GOP Hinders Defence Planning

[Guest]

Climate change poses a threat to national security, something the Pentagon has warning of for a long time. Increasing temperatures and water levels could accelerate the flow of refugees and force strategic military relocations. Rising energy costs will strain defence budgets, oil wars could give way to water and resource wars. It is the job of the DOD to look ahead and plan for these eventualities. They have done just that but unfortunately the GOP is blocking the Pentagon from doing its job.

Republicans in congress have actually passed an amendment preventing defense officials from spending money to ready themselves for these coming problems. The Republicans claimed the Pentagon cannot adequately combat Islam if they also ready themselves for climate problems. Are these members of congress qualified to overrule the DOD on military and defence planning activities? Nope...but the GOP did it anyway. Just like it has on the gun control file, the GOP has shown it is willing to sacrifice American lives for campaign cash. Unbelievable.

As far as back as the George W. Bush administration, the Defense Department was warning that global warming posed a threat to U.S. national security, and that the military needed to be preparing accordingly.

This year it went further, laying out a new game plan that assigns specific top officials the jobs of figuring out how climate change should shape everything from weapons acquisition to personnel training.

Last week, however, House Republicans voted to block it. By a 216-205 vote Thursday, the House passed an amendment prohibiting the department from spending money to put its new plan into effect. Not a single Democrat voted for the amendment, which was attached to the defense spending bill.

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/06/republicans-trying-to-stop-pentagon-climate-plan-000149#ixzz4CSJcdpsU

[TimG]

Climate change poses a threat to national security, something the Pentagon has warning of for a long time.

The Pentagon warns of many hypothetical threats. That is not evidence that they represent a clear and present danger. The idea that "climate change" represents a clear and present data is a laughable claim that is not supported by any empirical data. The hypothetical "danger" claim comes entirely from computer models which depend entirely on the assumptions and prejudices built into the model. Edited June 24, 2016 by TimG

[Guest]

The Pentagon warns of many hypothetical threats. That is not evidence that they represent a clear and present danger. The idea that "climate change" represents a clear and present data is a laughable claim that is not supported by any empirical data. The hypothetical "danger" claim comes entirely from computer models which depend entirely on the assumptions and prejudices built into the model.

You're qualified to be a Republican! The DOD does believe that climate change will lead to problems that could impact US national security. Increasing refugee flow, rising sea levels, water and resource wars, etc. The department in charge of planning and preparing for future threats is being prevented from do so by politicians defending campaign donations. That is unbelievable.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Guest

[TimG]

The DOD does believe that climate change will lead to problems that could impact US national security.

Restating a point while continuing to ignore the context does not help. The DOD simply accepted the spurious claims that climate change is going to increase global conflict (probably because doing anything else would lead to conflict with the Obama administration). It did not go out and check if these claims had any merit in the first place. Any pronouncements on climate change by the DOD must be assessed given this context. Edited June 24, 2016 by TimG

[waldo]

Restating a point while continuing to ignore the context does not help. The DOD simply accepted the spurious claims that climate change is going to increase global conflict (probably because doing anything else would lead to conflict with the Obama administration). It did not go out and check if these claims had any merit in the first place. Any pronouncements on climate change by the DOD must be assessed given this context.

uhhh... "Restating a point while continuing to ignore the context does not help."

c'mon, you should be on board... the U.S. DoD focus is your focus - adaptation! Department of Defense (DoD) --- 2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap (CCAR)

.

[Guest]

Restating a point while continuing to ignore the context does not help. The DOD simply accepted the spurious claims that climate change is going to increase global conflict (probably because doing anything else would lead to conflict with the Obama administration). It did not go out and check if these claims had any merit in the first place. Any pronouncements on climate change by the DOD must be assessed given this context.

Moving beyond your fringe views on climate change, we have GOP members of congress who begin every sentence with "I'm not a scientist" preventing the Pentagon from planning for what it determined were national security concerns. The defence experts are being prevented from doing their job, by a party with a political agenda. This is not only laughable, but very dangerous.

[bush_cheney2004]

Moving beyond your fringe views on climate change, we have GOP members of congress who begin every sentence with "I'm not a scientist" preventing the Pentagon from planning for what it determined were national security concerns. The defence experts are being prevented from doing their job, by a party with a political agenda. This is not only laughable, but very dangerous.

Why is it dangerous ? Who do you think the "Pentagon" works for ? Why is the U.S. DoD enlisted as a white knight by desperate climate change faithful ?

Edited June 24, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

Who do you think the "Pentagon" works for ? Why is the U.S. DoD enlisted as a white knight by desperate climate change faithful ?

why... how conspiratorial of you... and you claiming to be an ex-militaryMan!

reading you dismiss the GOP actions in favour of applying your standard deflecting GW/AGW/CC denier routine is gold.

.

[TimG]

the Pentagon from planning for what it determined were national security concerns.

You can't seem to move beyond your obsession with the this so called 'determination'. Unlike you I don't simply read the headlines. I look at the underlying basis for any claim made in the headlines. Often these claims are a lot less certain than the headline suggests.

The defence experts are being prevented from doing their job.

The pentagon was ordered to come up with a 'climate change risk assessment' by an administration that is obsessed with the issue. The pentagon obliged. Now you want to claim that telling the pentagon to ignore a report that was only produced as result of political duress is some how more political that the original report. Your logic does not compute. Edited June 24, 2016 by TimG

[?Impact]

The pentagon was ordered to come up with a 'climate change risk assessment' by an administration that is obsessed with the issue.

Is this what you are talking about? Take note of the date.

[Bonam]

The Pentagon warns of many hypothetical threats. That is not evidence that they represent a clear and present danger. The idea that "climate change" represents a clear and present data is a laughable claim that is not supported by any empirical data. The hypothetical "danger" claim comes entirely from computer models which depend entirely on the assumptions and prejudices built into the model.

Something does not need to be a "clear and present" danger to be planned for and analyzed by the Pentagon. The Pentagon has plans for almost every imaginable scenario under the Sun. Specifically disallowing planning for scenarios arising from climate change seems foolish and against the philosophy of being ready for anything.

[TimG]

Is this what you are talking about? Take note of the date.

Whatever this report is, the few quote completely undermine the credibility of anyone who takes it seriously:

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020.

By 2020 you say? We are almost there and there are no signs of that happening.

My point is there are many doom mongers making claims of future impacts of climate change that range from the implausible to the absurd and it takes more than someone claiming bad things occur to justify action today.

[TimG]

Something does not need to be a "clear and present" danger to be planned for and analyzed by the Pentagon. The Pentagon has plans for almost every imaginable scenario under the Sun. Specifically disallowing planning for scenarios arising from climate change seems foolish and against the philosophy of being ready for anything.

Well the devil is in the details that often get lost in partisan posturing. The Republican position is there is not enough money to cover all hypothetical contingencies and that the military should focus on the real identified threats. To properly assess who is being in the idiot in this scenario we would have to dig into exactly what the DOD wanted to do and why the Republicans felt it was taking away from other priorities.

[jacee]

Those who deny climate change are schills for the fossil fuel industries, archaic and life-destroying industries that could not operate for profit if they actually had to pay the cost of cleaning up their mess.

.

[Guest]

Those who deny climate change are schills for the fossil fuel industries, archaic and life-destroying industries that could not operate for profit if they actually had to pay the cost of cleaning up their mess.

.

Like the NRA, those industries have a hold over the GOP. Still, I'm shocked that the party would interfere with DOD defence planning for ideological reasons and campaign donations. This is pretty low, even for a party without a rudder or a soul.

[bush_cheney2004]

Like the NRA, those industries have a hold over the GOP. Still, I'm shocked that the party would interfere with DOD defence planning for ideological reasons and campaign donations. This is pretty low, even for a party without a rudder or a soul.

Why are you "shocked" ? DoD is a different branch of government (Executive). Guess where the money comes from ?

[TimG]

Still, I'm shocked that the party would interfere with DOD defence planning for ideological reasons and campaign donations. This is pretty low, even for a party without a rudder or a soul.

Except you have no evidence that this so-called 'defense planning' is anything more than political gamesmanship directed by the current Commander in Chief. You simple jump on the story because it suits the narrative you wish to construct and do not want to look at the details lest they undermine your talking point.

The games played over the no-fly list and prohibiting gun ownership a good example of how dishonest democrats push bad legislation and misrepresent the reasons for republican objections. In the case of the gun law the republican's refused to support it because the no fly list is error prone and people get placed on it constantly who should not be on it. If presence on this no-fly list resulting in an automatic gun prohibition then law abiding citizens could lose their guns because of a bureaucratic errors (deliberate or accidental). No reasonable politician who believes that law abiding people have the right to have guns could have supported the legislation as it stood.

Edited June 25, 2016 by TimG

[Bonam]

The games played over the no-fly list and prohibiting gun ownership a good example of how dishonest democrats push bad legislation and misrepresent the reasons for republican objections. In the case of the gun law the republican's refused to support it because the no fly list is error prone and people get placed on it constantly who should not be on it. If presence on this no-fly list resulting in an automatic gun prohibition then law abiding citizens could lose their guns because of a bureaucratic errors (deliberate or accidental). No reasonable politician who believes that law abiding people have the right to have guns could have supported the legislation as it stood.

If that is the reason, then the same politicians should do something about the problems with the no fly list to begin with. Being banned from flying is a significant imposition on people's lives and is done without any due process.

[bush_cheney2004]

If that is the reason, then the same politicians should do something about the problems with the no fly list to begin with. Being banned from flying is a significant imposition on people's lives and is done without any due process.

Different topic...there is no constitutional right to fly, and there is no constitutional right to climate change action/planning by the DoD.

[TimG]

If that is the reason, then the same politicians should do something about the problems with the no fly list to begin with. Being banned from flying is a significant imposition on people's lives and is done without any due process.

The problems are well know and some progress has been made fixing the issues but issues still remain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List

The No Fly List has been variously described as Orwellian and Kafkaesque. Individuals usually do not know they have been put on the list until they attempt to board a plane. Efforts to discover the reasons for being barred from flying meet with indeterminate responses from the authorities, which would neither confirm nor deny that a name is on the List.

I can understand why a reasonable congressperson would lack faith in the ability of the TSA to ensure that innocent people are not put on the list.

The relevance for this topic is that I believe the democrats are trying to score political points when we don't really know the back story (i.e. what was the DOD trying to do that the republicans felt they needed to stop). If we had all of the information it is possible that the republican action is understandable.

Edited June 25, 2016 by TimG

[GostHacked]

Climate change poses a threat to national security, something the Pentagon has warning of for a long time. Increasing temperatures and water levels could accelerate the flow of refugees and force strategic military relocations. Rising energy costs will strain defence budgets, oil wars could give way to water and resource wars. It is the job of the DOD to look ahead and plan for these eventualities. They have done just that but unfortunately the GOP is blocking the Pentagon from doing its job.

The war on terror has generated a lot of refugees. The water wars are already underway via trade deals and economic ties with corrupt leadership and corps from all over the place.

[Guest]

The war on terror has generated a lot of refugees. The water wars are already underway via trade deals and economic ties with corrupt leadership and corps from all over the place.

Temperatures, disasters and rising water are already causing people in the US and around the world to evacuate areas and move completely. Yet, the GOP is preventing the Pentagon from enacting their plans to deal with the fallout from a national security perspective.

[TimG]

Temperatures, disasters and rising water are already causing people in the US and around the world to evacuate areas

A complete and total fantasy with no basis in fact.

[Guest]

A complete and total fantasy with no basis in fact.

5 Soloman Islands are already underwater and 6 more are about to follow suit. Houses have been swept into the sea. Right now, people have temporarily evacuated areas in the US Southwest due to wildfires and extreme temperatures.

http://www.sciencealert.com/climate-change-just-caused-five-islands-to-disappear-in-the-pacific

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/dangerous-wildfires-continue-a/58263804

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes...voluntary and mandatory evacuations for wildfires has been known to happen...even in Canada.

Many parts of the U.S. southwest are populated largely due to man made water supplies and irrigation. It is called a "desert" for a reason.