Addressing shared challenges and mitigating climate-related risks are crucial to executing an integrated deterrence strategy involving regional allies and partners.
The U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) relies on allies and partners to execute integrated deterrence globally. Yet, the vulnerabilities of U.S. allies and partners can create risks to the objectives of the NSS. For example, South Asia is disproportionately vulnerable to climate-related disasters. Such crises challenge human security and regional stability and can constrain Department of Defense (DoD) partnerships, whenever local resources are redirected to addressing climate-related crises. These often-under-analyzed regional vulnerabilities pose risks to effective integrated deterrence and therefore to U.S. national security. U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM) can address such risks by leveraging military-to-military cooperation to mitigate South Asia’s nontraditional security concerns, such as those associated with natural disasters. Addressing shared challenges and mitigating climate-related risks are crucial to executing an integrated deterrence strategy involving regional allies and partners.
South Asia’s Vulnerability
South Asia is disproportionately affected by natural disasters. Geography, high population density, and widespread poverty amplify the devastating effects of the region’s climate-related disasters. Worse, extreme weather events have increased; historically seasonal events now happen year-round, including flooding, famine, extreme temperatures, and earthquakes. In 2010, Indus River flooding led to the worst humanitarian disaster in Pakistan’s history. Just 12 years later, the 2022 Pakistan floods devastated that nation’s economy and destroyed crops, infrastructure, and shelters. The floods impacted 33 million people and cost over $30 billion in damages and economic losses, with a projected 2.2% decline in GDP.
Regional heat waves are also a transnational issue. Extreme temperatures in 2023 caused officials to close schools from India to the Philippines. Roads melted in Bangladesh. Hot temperatures devastated crops and threatened human survival in the region. The World Bank estimates that more than half of all South Asians, or 750 million people in eight countries, have been directly impacted by a climate-related disaster in the last 20 years. That is more than twice the number of people living in the U.S. and is almost 10% of the world’s population. The magnitude of human insecurity in South Asia is more than a humanitarian crisis, however. It is also an American national security problem.
“Climate change is a threat multiplier.”
Climate-related disasters in South Asia which directly impact human security will have secondary effects on regional stability. The United States must realize these shared challenges impose risks to its integrated deterrence strategy involving regional allies and partners. Sherri Goodman, Secretary General of the International Military Council for Climate and Security, argues that “Climate change is a threat multiplier” because human insecurity has far-reaching implications for societies and their ability to deal with crises. Regional tensions are amplified when there is competition over shared water and other resources. Economic insecurity brings political risk as state leaders work to stay in power.
The Institute for Security and Development Policy (ISDP) argues that strategists should be concerned with the climate-conflict connection because climate disasters increase vulnerability to conflict. One framework to analyze and understand the risk of climate-related disasters considers the hazard event, the exposure, and the vulnerability—factors that are rapidly changing in increasingly uncertain ways. Climate risks in South Asia have a devastating impact on the economy, society, and development, amplified by the region’s dense population. The convergence of these effects creates a complex challenge of regional instability.
Shared Global Challenges
Tackling climate-related human insecurity and regional instability in South Asia aligns with U.S. national interests by addressing shared global challenges and the collective threat of climate change. The NSS identifies a critical interest in building a resilient Indo-Pacific region, emphasizing the connection between economy and security. The National Defense Strategy (NDS) stresses the imperative to collaborate with allies and partners to mitigate transboundary challenges like climate change which strain the Joint Force. The NDS recognizes humanitarian aid/disaster relief (HA/DR) efforts increase demands on the DoD and other agencies’ resources. Climate disasters in South Asia contribute to regional instability and divert resources, reducing opportunities for the United States to counterbalance China’s military influence.
Capitalizing on nontraditional security issues presents opportunities to deepen collaboration with regional security networks in South Asia. Admiral John C. Aquilino, until recently the commander of USINDOPACOM, emphasized the importance of training and exercises to “strengthen relationships, build partner capacity, and enhance interoperability.” The United States often partners with other nations to facilitate nontraditional military skills that build resilience to climate disasters but on a relatively small scale. Two examples in South Asia include U.S. involvement with Nepal and Bangladesh. In 2023, the Nepal Armed Police Force (APF) and U.S. Special Operations Pacific Civil Affairs team conducted first responder medical training at the APF Disaster Management Training School in Kurintar, Nepal. The same year, the Bangladesh Fire Service and U.S. Civil Defense elements conducted training for first responders.
In South Asia, regional bilateral partnerships are transactional, interest-based, and geopolitically motivated. One state may have agreements with another state based on a specific issue but simultaneously disagree over a different issue. The characteristically American “you’re either with us or against us” worldview does not translate well in the regional context of South Asia with three of the top five economies in the neighborhood. An exception to this regional norm is the foundation of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (or Quad) after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami to address the shared challenges of HA/DR. The United States should lean into partnerships with South Asian states where interests overlap to mitigate future risks at a much larger scale.
Is Mitigation Worth It?
Should the U.S. military only focus on traditional security challenges? U.S. participation in climate-related crisis response exercises risks overcommitting the military, potentially weakening readiness for traditional security threats. DoD HA/DR partnerships are constrained to those states that utilize a military for disaster response, but India uses its National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) to respond to such events. The resources expended in HA/DR exercises may create an unbalanced burden on the U.S. military with unclear results for traditional security. Nevertheless, strategists can no longer neatly divide the two.
Bolstering resilience to climate-related natural disasters mitigates regional instability by addressing a root cause of human insecurity.
Traditional security challenges often stem from nontraditional security threats. HA/DR presents opportunities to collaborate with states in South Asia over shared interests as a positive cooperation between allies and partners. In South America and elsewhere, the United States has already leveraged nontraditional security efforts like drug interdiction to complement U.S. national interests. Bolstering resilience to climate-related natural disasters mitigates regional instability by addressing a root cause of human insecurity. India’s Armed Forces now fulfill crucial roles in disaster response amid worsening climate impacts. The Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (IONS) Working Group on HA/DR, for example, is responsible for developing a coordinated response among navies in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), potentially creating a greater burden on the U.S. Navy in a conflict.
The DoD is currently the best-resourced agency in the U.S. government with a broad range of skills capable of responding to large crises. The DoD’s military budget for FY2023 was over $816 billion. Another U.S. agency is the Peace Corps, whose requested budget for the same year was $430.5 million. Since 1961, the Peace Corps aims to foster relationships through cooperative development, including collaborating with countries to solve critical challenges. Consider the potential impacts of the Peace Corps with just one percent of the military budget. Another option for using U.S. military skills is utilizing the Army Corps of Engineers to aid in building infrastructure resilient to the risks of climate disasters but at a much higher cost than the Peace Corps. HA/DR training with allies and partners strengthens relationships while improving interoperability and goodwill toward the United States. The benefits of such training will build foundations of trust and yield returns in future crises.
Climate Security Imperatives
The DoD should lean into the opportunities South Asia’s climate crisis presents. As Ahsan Butt from the United States Institute of Peace stated, “The potential benefits of cooperation on climate are essentially limitless for the region.” South Asia’s disproportionate vulnerability to climate-related disasters presents a critical challenge to human security and regional stability. The direct impacts of these disasters are compounded by secondary effects that threaten the region’s socio-economic framework. Addressing climate-related challenges in South Asia is a matter of regional and global concern that serves multiple strategic objectives: it builds collective capacity to manage disasters, enhances regional interoperability among military forces, and strengthens diplomatic relationships with allies and partners. A multifaceted approach is essential for fostering resilience and stability in South Asia.
The United States has for far too long focused on hard power challenges in South Asia. In today’s interdependent context, the United States must embrace and develop the softer side of strategy concerning nontraditional security threats. The United States often employs the resources and adaptable skills of the military to address a wide variety of problems. However, DoD must expend significant resources to maintain its forces’ skills necessary for conventional warfare. As climate changes amplify global disasters, the United States must also explore all options to support its national security interests—including those threatened by nontraditional security threats. It may even be time to build close links between the armed forces and the Peace Corps, whose mission is to assist countries in development efforts by providing skilled workers in various fields. Using just one percent of the defense budget to support Peace Corps operations could bolster climate resilience and extend U.S. global influence at a cheaper cost than the DoD.The DoD and the United States should invest now to mitigate the current and future security threats of climate-related disasters.
Author’s Note: The author is grateful for feedback from Dr. Michael Neiberg and COL Chase Metcalf of the United States Army War College. The author used Perplexity.ai for grammar and style.
Sarah Kaiser is a colonel in the U.S. Air Force. She was commissioned in 2002 and gained extensive experience as a pilot, flying various aircraft including the KC-10 tanker, gliders, and the C-208 trainer as an Air Advisor in Afghanistan. She is the Commandant of the USAF Expeditionary Operations School at the Expeditionary Center located at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey. Col Kaiser is a graduate of the AY24 Resident Course at the U.S. Army War College.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Army War College, the U.S. Army, the U.S. Air Force or the Department of Defense.
Photo Description: Nepalese service members load relief supplies into a U.S. Marine Corps UH-1Y Venom from Joint Task Force 505 at Sindhuli, Nepal, May 11, 2015. The Nepalese government requested assistance after a 7.8 magnitude earthquake struck the country, April 25, 2015. The U.S. government ordered JTF 505 to provide unique capabilities to assist Nepal.
Photo Credit: U.S. Marine Corps photo by MCIPAC Combat Camera Lance Cpl. Hernan Vidana
Insightful article and research about climate change and hard for US national security. All facts are acceptable and necessary to solve these issues. Still, there are gaps to fill out the study, and the article in my point of view should research the factors deeply that cause climate change in South Asian countries like pollution, population, political instability, and wars( use of ammunition is the major part of climate change that also polluted atmosphere).
I recommend the research ongoing at US Northern Command on human factors in domestic operations. This includes such things as National Guard civil engineering assistance in relocating American fishing villages due to climate change. DOD gains valuable skills and American communities have demonstrated increased resilience.
Thanks for commenting, Susan. Is that research publicly available?
In order to better understand such things as “deterrence” and/or “integrated deterrence” today — and, potentially, the role that such things as climate change and various humanitarian and other assistance may or may not play in this regard — in order to do this, one must first, I believe, come to understand what we are attempting to “deter” today; this being, efforts being made by outlying states and/or societies (or parts thereof) to NOT be transformed more along ultra-modern/ultra-contemporary U.S./Western political, economic, social and/or value lines.
From this such perspective, one can easily see that the Islamists do not wish to be transformed more along ultra-modern/ultra-contemporary U.S./Western such lines (and, accordingly, are using all means available to them to prevent same), Russia and China do not wish to be so transformed along such lines (and, accordingly, are using all their elements of power, persuasion, innovation, etc., to prevent same), N. Korea and Iran do not wish to be so transformed (and, accordingly, use whatever is available to them to prevent same) and even population groups here within the U.S./the West itself do not wish to be so transformed (and, accordingly, are using whatever means are available to them to prevent same — to include, for example, even “warming up” to the Russians?).
Why? Because those having power, influence, control, status, prestige, privilege, safety, security, etc., under the current/the status quo arrangements (or previous status quo ante arrangements; this, if too much unwanted and threatening change is thought to have already taken place), these folks would lose power, influence, control/continue to lose same; this, if the U.S./the West’s desired transformation projects were allowed to move forward/were allowed to continue to move forward.
From this such perspective, thus, to note that such things as “development” — and “humanitarian assistance,” etc. — these can often be seen as being THE clear and present enemy/be seen as being THE clear and present danger, and that, accordingly, “Peace Corps”/”development”-type missions, etc., these may come to looked at with a very jaundiced eye. Example:
“On asking an anti-government tribal leader — whom he first met in the mountains of Afghanistan in 1987 (when the Soviets/the communists were doing their version of “transformation” there) — whether the ICRC could travel safely in the area under his control, a senior ICRC delegate received the following reply: ‘Today, like 20 years ago, a government and its international allies are trying to impose a model of society, with all the modernization, reconstruction, development and Western values that go with it. Today, like 20 years ago, I disagree and we all shed blood. Today, like 20 years ago, you come here to try and make sure prisoners are well treated, wounded taken care of, our families not bombed, or starved, or humiliated. We respect that. Now, be warned: Just as we do not expect you to support our religious, social, political views and actions, so we expect you not to support — in any way — our enemies’. Know when so-called humanitarian action becomes a sword, or a poison — and stop there.’ (Item in parenthesis above is mine. See the “Conclusion” to the “Review of the International Committee of the Red Cross” Volume 93, Number 881, March 2011, in the report therein entitled: “Committee of the Red Cross in Afghanistan: Reasserting the Neutrality of Humanitarian Action,” by Fiona Terry.)
Question — Based on the Above:
Given that even “anti-government tribal leaders” in Afghanistan seem to understand the “transformative” mission of the U.S./the West, and fight back against same accordingly, how might this effect our ability to do “deterrence,” to do “integrated deterrence,” to do “development,” to do “humanitarian assistance,” etc., today; this with or without a “climate change” basis/initiative?
I would question how we can even begin the address the issue when political leaders in and outside of the government call climate change a hoax or some broad conspiracy to erode American capitalism. I think any informed reader of American history knows that without the political will to change domestic and foreign policy, nothing happens.