Follow us on social

google cta
2022-08-31t203529z_1860405723_rc2h7w9w10bm_rtrmadp_3_pakistan-weather-floods-scaled

Climate change is a national security issue

The flooding in Pakistan is far more destructive than most conventional threats. It’s time for the world to take notice.

Analysis | Global Crises
google cta
google cta

For twenty years, the United States and its close allies have focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan largely due to the threat of terrorism. But the climate change show of force unleashed on Pakistan this August should raise alarms in capitals the world over. Its destructive power dwarfs the conventional threats that preoccupy world leaders. 

Immediate aid is a welcome first step. This week, the United States announced that it is providing $30,000,000 USD to Pakistan for flood relief —  still less than the $70 million pledged in 2010, but not insignificant. But this must be accompanied by serious structural reforms in the West and coordination with frontline countries most immediately impacted by climate change. If not, Washington is merely paying interest on a fast accruing climate time bomb. The effects of climate change on North America and Europe are noteworthy but not yet severe enough to wake us from our collective slumber on this issue. The horrors faced by the people of Pakistan should be our wake-up call.

Ideally, we should assist the people of Pakistan out of a sense of collective global responsibility for a climate change crisis that is largely driven by the world’s most industrialized nations. But if altruism and humanitarian incentives are not enough, then we should take action for our own security. 

Pakistan’s 2010 floods occurred in the backdrop of the U.S. surge in Afghanistan. This is important for two reasons: A large U.S. troop presence next door made the logistics of helping out easier, and Washington had an incentive to improve ties with Pakistan. But there are still many reasons for Washington to be concerned about the stability of Pakistan and other countries disproportionately impacted by climate change. The current floods in Pakistan have directly affected over 33 million people and that number is climbing. Tent cities have popped up along the sides of highways and entire communities have been erased from the map. This will have troubling long-term effects that extend for years to come. Crops were destroyed, which will assuredly increase food insecurity. Mass migration to urban centers will place increased stress on infrastructure already teetering on the edge. Extremists and non-state actors may capitalize on resentment felt by the displaced. As the worst effects of climate change become irreversible, these events will spread across the world.

The hard choices of what to do about climate change will always occur in the backdrop of seemingly high priority threats and goals. This is what makes climate change so dangerous. It requires collective and sustained global action — something that has historically been difficult to achieve. It is time that we accept that climate change presents an existential threat to life as we know it and is already here.


A flood victim wades through flood water, following rains and floods during the monsoon season in Bajara village, Sehwan, Pakistan, August 31, 2022. REUTERS/Yasir Rajput
google cta
Analysis | Global Crises
nuclear weapons
Top image credit: rawf8 via shutterstock.com

What will happen when there are no guardrails on nuclear weapons?

Global Crises

The New START Treaty — the last arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia — is set to expire next week, unless President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin make a last minute decision to renew it. Letting the treaty expire would increase the risk of nuclear conflict and open the door to an accelerated nuclear arms race. A coalition of arms control and disarmament groups is pushing Congress and the president to pledge to continue to observe the New START limits on deployed, strategic nuclear weapons by the US and Russia.

New START matters. The treaty, which entered into force on February 5, 2011 after a successful effort by the Obama administration to win over enough Republican senators to achieve the required two-thirds majority to ratify the deal, capped deployed warheads to 1,550 for each side, and established verification procedures to ensure that both sides abided by the pact. New START was far from perfect, but it did put much needed guardrails on nuclear development that reduced the prospect of an all-out arms race.

keep readingShow less
Trump Hegseth Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump, joined by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, announces plans for a “Golden Fleet” of new U.S. Navy battleships, Monday, December 22, 2025, at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump's realist defense strategy with interventionist asterisks

Washington Politics

The Trump administration has released its National Defense Strategy, a document that in many ways marks a sharp break from the interventionist orthodoxies of the past 35 years, but possesses clear militaristic impulses in its own right.

Rhetorically quite compatible with realism and restraint, the report envisages a more focused U.S. grand strategy, shedding force posture dominance in all major theaters for a more concentrated role in the Western Hemisphere and Indo-Pacific. At the same time however, it retains a rather status quo Republican view of the Middle East, painting Iran as an intransigent aggressor and Israel as a model ally. Its muscular approach to the Western Hemisphere also may lend itself to the very interventionism that the report ostensibly opposes.

keep readingShow less
Alternative vs. legacy media
Top photo credit: Gemini AI

Ding dong the legacy media and its slavish war reporting is dead

Media

In a major development that must be frustrating to an establishment trying to sell their policies to an increasingly skeptical public, the rising popularity of independent media has made it impossible to create broad consensus for corporate-compliant narratives, and to casually denigrate, or even censor, those who disagree.

It’s been a long road.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.