Polar Icebreaker Roles And U S Future Needs

The age and condition of the U.S. Coast Guard's polar icebreakers are jeopardizing national security and scientific research in the Arctic and Antarctic, according to an interim report from the National Academies. Because of a shortfall in funding for U.S. polar icebreaking activities, long-term maintenance on these icebreakers has been deferred over the past several years, making the ships inefficient to operate and their technological systems outdated. Congress asked the National Academies to provide a comprehensive assessment of the current and future roles of U.S. Coast Guard polar icebreakers in supporting U.S. operations in the Antarctic and the Arctic, including scenarios for continuing those operations and alternative approaches, the changes in roles and missions of polar icebreakers in the support of all national priorities in the polar regions, and potential changes in the roles of U.S Coast Guard icebreakers in the Arctic that may develop due to environmental change. This brief interim report highlights the most urgent and time-dependent issues, and a final report, expected to be released next summer, will examine the type and number of icebreaking ships that the U.S. requires in the long term and other issues.

The United States has enduring national and strategic interests in the polar regions, including citizens living above the Arctic circle and three year-round scientific stations in the Antarctic. Polar icebreaking ships are needed to access both regions. Over the past several decades, the U.S. government has supported a fleet of four icebreakersâ€"three multi-mission U.S. Coast Guard ships (the POLAR SEA, POLAR STAR, and HEALY) and the National Science Foundation's PALMER, which is dedicated solely to scientific research. Today, the POLAR STAR and the POLAR SEA are at the end of their service lives, and a lack of funds and no plans for an extension of the program has put U.S. icebreaking capability at risk. This report concludes that the United States should continue to support its interests in the Arctic and Antarctic for multiple missions, including maintaining leadership in polar science. The report recommends that the United States immediately program, budget, design, and construct two new polar icebreakers to be operated by the U.S. Coast Guard. The POLAR SEA should remain mission capable and the POLAR STAR should remain available for reactivation until the new polar icebreakers enter service. The U.S. Coast Guard should be provided sufficient operations and maintenance budget to support an increased, regular, and influential presence in the Arctic, with support from other agencies. The report also calls for a Presidential Decision Directive to clearly align agency responsibilities and budgetary authorities.

"Why do some states project military force to seek control of resources, while others do not? Conventional wisdom asserts that resource-scarce states have the strongest interest in securing control over resources. Counter-intuitively, this book finds that, under certain conditions, the opposite is true. Perils of Plenty argues that what states make influences what they want to take. Specifically, the more economically dependent states are on extracting income from resource rents, the stronger their preferences to secure control over resources will be. This theory is tested with a set of case studies analyzing states' reactions to the 2007 exogenous climate shock that exposed energy resources in the Arctic. This book finds that some states, such as Russia and Norway, responded to the shock by dramatically increasing their Arctic military presence, while others, such as the U.S., Canada and Denmark, did not. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, countries with plentiful natural resources, such Norway and Russia were more-not less-willing to back their claims by projecting military force. This book finds that plenty can actually lead to peril when states with plentiful resources become economically dependent on those resources and thus have stronger incentives to secure their control. These findings have implications for understanding both the political effects of climate change in the Arctic and the prospects for resource competition in other regions, such as the Middle East and the South China Sea"--