Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Having failed to break the US political deadlock, greens are now looking to the US military to intervene in domestic politics, to save us all from the carbon demon.
The Only Force That Can Beat Climate Change Is the U.S. Army
America’s military is the only institution that can break the partisan deadlock on the worst threat the nation faces.
BY ANATOL LIEVEN | JANUARY 9, 2018, 12:45 PM
The precise extent of human-induced climate change is unclear, but the basic science is unequivocal, as is the danger it poses to the United States. This threat comes from the direct impact of climate change on agricultural production and sea levels but equally importantly from the huge waves of migration that climate change is likely to cause, on a scale that even the world’s richest states and societies will be unable either to prevent or accommodate.
…
This is because the most promising avenue to convince conservative American voters and to generate genuinely serious action in the United States against climate change would be to firmly establish the link between global warming and critical issues of national security. The threat should be obvious, but even before Donald Trump took office, the security elites in the United States and other major countries had not yet really integrated it into their thinking. Thus the vast majority of reporting and analysis of security issues in the Persian Gulf relates to classical security threats: the future of the Iran nuclear deal, the geopolitical and religious rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the Saudi-led boycott of Qatar, and so on.
…
But the case for a security role is a vital one. Only security establishments and national militaries have the capacity to mobilize resources on the scale required. Only they can make the link between the threat of climate change and patriotic duty and convince ordinary voters that the sacrifices required are necessary for the future safety of their countries.
Integrating security into this debate would also bring with it a better understanding of how to address the risks involved. Climate change deniers such as the Heartland Institute are apt to call for absolute scientific certainty about climate change — a guarantee that any action will come far too late. On the other hand, some activists falsely assert absolute certainty about detailed future impacts — a certainty that simply cannot be justified scientifically.
…
One of the impediments until now to approaching this issue rationally has been that the issue of climate change has become miserably entwined with the cultural-political divide now splitting American society. In recent years, all too many conservative Americans have begun to deny climate change not on the basis of evidence or debate but because their cultural allegiance rules it out. “We aren’t the kind of people who believe in climate change.”
This is where the role of the U.S. military is so crucial. It is the one American institution that retains the confidence and respect of the great majority of Americans from both political parties. It is also an institution whose culture depends on a sober and realistic appreciation of threats and which can talk to conservative patriotic Americans with conviction and in a style they can understand. No “citizen of the world” will ever persuade a Republican voter to vote against his or her immediate interests. A U.S. soldier talking about threats to America would have no problem doing so.
…
The internal divisions in U.S. society and politics concerning climate change are obviously serious barriers to the security establishment’s playing a bigger role — as witnessed by the Trump administration’s NSS.
However, the sheer scale of the threat to the security of the country means that the U.S. military has an institutional and patriotic duty to instruct Americans concerning this threat, just as it has influenced them in the past on other threats falling within the military’s sphere of competence. Incidentally, this also involves education on the likely security consequences of mass migration, a subject on which liberals are as irrational in their way as conservatives are concerning climate change.
…
The second relates to the role of patriotism and nationalism in America. At present, climate change has been turned — quite unnecessarily — into an issue that divides Americans rather than unites themAt present, climate change has been turned — quite unnecessarily — into an issue that divides Americans rather than unites them. Nationalism is the only force in the United States and elsewhere that can motivate the masses to make sacrifices in the struggle against climate change not on behalf of abstract ideas of planetary responsibility but on behalf of a commitment to the future of their countries. This involvement of patriotism is vital, both because the economic sacrifices required will indeed be very considerable and because they will have to be made by present generations on behalf of future ones.
The military can play a key part in mobilizing these feelings and turning this struggle into one that unites Americans and reduces the divisions and hatred that are beginning to pose a threat not only to the working of the U.S. political system but even the long-term survival of U.S. democracy. Without this engagement, successful action against climate change will be impossible, and the consequences for the United States and the world will be disastrous.
Read more: http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/09/the-only-force-that-can-beat-climate-change-is-the-u-s-army/
I suggest one of the main reasons the US military enjoys the respect and support of the US people is because of the long upheld US military tradition of serving the Constitution rather than any particular political cause, a tradition of NOT intervening unnecessarily in US domestic politics.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
With sentenses like the war against climate or the war for the climate, this is a normal development.
Who is better to war than the military?
Lets nuke the climate.
Forget all about our real enemies – let us concentrate on imaginary ones.
Yea, little old ladies and men are interfering with commerce by crossing the street too slowly or taking too much time at the checkout counters…
Please understand my sarcasm.
This militarized green horse crap needs to stop and treason charges levied.
Based on the author’s own definition of the problem, the solution is to completely suspend legal immigration into the US, just as it was between the years 1924 and 1965.
Oh, and they can do the same to illegal immigration, too! And if any of those illegals go home for a visit, they’re not welcome back. Ever!
All it would take is the Trump Wall, which would soon be known as the Democratic Wailing Wall. We might need a South and a North version, but fences make for great neighbors.
With the immigration problem solved and the Democrats in decline, it will be a lot easier to make America Great Again!
What I call the “CO2 ghost”
“The Only Force That Can Beat Climate Change Is the U.S. Army”
Perhaps the Greenblob wants to invade China???
The Green Mob has been predicting that massive waves of climate refugees are just around the corner for 30 years now.
They have yet to find their first climate refugee.
+1. You are 100% correct. Here is a short video which shows the HYPOCRISY of America’s REAL ENEMIES. EVERY AMERICAN needs to watch this video.
The plan…
If you are thinking of clicking in that video, don’t bother. Mods?
Like Don Quixote – only he was AGAINST windmills!!
When the heck was Europe ever a monolithic society?????
Europe has a monolithic, unelected ruling class.
The ‘Greens’ are indeed ‘Watermelons’ – green on the outside but Red on the inside.
Only fascistic Big State control freaks dream of using the military to ‘re-educate’ the population with their political agenda.
Use of the military against the civilians is unacceptable. The Greens need to back off the fascism right now.
It sounds like they are inciting mutiny to me. Isn’t that an act of treason?
Just imagine if Hillary had won.
The U.S. military is not an independent organization. It only moves when its leader tells it to move. If the author wants to get the U.S. military involved he will have to convince Trump to get involved.
The author shouldn’t hold his breath waiting on Trump to declare human-caused CO2 a national security issue.
They are asking for a military coup d’état, a mutiny. Violent overthrow of our government. What are the current laws on sedition?
The greens should be careful about this kind of manuever. Too much tree hugging and hemp. Never know how someone irritated might attach them to the former with the latter.
It would also be in violation of the COTUS, ……. a fact that would make little to no difference to the Obama-Pelosi-Schumer et el Democrat lefty liberals.
Should we point out that the military cannot be used against the people? It’s that little thing we call the CONSTITUTION. We now know the limits of this thinking.
I’m a former member of the United States Air Force and the son of another one and the grandson of an army man. you’ll be all swore contain the phrase to protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Therefore if one were to consider climate deniers which I might add includes me my father and my grandfather but to include them as enemies of the Constitution, then military could be used against such people. As far as I know according to the paperwork that I signed as I recall now more than 20 years ago, what language was very clear and very specific. obviously the intent was any form of rebellion IE the Civil War the Whiskey Rebellion excetera. None the less there is a legal case for the military to be used against Americans. and again in our early history there was a rebellion of some kind starting with the Whiskey Rebellion every 10 years or so up until more or less the Civil War and the military was used in every case
An Englishman called Samuel Johnson once said “patriotism is the last resort of a scoundrel”. Does this qualify?
I think the Constitution designated all enemies, “foreign and domestic”.
It sounds like the domestic variety are those that would round up free-thinking, scientifically aware people.
These Green blokes aren’t worth salvaging.
Ruby Ridge, Wounded Knee (1&2), Waco, Kent State, Trail of Tears, and the list goes on…
“Mike January 13, 2018 at 9:07 pm
I’m a former member of the United States Air Force and the son of another one and the grandson of an army man. you’ll be all swore contain the phrase to protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Therefore if one were to consider climate deniers which I might add includes me my father and my grandfather but to include them as enemies of the Constitution, then military could be used against such people. As far as I know according to the paperwork that I signed as I recall now more than 20 years ago, what language was very clear and very specific. obviously the intent was any form of rebellion IE the Civil War the Whiskey Rebellion excetera. None the less there is a legal case for the military to be used against Americans. and again in our early history there was a rebellion of some kind starting with the Whiskey Rebellion every 10 years or so up until more or less the Civil War and the military was used in every case”
So “climate deniers” would be defined as “the enemy” under what provision of the Constitution? The “climate deniers” are, after all, citizens subject to the protections and provisions of the Constitution.
There is also this little thing called the Posse Comitatus Act
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1385
And the first thing the military would do is confiscate your weapons.
https://youtu.be/kf8trl69kzo
Need I quote Charleston Heston, Robert?
Unfortunately, Posse Comitatus was abolished by the ‘Patriot’ Act.
I’m pretty sure that posse-comitatus is just a law. (my latin is weak so I’m sure the spelling is messed up.)
I’m pretty sure you who have doubt’s about what I wrote did not bother to look at the link provided with it that showed posse comitatus is part of the US code.
US Army General James ‘Canute’ Hansen said
“We shall fight it on the beaches, we shall fight it in the UHI streets, we shall fight it at the poles and in the glaciated valleys, we shall fight it, with growing strength and confidence, in the troposphere, we shall fight it on social media, and on the news. We shall defend our climate models at any cost, we shall never surrender”
A nation’s military are there to safeguard the nation’s people and their constitutional rights. Apparently environmentalists see things differently. They would cancel democracy, free speech, economic growth, and almost any other personal freedom, while invoking marshal law to support their pet fantasy of preventing human caused global warming even in the absence of any conclusive proof it is a threat. It is important for voters to understand this mind set and ensure it does not gain traction. People should read or re-read 1984 by George Orwell if they want to understand the risks of letting this type of thinking turn into policy. Similarly a read of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged which outlines her view of the erosive impact of this type of thinking that she saw first hand during the Soviet years might be educational.
“Nationalism is the only force in the United States and elsewhere that can motivate the masses to make sacrifices in the struggle against climate change”
The military is the only organization that can invoke Nationalism to benefit Internationalism to the detriment of the country’s right to self-rule?
Not their mission and anyone that ever served would know that. And the very ones complaining about division within our society are those that are loyal to the bunch that admitted that they were dumping the interests of their traditional constituency of blue collar middle class for “identity politics”. Hard to fit anymore pure unadulterated BS in an article than the one above.
RAH you’ll love this one then…..what happens when the gov and military talk over
China banned coal in an attempt to look better environmentally…now a 1/2 million Chinese are freezing
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2018/01/13/chinas-ice-boy-photo-leads-to-thousands-of-donations-after-frozen-trek-to-school/
1)Anyone who grew up in the central plains would call BS to this photo and story. When you freeze your face it goes a waxy grey not red. Indeed it was polite protocol in Winnipeg to tell a stranger he had a a frozen patch on his cheek or ear or nose!
2) The way the kid is dressed is wrong for such bitter weather. Even if you were poor there are rags or shawls you could bundle a kid up with.
3) 10 tons of coal in your living room wouldn’t protect a poorly dressed child on a long walk like this.
We have to guard ourselves against fake news that even supports scepticism more than anything the marxbrothers can dream up.
Gary Pearse
The image is from Yunnan province. This area normally has a subtropical climate. The temperature the coldest month in the provincial capitol Kunming is about the same as in San Francisco. Poor peple almost certainly don’t have any warm clothing.
Gary Pearse: His cheeks are not frozen—they are chapped, according to the article. I have seen hair freeze just as the boy’s did. He had no warm clothing. It was reported he had an unemployed father, who may have been at home. Many of these kids are literally home alone—their parents go to the cities to look for work. It’s interesting that you would think this is Fake News. The only thing it did was get warm coats for the kids and the world to realize China may not be a Utopia, as advertised.
Sheri: you are right about this boy having chapped cheeks and frost in his hair, but that was Garys point. That isn’t the same as being ‘frozen’. He doesn’t appear to have frostbite, which is what Gary described. What this boy and 10’s of thousands like him need are better winter clothing and care, which it sounds like in this one case have been actually provided. What he doesn’t really need are shiploads of coal, which would probably end up going to factories and the powerplants that supply them, not to heating the homes of poor people.
Of course, if more factories are operating and more people had good paying jobs, they could afford to buy proper winter clothing for their children.
~¿~
The highest incidence of death from cold in Australia is in Queensland – our Florida. They just aren’t prepared for the occasional cold blast.
Essentially martial law. God help us if they ever get a majority again.
Is there a time and a place at which this ever-escalating insanity will reach as high as it can go? Sheesh-a-mighty. Here I sit in the Southern U. S. with the temperature outside my house at 16 degrees F. this morning. But it is January and at least in my lifetime, January has always meant cold weather…..And, right on cue, cold has arrived. And nothing is changing as I perceive it. So, warm me up, buttercup.
Is the major part of the problem the fact that human beings are emotionally spring-loaded to be biased toward being easy to panic, have fear and worry even when there is no real cause for panic, fear, and worry. Do we first have to be unhappy before we’re able to feel happy? Heck, if you are willing to ignore enough truth and reality, believing that the world will end when the sun goes down…..or comes up…..can be made a believable hypothesis in which you can wallow to soothe your misery.
They always need something to be worked up about…and for some reason (God only knows) they want something we can do absolutely nothing about. If they want to change something, there are plenty of other issues they really could be making a difference on. *SMH*
“They always need something to be worked up about…and for some reason (God only knows) they want something we can do absolutely nothing about.”
I’m not God but I’ll take a shot at an answer:
Without a crisis of some sort somewhere in society who needs Progressivism? If no one needed Progressives, how would they get elected? If they couldn’t get elected, how would they use their position in government to gather for themselves power and wealth?
Appeal to Authority
Greg
That is the Biggest Appeal To The Biggest Authority…EVAH..
I read it as if they want a military dictatorship so long as it pushes their green agenda.
The left has always loved authoritarians. It’s the only way they can force the people to accept their agenda.
Auther Anatol Lieven is a Brit based at Kings College, London. He obviously does not know much about the Constitution, or about the long traditions of the US military. Nor that it is not only conservatives that doubt CAGW and respect the military. US is about 1/3 independents and libertarians, who are not traditional conservatives in the US sense. The converse is, however, generally true: Progressives like Obama and Kerry back warmunism because it furthers their political goals. Most uni professors are progressives (think Naomi Oreskes),and they back because that is where their grants are buttered.
Rud, I think it’s this guy….might be the same one
https://www.qatar.georgetown.edu/profile/anatol-lieven
Thats him. Must have got ridden out of Kings College by extremeist views?
The problem I see is the ease with which this militaristic garbage was printed in “foreign policy”. That outfit is the mouth piece for the deep state and the neocons who guide USA foreign policy. The us already has a serious problem with too much militarism and excessive deference to the military, which can be a prelude for the disappearance of the republic and the creation of a military dictatorship.
Are they suggesting a military coup? That always works well everywhere it is tried. /sarc
If he should threaten President Trump because he’s that lonely or stupid–he’ll get interesting headlines and a visit from the Secret Police post haste.
I thought the libs wanted to get rid of the military?
Anywho, looks like they have their own problems…..
Physically fit recruits for Army are hard to find.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/01/10/physically-fit-recruits-army-hard-find-especially-these-states/1016030001/
I am happy to know that our military recruiters still have physical requirements–including fitness–to serve. After all, the mission of the Army is not to spread climate propaganda; it is to kill people and break things. Anything that thwarts that goal must be avoided–including diversity goals and any other politically correct diversions from their mission, which is national defense.
Yes, the US Army will face major staffing problems in the future. The average health status of the youth is miserable in the US. I think there is no country in the world where obesity is so common among adolescents. This is a serious problem and in relation to China, which also struggles with such problems through the westernized lifestyle of urban youth (fast food, etc.). China still has a much larger reservoir of healthy youth in the rural areas for their army. That will get the US Army to taste. You can not go to war with high-tech alone.
Is Anatol referring to the 14% increase in the greening of the earth? Because that is the only element of his screed that has any hard data to back it up.
At the risk of repeating my argument, here’s my calculations:
Increased atmospheric CO2 over the past 50 years, according to some studies, has caused world-wide foodstuff production to increase by 15-25% (which isn’t surprising since trees, depending on variety, are now growing from 30-70% faster for the same reason).
The math is simple: Currently, foodstuff production accounts for a seventh of the world-wide GDP of ~$70 Trillion, which would be $10 Trillion. Taking the lower estimate for increased foodstuff production (15%) of that would be $1.5 Trillion, which divided by a worldwide population of 7.5 billion (an admittedly high estimate) results in $200 per year for every man, woman and child on the Earth!
That’s the annual contribution industrial countries (those that have substantially enriched atmospheric CO2 over the past 50 years) make indirectly to developing nations. Another way of looking at it: Since at least 2/3 of the world’s population is found in developing nations, the “annual payment” to them is $1 Trillion!!
I think fossil-fuel contributions to the biosphere is more than enough. Indeed, all that additional food has averted massive famine and starvation. They should be grateful rather than greedy.
If the world were to actually warm a degree or two because of CO2, that would be a huge boon to agriculture as well.
We could grow crops in places where the can’t grow today, and grow two crops a year in places where there is now only time to grow one.
No, they’re probably talking about this: https://www.reuters.com/article/cargill-inc-results/update-2-cargill-profit-falls-as-grain-glut-limits-trading-idUSL4N1OY37U
It’s all really just too much.
How utterly terrifying, to suggest that a nation’s military be used on its own people to enforce highly distorted views about the cause of climate change.
The author doesn’t understand Americans or our system very well. His suggestion is a non-starter over here. The U.S. military will not be involved in saving mankind from human-caused global warming/climate change. Unless Trump wants them to do so, and I don’t think that is in the cards. In fact, I would bet money on it. A lot of money.
If Hillary had won, I could see more potential of this threat, with 8 more years of treason, PC and Eurosclerosis of the military. But she didn’t.
I once heard a general say that climate change was a national security issue because airplanes can’t take off from a runway that’s under water. I don’t think I want him responsible for anything to do with climate change.
Tom
I don’t think I want him responsible for anything to do with the military.
What are Aircraft Carriers for then?
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
I’m pretty sure that the military spends a lot of money making sure the flight deck of your average carrier stays above water.
Yeah, we don’t need any clueless U.S. generals in the U.S. military, and unfortunately, we do have a few, but fortunately, none of them are in a position to do anything about it. And I imagine they are not making too much noise about CAGW now that Trump is in Office.
How many air force bases have runways that are only 1 or 2 feet above the high tide line?
I’m willing to bet that the number is very small, single digits if not lower.
Having failed to convince people by their arguments, Greens now envision using military force to force people to adopt their position. ‘Reality impaired’ doesn’t even begin to describe the Greens advocating using the military.
I knew there was a reason for the second amendment and my personal arsenal plus ammo plus reloading supplies. Now, not military grade aith a few exceptions. But plenty good enough for Green Mountain Boys/Swamp Fox guerrilla grade comeback.
The left in general often uses the military to enforce their will on the public.
There is something called the Hatch Act that makes it a criminal offense to engage in ANY political work while an employee of, or on duty with, the US Government. Whoops!
Besides that, which is more likely, significant climate change or a coronal mass ejection (or an EMP attack) that shuts off all power to anywhere in the US and prevents any food from reaching the cities? And also keeps fuel from getting to farms so more food and be grown?
The Hatch Act only applies to conservatives.
…or we’ll shoot you.
The last resort of the fascist: The Military.
Jimmy Haigh
Top post.
Yup. Also why US has Second Amendment.
Correct. And Fascism has a technical economic definition:
Fascism – the State directs the Fruits of Production while the Means of Production remain in Private Hands.
In the US it is the Democrats who want the fusion of Economy and State while the Republicans and Libertarians want Separation of Economy and State (which will one day be understood to be as essential as the Separation of Church and State).
Thus, the Democrats are the ones with the fascistic economic agenda. Although must Democrats mix the fascist goals (involuntary ‘socialism’ which is the stealing of the citizen’s wealth by the elites that run government) of their party’s leadership with voluntary ‘charity’ – when they are not the same at all.
Good definition. Good points.
My only disagreement is that the military isn’t their last resort, it’s often their first resort.
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
“the most promising avenue to convince conservative American voters and to generate genuinely serious action in the United States against climate change would be to firmly establish the link between global warming and critical issues of national security.”
THE only “threat to national security” is draconian climate policy in the form of economy-destroying carbon taxes and green schemes and scams like windmills and solar panels that create energy poverty, sending jobs and real particulate pollution to “****hole” countries where slave labour and appalling environmental regulations rule.
ALSO worth remembering that during the 1970’s “global cooling” scare, the CIA warned that (man-made) “global cooling” would bring – “Drought, Starvation, Social Unrest And Political Upheaval”.
SAME “national security threats”, polar opposite temps 🤦♂️
YOU cannot make this stuff up!
https://climatism.wordpress.com/2017/03/17/the-climate-change-farce-explained-by-two-expert-scientists/
The word INSTRUCT as advocated for the military is not defined, but the strong implication is that military force is involved. The ultra-liberals must be getting desperate if they advocate military take-over and control, given their historic anti-military bias.
The ‘pro’ case has been presented by the ‘pro’ advocates. The ‘Con’ case has been presented by the ‘pro’ advocates through their own eyes and ears.
This is too typical: I tell you what I think, and I will also tell you what my opponent probably thinks. You decide based on the two viewpoints.
It is interesting that the ‘refugee’ implications are thinly disguised xenophobia happening as the result of ‘climate disasters’. They are trying to sell a globalist idea within an intolerant nationalism, presenting it as the only option for everyone getting along.
Talk about a schizoid plan. Are we supposed to fear and exclude those who might come and eat our meals, or are we supposed to move to other countries and plan on being welcomed as well-heeled do-gooders saving the masses with our self-sacrifice?
It doesn’t seem to have occurred to the advocates of this military solution that the coming chill and a descent into another ice age merits consideration at all. The military is usually far better at conducting risk analysis without interference than civilians. I suspect the military will be unwilling to hand control of the country to an unelected international bureaucracy without a fight.
It’s considered quite important among non-authoritarians that the military answers to the civilian population, not the other way around.
Greens have always been dangerous because they believe their cause justifies any means. Religious terrorists probably have a similar mindset.
Obviously a job for the Green Berets.
No, obviously a job for the Air Force, which has megatons of carbon free nuclear power.
The military must make us “obey” the climate change advocates commands?
I suppose it could work. Maybe the next time there is a democrat president and democrat congress.
Which then says to you, why would I ever vote for a climate-change-beholden politician. Not a farken chance.
I just don’t see how such a proposal can even be made. A person would have to be a complete nut job to even propose it. What about those that support the proposition then. It all just comes down to crazy people who should have no influence on anything. Cut-off their funding because we need less crazy people trying to influence anything.
I the someone forgot that The Obama administration ended a year ago.
Progressives get aroused with the thought of using force over the people, whether it be using Islamic Sharia or Military might. Either way they want complete control over the citizen/taxpayer.
Oh! FEMA camps!! They could stay there!!
Funny. The only government that the Communists do not like is Law Enforcement and The Military.
TheLastDemocrat
And judging by the current witch hunt, Trump as well.
Fingers crossed he rides the storm.
Actually, the loony leftist attacks on both the police and military are just another arrow in the quiver of the central-command-and-control elitists. Hamstring or even destroy all trappings of our modern society and make life so miserable for the average voter that they beg the politicians to save them. Don’t be surprised at all.
Correct. The Left has worked for a century to erode the beauty and accomplishments of Enlightenment Civilization (“Modernism”) so that things are so bad and people so demoralized that they will surrender their sovereignty to the control freak Post Modernists (Statist Collectivists).
The leaders of the Left are quite evil, which convinced that they alone have monopolies on truth and virtue. These people are insane in a way that is not obvious unless you watch what they do and not what they say.
It does not occur to most people that the military already has assessed the urgency of climate change and taken the appropriate actions, practically none. It is their job to be prepared. It is required for them to factually assess issues in order to survive, as much as possible. Not to say there isn’t a political bias happening there too, but certainly less than elsewhere.
The military was the origin of the red team – blue team concept, for exactly this reason.
The assumption of the article is that the military looking at all the facts would have to come to the “97% consensus” conclusion. Wrong.
It’s my understanding that the Navy was directed to worry about and prepare for rising sea levels during the Obama administration and I don’t think that this directive has been relaxed yet.
A rising sea level floats all ships. So the Navy response should be Sir, yes Sir. We will do nothing, because our ships float. But if you will send money. we will be glad to float all our shore facikities also. What, no shoee float money? Then carry on with ship procurement as authorized by Congress.
How, by fitting longer anchor chains to their ships?
BoyfromTottenham
That’ll be one 300mm link per century, or thereabouts.
😁
And an anchor doesn’t necessarily have to reach the seafloor to do its job.
It would indeed be interesting to know exactly how the US military could be expected to force a political agenda down the throats of the voting public. This mope who wrote this little essay has no understanding of the US military at all. He should learn to stay in his own lane before he goes any further, and also learn to mind his own business. What a stooge!