Explanation of advantages— Science Diplomacy

It’s statutorily defined in both military and non-military roles

The prepared statement of the GAO witness at a December 1, 2011, hearing before the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that focused primarily on icebreakers states:

Another alternative option addressed by the Recapitalization report would be to fund new icebreakers through the NSF. However, the analysis of this option concluded that funding a new icebreaker through the existing NSF budget would have significant adverse impacts on NSF operations and that the capability needed for Coast Guard requirements would exceed that needed by the NSF.

The Recapitalization report noted that a funding approach similar to the approach used for the Healy, which was funded through the fiscal year 1990 DOD appropriations, should be considered. However, the report did not analyze the feasibility of this option. We have previously reported that because of the Coast Guard’s statutory role as both a federal maritime agency and a branch of the military, it can receive funding through both the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and DOD. For example, as we previously reported, although the U.S. Navy is not expressly required to provide funding to the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard receives funding from the Navy to purchase and maintain equipment, such as self-defense systems or communication systems, because it is in the Navy’s interest for the Coast Guard systems to be compatible with the Navy’s systems when the Coast Guard is performing national defense missions in support of the Navy. However, according to a Coast Guard budget official, the Coast Guard receives the majority of its funding through the DHS appropriation, with the exception of reimbursements for specific activities. Also, as the Recapitalization plan acknowledges, there is considerable strain on the DOD budget. A recent DOD report on the Arctic also notes budgetary challenges, stating that the near-term fiscal and political environment will make it difficult to support significant new U.S. investments in the Arctic. Furthermore, DOD and the Coast Guard face different mission requirements and timelines. For example, DOD’s recent report states that the current level of human activity in the Arctic is already of concern to DHS, whereas the Arctic is expected to remain a peripheral interest to much of the national security community for the next decade or more. As a result, the Coast Guard has a more immediate need than DOD to acquire Arctic capabilities, such as icebreakers. For example, with preliminary plans for drilling activity approved in 2011, the Coast Guard must be prepared to provide environmental response in the event of an oil spill. Similarly, as cruise ship traffic continues to increase, the Coast Guard must be prepared to conduct search and rescue operations should an incident occur. For these reasons, it is unlikely that an approach similar to the one that was used to build the Healy would be feasible at this time.63

Coast Guard = non-mil purpose

Coast Guard icebreakers have a nondefense research role

NRC 7

(National Research Council. Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World: An Assessment of U.S. Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2007. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11753&page=R1//sd)

After World War II, the Lighthouse Service and Steamboat Inspection Service were assimilated into the U.S. Coast Guard. Polar operations continued throughout the Cold War and into the 1970s. U.S. Coast Guard icebreakers assisted summer tug-and-barge sealifts to Prudhoe Bay in the 1970s as the Alaska Pipeline was built and supported several years of testing in Maritime Administration studies of commercial icebreaking ship design. Even before the end of the Cold War, icebreakers were increasingly in demand for nondefense research in the Arctic. Throughout its history, the U.S. Coast Guard’s mission has expanded in response to the changing needs of the nation. Today, the U.S. Coast Guard provides unique benefits to the nation because of its distinctive blend of military, humanitarian, and civilian law enforcement capabilities. To serve the public, the U.S. Coast Guard has organized its responsibilities into five fundamental roles: (1) maritime safety, (2) national defense, (3) maritime security, (4) maritime mobility, and (5) protection of natural resources, and a unique mission in ice operations in which icebreakers play a key role. These roles may again be altered in response to the pronounced, large-scale environmental changes that are occurring in the Arctic. It is highly likely that commercial endeavors will develop in this region; these developments will lead to increased commercial traffic, resource exploitation, and associated international interface, which will directly affect U.S. Coast Guard statutory responsibilities and pose significant challenges to the Coast Guard’s future ability to execute these responsibilities in the ice-affected waters of the Arctic.

Coast Guard icebreakers have a statutory role in polar scientific missions for observation

NRC 7

(National Research Council. Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World: An Assessment of U.S. Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2007. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11753&page=R1//sd)

Even before the effects of environmental changes were widely recognized, the Arctic was a target for scientific inquiry as one of the least explored areas of the planet. It seems clear that the rapid environmental changes now under way will continue to require active scientific observation and study. While science support is not exclusively a U.S. Coast Guard mission, oceanographic research is directed by statute and has been part of the service’s Arctic operations since John Muir sailed with the Revenue Cutter CORWIN in 1884. Science support remains a compatible mission for U.S. Coast Guard-operated icebreakers. U.S. icebreaker presence in the Arctic, for any or all of the potential missions discussed above, would synergistically enhance the ability to conduct scientific sampling and observation. In yet another area of competition, robust marine research capabilities in the Arctic will also bolster the international standing of U.S. scientists and research programs, as well as preserve the benefits of applied research. The U.S. Coast Guard’s science support role, primarily through logistics in McMurdo Sound, is addressed in U.S. Coast Guard statutory authorities. The presence of U.S. Coast Guard icebreakers in the Antarctic every year brings a variety of additional national capabilities to the region, not the least of which is a visible maritime presence.

“Exploration” is discovery through observation and recording

NAS 00 – National Academy of Science Study, “Ocean Exploration”, http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/osb/miscellaneous/exploration_final.pdf

What Is Ocean Exploration?

As defined by the President’s Panel on Ocean Exploration (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2000), ocean exploration is discovery through disciplined, diverse observations and recordings of findings. It includes rigorous, systematic observations and documentation of biological, chemical, physical, geological, and archeological aspects of the ocean in the three dimensions of space and in time.

AT National Sec = Mil

National security is a bad bright-line for the non-military distinction—it includes financial and energy security

US Legal 10

(National Security Law & Legal Definition, http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/national-security//sd)

National security is a corporate term covering both national defense and foreign relations of the U.S. It refers to the protection of a nation from attack or other danger by holding adequate armed forces and guarding state secrets. The term national security encompasses within it economic security, monetary security, energy security, environmental security, military security, political security and security of energy and natural resources. Specifically, national security means a circumstance that exists as a result of a military or defense advantage over any foreign nation or group of nations, or a friendly foreign relations position, or a defense position capable of successfully protesting hostile or destructive action.

The term “national security” does not imply military security, but other non-military threats

Tarnoff 93

(Peter, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs during the first Clinton term, “Defining National Security: The Nonmilitary Aspects” pg online at http://books.google.co.in/books?id=shxDOnuVcyYC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false//sd)

For decades, the term national security has meant— by and large—military security. That meaning has increasingly been called into question as the waning tensions of the Cold War have coincided with rising concern over a variety of nonmilitary threats to America's security. In this study Joseph Romm examines the growing policy debates concerning several of these new threats: domestic drug use and the international drug trade; the greenhouse effect and other global environmental problems; America's growing dependence on imported oil; and America's declining economic competitiveness. In each case, Romm analyses the implications of these threats to our conception of national security and the tradeoffs between domestic and foreign policy priorities. He argues that many of the new national security threats are interconnected; that energy security is, for instance, inextricably tied to environmental and economic security issues. In his summing up he offers a new definition of national security and suggests a new national agenda.

Government definition of national security is too broad and includes non-military security

Lubliner 11

Paul Lubliner is a graduate student at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University. He has written articles for Mesomerica and the International Affairs Review. “The Merits of (Re)defining U.S. National Security” pg online at http://www.iar-gwu.org/node/348//sd)

The current U.S. government's definition of national security is from the Department of Defense (DOD). According to DOD, national security is: A collective term encompassing both national defense and foreign relations of the United States. Specifically, the condition provided by: a) a military or defense advantage over any foreign nation or group of nations; b) a favorable foreign relations position; or c) a defense posture capable of successfully resisting hostile or destructive action from within or without, overt or covert. This definition cannot be used effectively as a basis for U.S. National Security Strategy because of its deficiencies. First, it states that national security is actually a collection of three definitions. Given that these definitions are not mutually exclusive, separating them into different silos confounds the creation of a cohesive national security strategy based off of the collective definition. Basing a strategy off of either the first or second definition is too restrictive. Furthermore, in the third definition, it is not clear what "from within and without" refers to, although presumably the U.S. homeland. This third definition is also too restrictive to stand alone because a good definition involves more than a "defense posture capable of successfully resisting hostile or destructive action." Indeed, providing "the condition" is also a matter of being able to successfully preempt or avoid hostile or destructive action through international aid, diplomacy and constructive political, economic and social policies. Further, "the condition," might be broadly defined to reassure people that it is foreseen as something positive. A more useful definition though would describe national security in terms of the ability to provide a given condition rather than as the condition that is a result of that ability because the former's greater focus on ability is psychologically more empowering. Finally, it should be clear that national security keeps individuals safe both physically and psychologically; hence integral to the definition is that Americans must have confidence in the very mechanisms and efforts that exist to keep them safe.

Polar Ocean Fleet = Non-mil

The polar ocean fleet is non-military because of its scientific purpose and cooperative effort between the National Science Foundation and the Coast Guard

Augustine 13

(Norman Ralph Augustine is a U.S. aerospace businessman who served as Under Secretary of the Army from 1975 to 1977. Augustine currently serves as chairman of the Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee. Blue Ribbon is led by Augustine, but includes the US Antarctic Program’s members “NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION SUMMARY RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE U.S. ANTARCTIC PROGRAM BLUE RIBBON PANEL” pg online at http://www.nsf.gov/geo/plr/usap_special_review/usap_brp/rpt/nsf_brp_response.pdf//sd)

Following a survey of the USAP's polar ocean fleet, the BRP concluded that action should be taken to restore the fleet to support science, with appropriate research icebreaking capability, as well as logistics and national security, via appropriate operational icebreaking capability, in both polar regions over the long-term. With respect to icebreakers, NSF is participating in an interagency effort, led by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), to assess government-wide requirements for icebreaking. USCG will consider this information as it proceeds with design and construction of a new polar class icebreaker (initial funding requested in the 2013 President's Budget for USCG). NSF is also actively engaged with USCG in monitoring progress on the reactivation of the USCG Cutter Polar Star (WAGB-10). It currently appears that this vessel will be available for the 2013/14 break-in to McMurdo Station and possibly for the subsequent 7-10 years. NSF is pursuing options for meeting future science activities that require a Polar Research Vessel (PRV). A University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) led community-based refresh of the mission needs requirements for a PRV was delivered in February 2012. A lease/buy analysis is currently underway to inform the Foundation's decision regarding possible acquisition of a research icebreaker. NSF agrees with the BRP that it would be beneficial to identify additional opportunities to leverage resources with our international partners. Further leveraging could be promoted through the research community, the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs (COMNAP, an international organization of National Antarctic Program operators), and program-to-program exchanges. Significant potential for collaborative logistics and research may exist in the Antarctic Peninsula region where NSF and other nations have, or would like to pursue, active programs. For example, consideration is already being given to shared use of vessels and development of an air link. NSF is currently reviewing opportunities and developing a roadmap for potential science and operational collaborations in this region. Once completed in 2013, the roadmap will serve as the basis for formal discussion with our international partners.

Directory: files
files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2
files -> Integer programming and game theory
files -> 4 Integer Programming
files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective
files -> Pop Warner History
files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose
files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d
files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal
files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations

Download 1.36 Mb.

Share with your friends: