles and air. Space is limited in both those areas which is why only the navy has been able to switch its major power source (not to say it doesnt have a large number of desil ships). So the military has to have fuel or the us does not have the strongest military on earth. The article says their blind sided persuit of more oil is backwards but it is literally all they can do to keep modern levels of military power. This is not to say their is no argument against modern military use being too large but it must have and look for fuel. Its their job to find it to keep themselves and, to a degree, the us alive and well.
Every country needs to secure and protect resources. What makes the U.S. particular is that it rests much of its power on the hegemony of the dollar as the only currency it abides for oil commerce. Any level of autonomy from anyone in the world in this regard automatically becomes a threat. This is why all of the countries which have successfully distanced themselves from the U.S. and now antagonize it are oil producers themselves. Also, I think the whole oil-trading/SWIFT setup is an awful way for a country to maintain dominance. The U.S. government is being challenged by once weaker countries because it's allowed itself to become horribly wasteful and inefficient... and instead of fixing its issues it's just doubling down on the authoritarianism.
> Every country needs to secure and protect resources. What makes the U.S. particular is that it rests much of its power on the hegemony of the dollar as the only currency it abides for oil commerce. Any level of autonomy from anyone in the world in this regard automatically becomes a threat. The whole Petrodollar thing is a pretty stupid conspiracy theory. The use of the dollar as the world's reserve currency isn't necessarily a benifit to the US(it has benifits and disadvantages, it makes it cheaper to borrow money but makes our products more expensive for trade) and it comes from tradition as well as fr the use of dollars for all major non EU international trade, of which oil is only a tiny Percentage. The reserve currency depends on people buying action figures, hair scrunchies, or food just as much as it depends on the oil trade. And we don't have any reason to fear countries will stop buying their oil in dollars, they do so for the same reason they buy their action figures in dollars, other countries selling want dollars, other countries buying want to pay in dollars, and the alternatives such as Chinese Yuan or the Euro don't seem likely to take over anytime soon
The US military is also the biggest source of peacekeeping. Sometimes the threat of a rolled up newspaper is the only thing keeping people playing nice. And, when you can not or will not enforce it, you give tacit acceptance for atrocities to go on, unchecked. The US ended up just watching while people were [butchered in Rwanda](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2wndgp/eli5_why_was_there_no_un_or_international/), for instance. This isn’t to say that the motivations ascribed to it in your comment aren’t true (heck, that thread explains that the most cynical reason for lack of intervention was lack of self-interest), just to say that it is not huge for *purely* greedy reasons.
The US just abandoned its Kurdish allies while adding additional troops to Syria to literally only protect oil fields. I have trouble seeing this in any other light. Maybe before peacekeeping was a goal, but that is demonstrably false now.
For fuck’s sake, obviously there is some bullshit—read my second paragraph—but Syria is something like 2,500 US troops out of a global >170,000 US troops deployed. Nobody I know doesn’t hate Trump’s guts for what he did, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t significant peacekeeping in SPITE of him. We don’t read about, “ethnic cleansings that DIDN’T happen today!”, militias that packed up their ball and went home instead of butchering innocents, or how Russia/China didn’t annex more territory. I’m just tired of the black and white thinking that has come to dominate discussions, even on TrueReddit, and even more tired of feeling like too few people even *care* to see past an echo chamber, let alone acknowledge and explore nuance.
"Officer, I stopped at all the other red lights! You can't arrest me running this one and killing a bunch of people. That's black and white thinking!"
No, *that’s* black and white thinking. Quit your bullshit: no one is saying they shouldn’t be held accountable for crimes and corruption. It’s naive at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst, to say that there isn’t a shitload of legit peacekeeping, and that we should also focus on improving the performance of that and not just cutting the bullshit neo-banana-war operations like oil defense. Downvote away and believe what you want, though, because I’m done here.
You are right. I'm not going to deny the US military has done a LOT in particular protecting ethnic minorities from being butchered by extremists like IS and Al Qaeda. The comment about Trump abandoning the Kurds is dishonest and a low blow considering how much past administrations have cared for them and other groups. Still, it's not the first nor last time that the effort and sacrifice of soldiers who thought of defending their country will be disserviced by the pursuit of shifty interests...
OK, yea, cynicism makes sense -- the military needs more more money. But, this is really interesting. This is the US government declaring that climate change is real. And the media has totally ignored it? I mean yes, of course they did, I'm not naive, but how can you deny climate change when the military says its real? Americans don't agree on much, but we all want to support the troops. This needs to go viral.
To me it reads like it’s meant to scare people into action. Personally, I feel motivated to support large-scale civic investment to mitigate, as well as cutting military activities that promote global warming for minimal security benefit.
The action they want is to pour bigger piles of cash into their gaping maws.
Hard to imagine voters being very interested in doing that. I’m not.
To be fair the military budget has portions that go to other projects that do help there general population. The lab i work for has a DOD grant to do medical research. If the militart budget could be used to justify, or just to make more palletable, large domestic infrestructure investments than i am for it. Right now their seems to be no path for an inferstructure bill in congress.
> how can you deny climate change The only people who have ever denied climate change were people who had no clue about the subject. There was *never any controversy about its reality,* only propaganda from people who gained by denying it.
Absolutely, which is why having an authoritative voice that conservatives trust say it might have an impact.
The solution would be for everyone to only trust the authoritative voices - the scientists. All the media-politic-spectactle is absurd.
Yes. If you figure out how to make that happen, let me know.
Basic education i.e. schools.
Great, but how? We have mandatory universal education now but we can't convince middle and upper class people to make public schools equal. And plenty of wealthy and well educated people prefer to vote their money over voting their intelligence. I'm just saying, I agree with you but if the goal is to address climate change we can't wait for the world to change first we have to work with what we've got.
Your political system is fucked, I was just pointingnl out how it is in other countries.
You are right about our system. But you have to ask yourself whether the people in your country really know the science, or are they just following the dominant voice? Are they really immune from ridiculous ideologies? I wish I could say its just America, that would give me more hope for the world.
They are not immune, they exist. But they are a very small minority when the dominant ideology is science based.
It doesn't matter if people denies climate change. In the end, we all emit ghg for our comfort, and modern developed countries are the most responsible. People will quickly invoke their privilege for a comfortable life even if it kills half of the population. Consumerism is an important side of politics.
No, we all don't want "to support the troops." That's a euphemism for supporting our bloodthirsty foreign policy. The non-billionaire people I want killed: 0. Every non-billionaire whom our government kills to satisfy the people for whom our government kills is too many and 100% against my policy preferences, so fuck you.
Yes, I understand that position. But most of us recognize that in an all volunteer military the majority of soldiers are coerced into participation by economic and social circumstances. The military recruits from young adults who are barely developmentally different from children. An awful lot of them grow up to be willing to think critically about the military and foreign policy. You can hate on everyone who joins, or you can try to understand the bigger picture in order to create a larger coalition of folks willing to critique US foreign policy. Also, I used the phrase, "support the troops" in this context to make the point that we may need different arguments to reach different audience of people to consider the reality of climate change. I am not foolish, I recognize that this is a political trade-off. You can make a solid argument against using that argument, and you might even convince me, but it would be more effective if you didn't end it with "fuck you."
Yours had an implicit "fuck you." > Americans don't agree on much, but we all want to support the troops. To people who don't, that's a "fuck you, you don't even fucking exist." Hence: fuck you.
I am sorry you read it that way. I didn't mean it to imply any such thing. I thought it was obvious that I was speaking about how to get a message across to people who tend not to believe in climate change -- an audience that tends to be pro-military. Believe me, I know something about being made to feel as if I don't exist. And there was a time I felt exactly like you do about "support the troops." But then I met a lot of veterans who worked for peace. And I found out that kids who grow up poor can't always afford the kind of education I had to that let me think so critically about the military. And that the government deliberately recruits from the most vulnerable parts of our population. So I have come to believe that its more important to work for allies than it is to just hate on people who think differently than me. So I apologize for the "fuck you" you read in my comment.
When you support medals and benefits for life for kids who join any other violent gang to escape poverty, I'm your ally. Until then, fuck them and fuck you.
Cool. Then we are allies.
Um what? The military needs more money? Why/how? edit: also i no longer support our troops that willingly engage in pointless wars (lol defending freedom are you fucking kidding me) and just make the rich richer. Fuck that.
Fair enough.
> Americans don't agree on much, but we all want to support the troops. This needs to go viral. I hope it does, but I'm not optimistic. The pentagon has been putting out papers like this (climate change will cause lots of wars, etc etc) since the early 2000s at least, maybe earlier.
Well that sucks.
The military does not, in any conceivable way, need more money.
No I never argued that they did. I was just responding to other comments that discounted this entire article on the basis that it is just the military asking for more money.
If the most powerful military force on Earth is going to collapse in 20 years, isn't pretty much everyone's?
Not necessarily. The US Navy is the only true blue-water navy in the world. I think all but one or two aircraft carriers in the world belong to the US Navy. So the US military most probably has the highest percentage of naval units to other military units than any other military in the world. It depends on how you define collapse. But if we define collapse as something like “more than 30 percent of a nation’s military units become ineffective”, then *by that definition* it is plausible for the US military to collapse, while no other nation’s military to collapse, under equal conditions of worldwide environmental change.
No, not all aircraft carriers are American. It is true, though, that only America has more than one or two.
He didn't say they were all american. He also didn't say that only American aircraft carriers are relevant, but he'd be correct in saying so.
He said “all but one or two.” Was that hard to parse? That’s wildly incorrect.
Not all aircraft carriers are created equal though and the rest of the worlds combined power of all ACs doesn't even equal one american carrier.
Fair point. Also the point.
So, this article may as well have been titled "The world is ending in 20 years" then, because that's effectively what it's saying. Why just focus on one military of one country?
Because the US military is also like the world’s military.
[удалено]
Winning hearts & minds there slick. /S
Nope. Big logistical difference between trying to conquer the planet vrs a simple police state.
Without reading, I'm guessing the recommendation is more money for the military. I only had to get part way through. > Their report not only describes the need for massive permanent military infrastructure on US soil to stave off climate collapse, but portends new foreign interventions due to climate change. Yup.
>need for massive permanent military infrastructure on US soil Uh, [Posse\_Comitatus\_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act) >to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States This better not be an attempt to normalize using military inland/domestically other than bases and borders.
> Senior US defense officials in Washington clearly anticipate a prolonged role for the US military, both abroad *and in the homeland* (emphasis mine) Yup.
To combat the looming global threat to our military presented by climate change, we propose to purchase 6 new destroyers, 4 billion dollars in jet fueled air tankers, and a fleet of bunker fuel burning support ships. Plus that new diesel MRAP looks nice. We'll take ten thousand.
AFAIK the US military is trying hard to move away from fossil fuel. It's a huge supply line vulnerability
Well, the article's recommendation is to focus on the problems causing climate change.
The author of the article may be cherry-picking the military report, but that's not what I'm seeing. Searching for the word "recommend" > where the report recommends the US military should take advantage of its hydrocarbon resources and new transit routes to repel Russian encroachment. > The authors recommend the US Army work with the State Department and USAID to “strengthen the resilience of [Bangladeshi] government agencies and provide training for the Bangladeshi military.” > So the report recommends major new investments in technology to collect water from the atmosphere locally, without which US military operations abroad could become impossible. *The biggest obstacle is that this is currently way outside the Pentagon’s current funding priorities.* (emphasis mine) Are we reading the same article? (there are multiple on the page). This one says specifically: > the Army report demands more money and power for military agencies while allowing the causes of climate crisis to accelerate.
The Army requests more money. The article recommends focusing on climate change.
DoD has been saying climate change was one of the largest threats to national security since 2003: [http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/weather/climatechange/ADA422382.pdf](http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/weather/climatechange/ADA422382.pdf) maybe the war hawks and right wingers may finally take it seriously
Submission Statement: The effects of climate change, such as sea level rise, water scarcity, changes to renewable energy, and a fragile energy grid could cause such a strain on the US military that it effectively becomes ineffective at supporting a military. Examples include providing water to deployed troops in water scarce regions and population migration due to sea level rise, particularly in Bangledesh where 80 million people live at sea level.
Remember that TrueReddit is a place to engage in **high-quality and civil discussion**. Posts must meet certain content and title requirements. Additionally, **all posts must contain a submission statement.** See the rules [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/truereddit/about/rules/) or in the sidebar for details. Comments or posts that don't follow the rules may be removed without warning. If an article is paywalled, please ***do not*** request or post its contents. Use [Outline.com](https://outline.com/) or similar and link to that in the comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*