2024 Fall Forum
Girdwood, Alaska
September 18-22, 2024
• • •
The Senate Presidents’ Forum convened in Girdwood, Alaska, for discussions focused on a range of regional, global, and state-specific issues. The Arctic Circle’s evolving security threats and the need for a unified response to China's and Russia’s involvement in the Arctic were addressed, with attention to Alaska's strategic importance. The Forum covered the potential of renewable energy sources and the challenges in transitioning to clean technologies. Critical minerals and U.S. self-sufficiency were highlighted as crucial topics, emphasizing the importance of domestic production and strategic investments in mining as well as military modernization and preparedness. Mental health issues were on the agenda, as were climate science and the key factors for creating a successful team.
The Forum was honored to be welcomed by Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy, who was introduced by Alaska Senate Majority Leader Cathy Giessel.
Governor Dunleavy reminded the Forum that Alaska is the largest state by far and is rich in natural resources, having 49 out of 50 rare earth elements, extensive timber, and abundant crude oil reserves. Alaska’s resources could be the answer to U.S. problems, he said. The Alaska Statehood Act of 1958, which made Alaska the 49th state on Jan. 3, 1959, included a provision that transferred mineral rights to the state. In the past, because Alaska held these rights, its resources provided revenue for infrastructure, public safety, and schools. Exploitation of the state’s natural resources have allowed profitable tribal corporations to lift Native Alaskans, who represent 20% of the population, out of poverty and have added 14 years to their life expectancy.
As a global leader in responsible resource development, Alaska’s resources could be the answer to U.S. problems, but 68 federal sanctions prohibit exploitation of its resources
— Hon. Mike Dunleay
![map-alaska-2024f [Converted]-01-01.png](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/2dd813_8b2e9d801c944622a19b4b52b30ed2fd~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_980,h_649,al_c,q_90,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/map-alaska-2024f%20%5BConverted%5D-01-01.png)
Federal Policies Pose Barriers
Sixty-two percent of the state is federal land and some people want to preserve Alaska as a “park.” Currently, 68 federal sanctions (more than the number of U.S. sanctions against Iran and Venezuela combined) prohibit exploration and development of its resources, handicapping the state’s ability to tap its resources. The Governor pointed out that acquiring resources from other countries makes the U.S. vulnerable to supply issues and also to lax environmental controls and child labor, compared with Alaska’s standards. By contrast, Alaska is a global leader in responsible resource development.
Alaska has Strategic Advantages
Alaska is in a “dangerous neighborhood,” he said, noting that Chinese and Russian desires to exploit the resources of the Arctic could escalate international tensions. Furthermore, Alaska is only a 9-hour flight away from Moscow and is even closer to other major world cities such as London, Frankfurt, Tokyo, Beijing, and Seoul. Alaska’s location is a strategic asset, especially in the pan-Pacific region and the Arctic. Capitalizing on Alaska’s location strengthens America’s strategic advantage for both national security and commerce.
The Governor concluded with three principles:
-
When the federal government prohibits Alaska from developing the state’s natural resources, it hamstrings Alaska’s ability to provide for itself.
-
If you need to develop natural resources and care about human wellbeing and the environment, there is nowhere better to do it than Alaska.
-
Capitalizing on Alaska’s location strengthens America’s strategic advantage for both national security and commerce.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
Comments are paraphrased for conciseness.
Dan Leary (Director of Government Affairs, T-Mobile):
What is the controversy concerning Alaska’s voting process?
Gov. Dunleavy:
Since 2022, Alaska has used ranked-choice voting; but the process is confusing for people and it can take weeks to get the outcome. It is a problematic system and I do not favor it. Currently, opponents of ranked voting have a ballot initiative to repeal and reestablish Alaska’s prior system, where each party held separate primary elections, resulting in one nominee representing each party in the general election.
Sen. Paul Newton (Senate Majority Leader, North Carolina):
Does the Federal government recognize the strategic importance of Alaska militarily and as a source of resources?
Gov. Dunleavy:
There is no significant naval base in Alaska, and I hope it does not take a significant incident to get federal attention. While Russia has 48 nuclear icebreakers and an Arctic-focused strategy to take advantage of Arctic transport, the U.S. has only 2 nuclear icebreakers in the Arctic region.
NOTE: Alaskan Command (ALCOM) is a subunified command of U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM). ALCOM is headquartered at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) in Anchorage, Alaska. While Alaska-based forces include more than 20,000 Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marine personnel, and 4,700 Guardsmen and Reservists, none of the nine Alaska bases are specifically Navy bases.
Sen. Stuart Adams (President of the Senate, Utah):
About 35 million acres, or approximately 70% of Utah’s land, is managed by the federal government, similar to the situation in Alaska. The state has filed a lawsuit against the federal government in an attempt to take back control of that land.
Gov. Dunleavy:
The directives from the federal government have been changing. Initially, the state of Alaska was charged with owning and developing our resources; then the federal government restricted our ability to do that by establishing national parks. Some people want Alaska to be one big national park, but our resources are critical to the rest of the country.
The Arctic Circle
With its perimeter only about 500 miles north of Girdwood, the Arctic Circle has been described as a nexus of foreign and domestic policy. This session explored the Arctic as a focal region for international alliances, national security, maritime trade, and environmental stewardship.
Arctic Security, Threats, and Strategic Importance
Dr. Troy Bouffard, an expert on Arctic security and resilience, highlighted the importance of the Arctic region and discussed the evolving nature of threats in the region. These include hypersonic cruise missiles, the presence of icebreakers from China and Russia, the limitations of existing communication/satellite systems in high latitudes, and the need for proactive measures against environmental impacts.
He emphasized the need for resources from the federal government and the requirement to redesign North American defense with a whole-of-government approach to address Arctic issues effectively, rather than in the current siloed approach. He discussed the challenges of global shipping in the Arctic as China and Russia attempt to create an Arctic route for large ships, and the need for more icebreakers for the U.S. Coast Guard.
Dr. Bouffard touched on the importance of critical minerals and rare earth resources in the Arctic, noting the need to monitor China's involvement with Russia and the vulnerability of Greenland's rare earth reserves as China and Russia seek to exploit them. He stressed the importance of a unified response to these challenges, calling for a new national strategy focused on the Arctic. Dr. Bouffard also highlighted the strategic role of Alaska's Eielson Air Force Base and the potential for a new micro nuclear plant there.
National Security and the Arctic: Leading Issues
-
Early Warning Systems and Missile Defense
-
Russian Arctic Operational Capabilities
-
China’s Arctic Interests
-
NATO’s Arctic Role
-
Resource Competition
-
Territorial Claims / Disputes
-
Infrastructure Gaps
-
Technological Challenges
-
Communications challenges at high latitudes
-
Environmental Security
-
Domain Awareness
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
Comments are paraphrased for conciseness.
Rich Maloof (Moderator):
This past July, Chinese and Russian bombers were intercepted while flying in international airspace near Alaska. What was the U.S. response?
Dr. Bouffard:
In July 2024, in the first joint operation of its kind, Russian and Chinese bombers conducted a joint air patrol and entered the Alaska Air Defense Identification Zone. They were escorted out of the zone by NORAD, the bi-national command between the United States and Canada. This raises concerns about what the Russia/China partnership could mean in the future.
NOTE: The Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) begins where national airspace ends. In this area of international airspace, aircraft must identify themselves in adherence to national security protocols.
Sen. David Sokola (Senate President Pro Tempore, Delaware):
What about the rare earth mineral resources in the Arctic? Are they being exploited by China?
Dr. Bouffard:
The Arctic has significant deposits of rare earth minerals that are used in satellites, wind turbines, night-vision goggles, and laser-guided missiles. For example, every F-35 Lightning II fighter jet has around 920 pounds of rare earth elements built into its engines and electronics. China has substantial stockpiles of rare earth minerals, and has been working to gain access and influence in the Arctic, particularly in Greenland, and has the technology to process rare earth elements.
Sen. Robert Stivers (President of the Senate, Kentucky):
What disrupts satellite transmissions in higher latitudes?
Dr. Bouffard:
Communications satellites operating in geostationary Earth orbit do not cover the area of the Arctic, creating gaps in their coverage.
Sen. Bob Duff (Senate Majority Leader, Connecticut):
Does the federal government have concerns about China’s presence in the Arctic, especially since China does not follow the rules of international engagement?
Dr. Bouffard:
Working within the normal U.S. government processes takes time, money and effort. The most urgent and immediate priorities get attention, and the current U.S. strategy is reactive. Alaska’s three federal representatives and others are working to educate and engage the federal government to make progress before there is a disaster. They are stressing that China is a threat and that there is an urgent need for a coherent Arctic defense plan.
Sen. Cathy Giessel (Senate Majority Leader, Alaska):
How can states help Alaska as a national security location, especially concerning energy issues?
Dr. Bouffard:
Innovations in Alaska may provide models for other states, and energy is a crucial area. In 2027, a new micronuclear plant is anticipated to be licensed and will be a transformative development, particularly for Alaska, where most of the population relies on vulnerable, isolated microgrids. Local communities, including villages and military bases, are eager to adopt it to address ongoing power challenges. Micronuclear power plants promise significant benefits in feasibility, cost, and innovation. They could provide essential energy redundancy and contribute to solutions for climate change issues that might affect broader regions in the future.
Sen. Rod Bray (Senate President Pro Tempore, Indiana):
How are micronuclear facilities different from traditional nuclear power plants?
Dr. Bouffard:
The technologies are very different. Micronuclear plants are much smaller, often designed to generate up to 10 megawatts, compared to traditional plants that can produce over 1,000 megawatts. They are typically modular, allowing for easier transportation, assembly, and scalability without needing extensive infrastructure. They have advanced safety systems and passive safety features, and their smaller size means they have less fuel and lower radiation levels. Micronuclear plants can be used in off-grid settings or remote locations, providing energy solutions for communities that are not connected to larger power grids.
Sen. Ronald Kouchi (President of the Senate, Hawaii):
Hawaii and Alaska face similar challenges. There is a lack of understanding in Washington, D.C., and in the lower 48 states about their roles as protectors of the Pacific. For example, North Korea is a “local” threat to Hawaii.
The Future of Energy
The pace of change in energy technology has accelerated remarkably, as have related developments in the marketplace. The Forum heard an update on energy production and consumption with an eye on global trends, economic impacts, and considerations for a state’s ideal energy mix.
Rapid Transition to Cleaner Technologies and Challenges
Mr. Walter discussed the current stage of transition from traditional energy sources to cleaner technologies, highlighting the exponential growth of technologies such as solar, wind, electric vehicles, and battery storage. He noted that China is leading the way in this growth, with the International Energy Agency consistently underestimating the pace of the transition. He also emphasized the shift towards electrification, with electricity becoming the primary provider of useful energy in society. He pointed out that the supply chain for these technologies is largely in place, allowing for even faster growth.
There is an exponential growth of renewable energy technologies such as solar, wind, electric vehicles, and battery storage.
— Daan Walter
Source: IEA, BNEF; Note: CAGR is the compound annual growth rate between 2013 and 2023.
Challenges Can be Overcome
Mr. Walter acknowledged the challenges of transitioning rapidly to green energy, especially the challenge to meet consumer demand for reliable and affordable electricity, considering the high costs and the need for backup power when renewable sources are unavailable. However, he noted that costs have fallen significantly on wind and solar generation and on batteries. The recent growth of battery capacity is a potential solution and he predicted a significant increase in renewable power generation, with renewables potentially replacing up to 40-50% of global power generation by 2030. In the next year, solar power generation and battery storage will exceed any other energy generation technology in total generation capacity. He emphasized the need for grid infrastructure upgrades and scaling up access to mineral deposits to support the transition to clean energy. Finally, he highlighted the importance of energy and AI in determining global control and the underrepresentation of nuclear energy as a potential solution for 24/7 power needs.
In the next year, solar power generation with battery storage will exceed any other energy generation technology in total generation capacity.
— Daan Walter
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
Comments are paraphrased for conciseness.
Sen. Robert Stivers (President of the Senate, Kentucky):
When you talk about the shift toward electrification, what is the energy generation source for that electricity?
Mr. Walter:
Electrification is defined as the percentage of final energy demand met by electricity. Traditionally, electricity generation has relied heavily on fossil fuels, but there's been a significant shift towards renewables in recent years. While the current share of renewable electricity is still small, it dominates new power capacity being added.
Sen. Lee Schoenbeck (Senate President Pro Tempore, South Dakota):
If renewable energy sources are preferential and cheaper, why is China’s major growth in electricity fueled by coal and why are they building more coal-fired plants? Does consumer demand or government policy drive these choices?
Mr. Walter:
Four or five years ago, the cheapest source of energy would probably have been coal or gas, and to date China has grown with coal. But that's no longer the case. Initially, the government drove the change through policy and efficiency measures to get the cost of new technologies down. Today, they're swapping out their planned coal capacity with new solar capacity. A major shift is happening because China is ruthlessly looking at current economics. This is really a recent trend.
Sen. Ogden Driskill (President of the Senate, Wyoming):
I’d challenge some of your assumptions. Companies are moving toward renewables but they are based on fossil fuels and we need back-ups. Coal still drives China’s electricity, and China continues to build coal-fired power plants. Consumers want reliable, affordable electricity. The day they can’t get their lights on or can’t afford their electric bill is the day they’ll want to go back to traditional power sources like coal-fired plants. Green energy has driven up costs.
Mr. Walter:
It’s true that China has relied on coal-fired plants; however, they are now swapping coal for solar and other renewable sources. Additionally, the improvements in battery technology are changing the landscape for back-up energy sources. Fossil fuels are plateauing; their dominance is over.
Sen. David Sokola (Senate President Pro Tempore, Delaware):
China is retiring their oldest and dirtiest coal plants to the tune of about 8 gigawatts over just the last two years. Coal plants can be dirty, or really dirty, and Delaware had two of the 10 dirtiest plants in the country. When they were scaled up with the newer technology and improved maintenance program, they became two of the cleanest in the country. So, there's a huge range in the pollution that is generated by coal plants. Additionally, in urban areas, China has implemented strict vehicle licensing, favoring electric and hybrid vehicles, which helps reduce pollution. Replacing internal combustion cars with electric vehicles and a coal plant can lead to a net cleaner environment, despite the ongoing use of coal.
Sen. Stuart Adams (President of the Senate, Utah):
We are in a race with China to effectively use Artificial Intelligence (AI). One of the challenges we see in Utah is that the data centers to process AI require a huge amount of energy. China, as an autocracy, has the advantage of no permitting delays for new power plants, while we struggle with regulatory barriers. We are in a crisis in America for power. No state will say they've got too much power in their state, because nobody does. China has it all, and we're falling behind as a country. We must figure out the regulatory process to be able to get renewables or any type of power on the grid.
We are in a crisis in America for power.
— Sen. Stuart Adams
Mr. Walter:
Not only China but also the EU countries are powering data centers from renewable sources. This is a change we have to consider. The companies behind those data centers have been really great proponents of boosting renewable demand in these regions. They are willing to pay a premium to build a data center that they can ensure is powered with green energy. So, they buy green certificates on the European market to actually claim that the electricity they use is green.
Sen. Bob Duff (Senate Majority Leader, Connecticut):
Power companies request billions of dollars in funding from state governments for grid and wire infrastructure improvements. How do these investments impact cost to consumers?
Mr. Walter:
Utilities face challenges as innovation progresses faster than grid upgrades. Foreign entrepreneurs, in particular Chinese companies, are offering solar panels and batteries at local stores, which allows consumers to bypass traditional utility systems. This creates stranded assets for utilities and raises costs for consumers who still rely on them. The key issue is whether to upgrade domestic grids to support renewable energy or risk losing market share to foreign competitors. The conversation emphasizes the need for improved infrastructure to prevent utilities from becoming obsolete as the energy transition accelerates.
Michelle MacGregor (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP):
One of the challenges is that national independent energy producers are not treated the same way that utilities are when it comes to building new production. Sometimes the requirement to build out a specific type of energy generation may limit competition for these projects. This can impact diversification and maintaining reliability and cost controls for ratepayers.
Sen. TJ Shope (Senate President Pro Tempore, Arizona):
Arizona is the fourth leading producer of copper in the world, but copper mining expansion is being held up by regulatory hurdles. Consumers want electric vehicles, which require copper, but they reject mining because of environmental concerns. These conflicting camps impede progress.
Mr. Walter:
Efforts such as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act) are critical to bridging these divides between environmental concerns and consumer demands by strategically deciding how to upgrade the U.S. power infrastructure to deliver clean, reliable energy across the country and deploy cutting-edge energy technology in order to achieve a zero-emissions future.
Sen. Paul Newton (Senate Majority Leader, North Carolina):
A renewed focus on nuclear energy, particularly small modular reactors (SMRs), could be a viable solution for reducing carbon intensity in the U.S. Nuclear power has a high-capacity factor of 98%, making it reliable for continuous energy needs, such as those of data centers, compared with 17–24% efficiency with solar.
Mr. Walter:
Modern nuclear plants are simpler and more efficient than before, and there is potential for significant advancements in nuclear technology. It is essential to explore these options further, given the untapped promise of nuclear power over the years, which hasn't yet come to its full fruition.
Jennifer Jura (Edison Electric Institute):
It is recommended that state senators talk with their utilities to get a good understanding of the regulatory hurdles they face. The utilities’ goals are consistent with community goals: they seek to provide affordable, reliable, clean energy. Regulatory support from the states can facilitate optimal solutions.
Critical Minerals
Opportunities to bolster America’s energy security and reap the benefits of clean energy production hinge on mining critical materials and minerals. With China dominating the U.S. and Europe, this session considered the hurdles ahead and the significant upsides to gaining market position on critical minerals.
Role of Critical Materials
Critical materials are what make the modern world possible, Eric Miller reminded the Forum, and he stressed the need for U.S. self-sufficiency in critical minerals that are crucial for defense and technology. He reminded the Forum of the many and various applications of critical minerals in such diverse industries as medicine, electronics, battery production, and others. However, the U.S. stockpile of these critical materials has been depleted due to our lack of refining capabilities, and the U.S. is now dependent on China for access to these materials. By contrast, China’s stockpile agency is actively building reserves. Furthermore, China uses non-market strategies to manipulate the minerals market such as flooding the market and causing price drops, thus putting U.S. firms at a disadvantage.
Source: International Energy Agency
Source: U.S. Geological Survey
Building U.S. Capacity
A number of funding opportunities are in place to support projects that will enhance U.S. critical mineral capabilities, including programs from the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. (EXIM). These programs are focused on mining and refining critical minerals, and provide support for the advanced battery supply chain. Mr. Miller proposed price floors to support domestic producers and urged strategic investment in U.S. mining. He described the Community Benefit Agreement (CBA) development process, which engages the community with industry partners to chart acceptable resource development projects through collaborative strategies.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey
What States Can Do
Mr. Miller pointed out that state Departments of Environmental Quality have a big role throughout the exploration and permitting process for minerals mining. The key is to ensure that these processes are rigorous, but reasonable. This requires coordination among regulators and transparency on timetables for decisions, and a pragmatic approach to minor changes to “plans of operation.” He also recommended that states explore integrated mine-to-refinery production chains to maximize efficiency. Finally, Mr. Miller advocated for a CBA development process that engages a wide array of government, community, indigenous groups, civil society entities, and NGO stakeholders to develop agreements about mining development for everyone’s benefit.
Mr. Miller recommended that states explore integrated mine-to-refinery production chains to maximize efficiency.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
Comments are paraphrased for conciseness.
Sen. Ronald Kouchi (President of the Senate, Hawaii):
When a new landfill was proposed in Hawaii, they used community engagement to come to a shared vision that made the landfill acceptable to local residents.
Mr. Miller:
A good local partnership supports development.
Sen. Ogden Driskill (President of the Senate, Wyoming):
The U.S. needs to develop policies that will block China’s influence on our markets. They manipulate the market by dumping excess supply and driving down prices, causing U.S. companies to close or lay off employees.
Mr. Miller:
China is not a free market and does not play by free market rules. A plan to block China’s ability to flood the rare minerals market has been proposed by the Bipartisan Policy Center. They recommend the creation of a federal, wholly-owned government corporation, the United States Reserve of Critical-Mineral Commodities (U.S. ROCC), to provide price support to U.S. critical mineral processing projects. The U.S. ROCC would be equipped with financing tools to overcome pricing challenges in diverse mineral markets and encourage private investment.
Sen. Robert Stivers (President of the Senate, Kentucky):
Does the U.S. lack critical minerals due to limited deposits or limited mining operations?
Mr. Miller:
The U.S. has plenty of mineral deposits that are economically feasible to exploit. Wyoming has large deposits of minerals, and Utah has lots of indium, for example. But they have to decide whether or not to mine them. The U.S. has to mine more and make mining permitting faster. The U.S. also can limit China’s dominance through alliances with its 42 allies.
Sen. Regina Barrow (Senate President Pro Tempore, Louisiana):
What recommendations do you have for state governments?
Actions for the States
-
Determine where critical minerals fit into existing industries
-
Provide workforce training and education for mining
-
Facilitate state and federal permitting processes
-
Engage stakeholders and avoid litigation over environmental concerns
Challenges in Behavioral
and Mental Health
Emily Ricci
Deputy Commissioner
Alaska Department of Health
As Deputy Commissioner of Alaska’s DOH, Emily Ricci is well positioned to reflect on the issues around mental health in the states. She also brought a perspective from commercial insurance and had previously managed the state’s employee and retiree health insurance plans.
Healthcare Spending Concerns
In 2023, the U.S. spent $4.7 trillion on healthcare, representing 17.3% of GDP, with projections suggesting it would rise to $7.7 trillion by 2033. Ms. Ricci noted the disproportionate growth of healthcare spending compared to economic expansion. Medicaid programs accounted for about 30% of total state budgets and around 15% of general state funds. She emphasized the need for mental health parity and trauma-informed care but noted that current administrative structures, both in physical and mental health, were overly complex. Ms. Ricci highlighted the imbalance between high healthcare spending and suboptimal outcomes, particularly in managing chronic conditions and mental health.
Benefits of Integrated Care
Ms. Ricci advocated for the integration of mental and physical health, noting that patients with both mental and physical health issues (about 12% of Medicaid enrollees) accounted for 40–45% of Medicaid spending. The Medicaid program and payment structures have not adequately addressed the interconnectedness of mental and physical health. Ms. Ricci noted this systemic separation of care has existed since Medicaid’s founding in 1965. Studies have indicated a 5–10% reduction in per-person spending when integrated care was provided, notably for those with both mental and physical health needs.
Challenges in Behavioral Health
She acknowledged the rising youth mental health crisis in the U.S., with 40% of adolescents reporting persistent sadness in 2021 (compared with 28% in 2011), and pointed out that suicide is the leading cause of death for adolescents. She stressed that addressing this was critical as it impacted families and communities.
Recommendations
Ms. Ricci referenced recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics, which included more funding, telemedicine, school-based mental health care, integrated physical and mental health clinics, and community-based care systems.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
The opposite of addiction is connection.… No pill is going to treat isolation and loneliness.
Sen. Cathy Giessel (Senate Majority Leader, Alaska):
One solution to the workforce shortage is to create Certified Community Behavioral Health Centers (CCBC Certification) that integrate mental and physical health with primary care. Ten states are currently taking advantage of federal funding for CCBC Certification to provide equivalent payment rates for providers. A key requirement for this program is the ability to deliver timely access to care.
Tommy Suter (Novartis):
When you discuss the integration of physical and mental healthcare, is the psychiatric community responsible for and supportive of that integration?
Ms. Ricci:
Most clinical training focuses on specialization, examining just one aspect of the person. But no pill is going to treat isolation and loneliness.
Rich Maloof (Moderator):
Can you describe the success to date of 988 crisis call centers, and how they are funded?
Since its launch in July 2022, 988 has received nearly 10.8 million contacts.
Ms. Ricci:
Since its launch in July 2022, 988 has received nearly 10.8 million contacts. Federal investments supported the launch and implementation of 988, but ongoing funding of local call centers, as well as the development of other core components of the behavioral health crisis continuum, largely falls to state and local governments.
U.S. National Security:
Preparedness and Risk
Michael E. O’Hanlon
Director
Strobe Talbott Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology
The Brookings Institution
The U.S. military’s current capability to defend the homeland and ensure the security of our interests abroad is paramount. Mr. O’Hanlon discussed efforts to modernize the military and the critical role of state preparedness.
Global Deployment and Rising Costs
The U.S. military currently has about 1.3 million active-duty troops, fewer than during the Cold War or even the tense 1990s. However, with a defense budget of $850 billion, the military remains expensive, with significant investment in technology and support from 800,000 reservists and National Guard members. A key aspect of U.S. defense is the broad deployment of troops across regions like Western Europe, the Middle East, and Northeast Asia. Around 250,000 troops are stationed abroad to deter potential conflicts, maintain alliances, and ensure global readiness. The defense budget accounts for about 14% of the federal budget but includes a significant portion for intelligence operations and nuclear activities. Costs are driven by rising technology expenses and efforts to maintain an all-volunteer force.
Need for Multi-Front Preparedness
The U.S. military’s preparedness is generally positive, with well-trained personnel and modernized equipment. Mission-capable rates for most major systems are high, and there's been an increasing focus on deterrence of great power rivals like China and Russia. Recent defense strategies prioritize adapting to modern threats, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region. The goal is to prevent conflict with rising powers, especially China, while maintaining strong global deterrence.
The U.S. military’s preparedness is generally positive, with well-trained personnel and modernized equipment.
Today’s geopolitical landscape necessitates a reassessment. The past three years have seen increasing cooperation among adversaries such as China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, challenging the previous assumption that the U.S. would only need to confront one adversary at a time. The changing dynamics have required the U.S. to consider its military preparedness in light of potential multi-front conflicts.
Need for Enhanced Deterrence Capabilities
As tensions escalate, particularly concerning Taiwan, there is a pressing need for the U.S. to convey to China that victory over American forces would not come easily. The necessity for a capable military that could simultaneously address threats in various regions — including the Middle East, Europe, and the Koreas — became evident. The U.S. must maintain modest deterrent capabilities across these theaters to counter any aggression without completely reallocating resources to one specific conflict. This strategic posture aims to ensure that the U.S. could respond effectively to threats while also preventing strategic vulnerabilities in other critical areas.
The U.S. must maintain modest deterrent capabilities across several theaters to counter any aggression without completely reallocating resources to one specific conflict.
Strengthening the Defense Industrial Base
Concerns regarding the defense industrial base highlight the need to enhance the capacity for munitions and spare parts production, Mr. O’Hanlon pointed out. The COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine exposed vulnerabilities in the U.S. military's supply chain, indicating that the lean production model, while economically beneficial, has left the military underprepared for rapid mobilization in times of conflict. A reevaluation of production capabilities is necessary to ensure that the military could effectively respond to future threats without significant delays or shortages in essential resources.
A reevaluation of production capabilities is necessary to ensure that the military could effectively respond to future threats without significant delays or shortages in essential resources.
Protecting U.S. Infrastructure
There is an urgent need to enhance protection for national infrastructure in the context of a potential Great Power conflict, particularly with China and Russia. Both nations have infiltrated U.S. cyber systems, posing a significant threat to critical assets like electricity grids, water supply, and transportation systems, and there is a lack of systematic federal oversight for safeguarding these essential infrastructures. Adversaries might resort to cyber-attacks, drone strikes, or sabotage to disrupt U.S. military mobilization and fracture domestic infrastructure.
While some state-level efforts have been made since 9/11 to address terrorism, there is now a pressing need to expand preparations for potential threats from Great Power adversaries. Collaborative efforts among states are vital to create a unified threat landscape and improve overall preparedness for such conflicts. Meetings such as the Senate Presidents’ Forum create opportunities for states to liaise with each other and develop coordinated responses to a common threat landscape and improve preparedness for potential conflicts.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
Comments are paraphrased for conciseness.
Sen. Cathy Giessel (Senate Majority Leader, Alaska):
Pressure from Chinese and Russian flyovers has raised concern about Alaska’s vulnerabilities. We must have a dependable electric power supply to survive, and the military should have a new focus on nuclear and micronuclear power sources. Additionally, I’m concerned about the mental health of enlistees, as the suicide rates among them are increasing.
Mr. O’Hanlon:
The joint flyover exercises by Chinese and Russian jets are designed to get into our heads, to send a message. But the message is just that they're willing to do an exercise together. This doesn't mean Russia is going to fight in alliance with China against the U.S. and attack Alaska or anything else. But the Arctic is a fourth area of critical focus for the U.S.
The suicide issue is also concerning: the military is losing more than 300 people a year to suicide, and we see problems with recruiting. The services have struggled in the last couple of years. Therefore, it’s important that we take good care of our all-volunteer military, not just because it’s the right thing to do ethically, but because it is essential if we want our military to remain excellent and to have enough people to do the job.
Meetings such as the Senate Presidents’ Forum create opportunities for states to liaise with each other and develop coordinated responses to a common threat landscape and improve preparedness for potential conflicts.
Sen. Bob Duff (Senate Majority Leader, Connecticut):
The greater aggression by China in the Arctic makes me concerned about all the Chinese products Americans buy that could be wired to inflict damage in response to signals from China.
Mr. O’Hanlon:
It’s wise to ask if Chinese drones are safe or are they part of a cyber-intelligence strategy. Given the recent experience in Lebanon where pagers and walkie-talkies were boobytrapped by Israel, we should also consider the vulnerability of our supply chains. If a Taiwan-China conflict erupted, the U.S. could interdict China’s shipping, and they would close down American imports. We can expect that China will not respect neutral zones.
Rich Maloof (Moderator):
What about the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in military applications?
Mr. O’Hanlon:
AI plus robotics are the future of warfare; AI can control weapon systems and can be deployed in commercial goods that become weapons. These new capabilities could ambush us from anywhere. However, the U.S. is still ahead in AI and in nuclear deterrence.
It is imperative to avoid fear-mongering that could incite the U.S. to over-react. China will not risk a World War and a disruption of their economy. But they do want to push the U.S. out of Asia and become the dominant world power.
Building the Unbeatable Team
As six-time winner of the Iditarod — Alaska’s grueling, 1,000-mile sled dog race — Dallas Seavey provided valuable insights that are applicable to state senators and business leaders about goal-setting, perseverance, innovation, and building trust in a team.
Photo credit: Courtesy Dallas Seavey
Reflecting on Teamwork and Resilience
Mr. Seavey reflected on the challenges overcome throughout the Iditarod sled-dog race, including mountains, rivers, moose encounters, and fierce snowstorms. With his dog team functioning as a "well-oiled machine," he stressed the significance of their partnership, and the essential role it played in reaching his sixth victory.
My teachers are sled dogs. My best friends are sled dogs. You learn to see the world the way they do. That is at the root of where success comes from: a deep understanding of the team that we work with
Basics, Barriers, and Redefining Success
Winning was within reach for Mr. Seavey through perseverance and continuous improvement. He prioritized understanding each dog's individual needs and capabilities, rather than conforming to traditional training methods. By fostering a culture of teamwork, he redefined success and illustrated that a well-supported, cohesive team could thrive against all odds.
Misfortune or success in sled dog racing is not purely a matter of luck, Mr. Seavey explained. He owned the leader’s responsibility to optimize performance through effective care and support. The musher learned to prioritize goals and the immediate needs of the team over competitive pressures.
Prioritize the team’s needs over competitive pressures.
The Value of Team Building
During a high-stakes race, some mushers race against each other rather than with their dog teams. But Mr. Seavey concentrated on the care and performance of his dogs. By focusing on a long-term vision and addressing the needs of his team, ultimately the dogs could preserve energy and rest longer. Victory came from fostering a strong bond with his dogs. It emphasized understanding what each dog could achieve rather than imposing limitations. Mr. Seavey achieved his goals by focusing on the fundamentals rather than risking everything in a bid for glory.
Prioritizing teamwork would always yield fruitful results in both racing and the shared experiences along the way.
Conclusion: A Message for Future Generations
Ultimately, the journey reinforced the idea that winning was not merely about crossing the finish line first but about cultivating a resilient team capable of overcoming challenges.
Lessons from the Winning Dog Sled Team
-
Establish a connection with every member of the team.
-
Identify areas where you need to improve.
-
Set a goal, then establish a plan and a schedule to achieve it.
-
Assess, revamp and rebuild along the way.
-
Develop individuals.
-
Know when to make critical decisions and when to postpone them.
-
Establish what your team can expect from you, and don’t change that under duress.
-
Ask what your team needs.
-
Don’t sacrifice your team or their trust in you.
-
Give your team what it needs not only to do it, but to do it well.
-
Be best at the basics.
-
Find pennies along the way that turn into dollars.
-
Establish the goal of “running the perfect race,” which removes the burden of winning it.
-
Focus on what’s important. Understand that the “why” is very important.
-
Watch out for moose!
--------------------------------------------------------------
Q & A
Sen. Bill Ferguson (President of the Senate, Maryland):
After these successes, what comes next for you?
Mr. Seavey:
My goal is to run a perfect race, to make the 10,000 decisions you have to make well and efficiently. For example, by getting seconds faster at putting on the dog’s booties, I saved more than an hour over the course. You have to do the best for the team. And whoever you are at the core will be exposed because you become so vulnerable when you are sleep deprived or are working flat out.
Sen. Lee Schoenbeck (Senate President Pro Tempore, South Dakota):
You talked about dealing with a charging moose. We face a lot of “moose” incidents in the Senate.
Mr. Seavey:
Occasionally, in the middle of a race, a moose will turn and fight your dogs rather than retreat. In that moment, you have to focus on what’s important: the safety of your team.
Sen. TJ Shope (Senate President Pro Tempore, Arizona):
You created a new style of dog-sledding. Have others followed it?
Mr. Seavey:
People have picked up my “event-style” training. But the important thing is understanding the “why,” and ensuring that that “why” makes sense for your dogs.
Alaska’s Story of Water
Rick Thoman
Climate Specialist
IARC’s Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy
Rick Thoman from the Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy shared scientific insights into the impacts of Alaska’s changing environment. He based his remarks on the story of water in Alaska, which illustrates the risks associated with global warming trends.
Changing Patterns
Whittier and Valdez in Alaska experience some of the highest rain and snow levels at sea level in the U.S., Mr. Thoman reported. However, climate change is altering these patterns, with rising temperatures causing drastic changes in precipitation and its form (snow to rain) with significant environmental impacts. Glaciers across Alaska, including the Barry Glacier, are receding. As recently as August, the Mendenhall Glacier in Juneau experienced a glacial outburst where water that was dammed up by the glacier suddenly gave way, leading to catastrophic flooding. Other concerns are landslides and the risk of mega-tsunamis.
Economic Impacts
These changes have direct economic consequences, such as the costs of repairing roads, bridges, and infrastructure. As Alaska’s permafrost thaws due to warming, land subsidence (the sinking of caving in of land) is occurring, causing massive damage to roads, buildings, and utilities. The cost of dealing with these impacts is expected to be one of the most expensive outcomes of climate change in the region.
The warming of the Bering Sea and other northern waters is shifting fish populations, affecting commercial fisheries, especially salmon. This is also threatening indigenous cultures that rely on salmon for food and cultural traditions. Warming oceans are also leading to increased evaporation, more frequent and intense storms, and atmospheric rivers, which have caused record flooding and damage along the Alaskan coast.