National Security on the Brink: The Real Cost of Rising Seas and Nuclear Spending
As the U.S. races to modernize its nuclear arsenal, it is doing so on a foundation that’s quite literally sinking. The Department of Defense is investing $130 billion in new Columbia-class nuclear submarines as part of a broader nuclear modernization strategy. Yet the very infrastructure needed to build, maintain, and deploy these submarines is increasingly threatened by climate change.
Facilities at Kings Bay Naval Base in Georgia, which houses strategic weapons and assembles Trident II missiles for U.S. nuclear-armed submarines, are predicted to be flooded by rising sea levels in the next 50 to 100 years. Shipbuilding operations at General Dynamics Electric Boat in Groton, Connecticut, and Quonset Point, Rhode Island—key construction sites for the Columbia-class submarines—are also in designated flood zones. Add to that the growing number and intensity of hurricanes hitting the U.S. coastline, and the vulnerability of America’s nuclear “deterrent” becomes undeniable.
This is not a hypothetical threat. In the fall of 2024, hurricanes Helene and Milton forced Kings Bay to shut down operations for days. Downed trees and operational disruptions made it painfully clear: no matter how expensive or technically advanced our submarines are, they are no match for a rising sea or a shifting climate.
Even more concerning is the circular logic of this self-inflicted vulnerability. The Navy’s environmental assessments show that these nuclear programs are generating massive amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, which accelerate the climate crisis they are now trying to navigate. In 2023, General Dynamics emitted over 700,000 metric tons of CO₂—despite pledging to reduce emissions (See charts above). The Pentagon itself estimated nearly 1,000 metric tons of CO₂ would be emitted just from homeporting new submarines at Kings Bay.
How can we justify allocating nearly $7 billion in 2025 alone to develop hypersonic weapons and long-range fires, while the very ground beneath our military installations is eroding? This is not sound strategy. It’s denial, funded by taxpayer dollars.
Instead of doubling down on Cold War-era weapons in a hot world, we must move the money. Investing in climate resilience, renewable energy, and infrastructure that serves people—not war—will provide true national security. As military bases flood and the costs of environmental disasters soar, it’s time to ask ourselves: is it wise to sink billions into a weapons system that can’t withstand the weather?
It’s time to rethink what security looks like in the 21st century. Because if our strategy for survival relies on submarines that can’t get to sea—or bases that are underwater—then we’re not just losing money. We’re losing the future.
