The effect of two disastrous hurricanes in the last two weeks has demonstrated that rapid climate change is a threat that can cause far more harm to American lives than traditional adversaries such as terrorists and authoritarian governments.
The monster Hurricane Milton has devastated sections of Florida, and climate scientists are certain that the ferocity of such storms is exacerbated by fast warming oceans.
This comes two weeks after Hurricane Helene caused considerable damage to communities hundreds of miles inland, including Asheville, North Carolina, which appeared to be immune to the harshest consequences of climate change. Helene has killed at least 232 people.
Treating climate change as a national security issue is a hardheaded realism stance. Indeed, the Pentagon has publicly said this and “elevated” it on the list of dangers to the United States. Three years ago, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin could not have been more specific: “We encounter many kinds of threats in our line of work, but few of them genuinely deserve to be termed existential. “The climate crisis does.”
Key US Navy bases in low-lying places such as Norfolk and Virginia Beach, Virginia, are under threat from rising waters caused by climate change, and the Pentagon is striving to reduce the damage.
It is also causing an outflow of climate refugees, who are contributing to the instability of global conflicts, such as in Sudan, where one of the most violent wars on the globe is currently going place.
According to historian Peter Roady’s recent book “The Contest Over National Security,” President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had a broader conception of American national security than the current, more restrictive definition of freedom from attack from outside powers.
Roosevelt viewed national security as ensuring the lives of all American residents, which is why Social Security, a program he signed into law in 1935, is called Social Security rather than Social Welfare. Social Security is currently one of the most popular US government programs.
On January 6, 1941, as the Nazis were conquering large swaths of Europe, Roosevelt spoke about his broad view of national security in his State of the Union address, emphasizing the need for “freedom from want-which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world.”
According to Roady, the Cold War and competition with the Soviet Union caused a shift in how national security was perceived, with it taking on its current narrower connotation of independence from an attack by a competitor.
This framing of national security persisted after the 9/11 attacks. The Bush administration’s 2002 national security plan said, “We will defend the peace by fighting terrorists and tyrants…” The Federal Government’s first and most essential commitment is to defend our nation from its enemies.
Now, redefining national security should be a primary concern, because climate change isn’t the only existential threat. Consider that the Covid-19 pandemic killed approximately the same number of Americans — 1.2 million — as all wars since the American Revolution combined.
Politicians are under pressure to take real steps to prepare for the next pandemic, which is made possible by the ease of worldwide travel. According to the nonpartisan COVID Crisis Group, which issued a detailed analysis last year, the United States is still unprepared for the next pandemic.
The devastation caused by this fall’s hurricanes may also prompt American officials to seriously consider mitigating the risks of climate change, such as limiting new construction in flood zones.
Following Hurricane Milton, Americans should question themselves whether they are now safer from threats such as climate change and pandemics. And, if not, isn’t it time to start a serious discussion about what defines true national security?
