Preparing troops for deployment in extreme weather is an increasingly pressing challenge. During a recent exercise in Alaska, the Canadian Armed Forces and the U.S. Army confronted the reality of operating in extreme cold. From commercial off-the-shelf kit that fell short and batteries drained by the cold to frozen engines and frostbite, the exercise brought home what war in the Arctic could really mean. Yet governments around the world are side-lining climate action to boost defence spending, hoping to avoid a populist ‘greenlash’. This is a mistake. It leaves the root causes of climate-driven insecurity unchecked, and it threatens the very defence readiness governments are trying to build.
Adapting the Force: Operational Vulnerabilities in Extreme Environments
In the short term, achieving defence readiness means adapting the armed forces to operate across a far wider range of weather conditions, from extreme heat to extreme cold. In hot environments, it is vital to reduce heat casualties through acclimatization periods and work-rest cycles. But rapid deployments and continuous operations in areas hit hardest by rising temperatures may rule these out. Militaries are exploring options such as wearable biometrics, but these only enable earlier detection of heat illness rather than addressing the underlying risk.
Extreme heat also impacts military equipment. In July 2026, a heat dome over the Midwest disrupted radio and television signals, which travelled hundreds of miles further than expected. Military radio networks could see similar disruptions in areas of extreme heat. Combat and armoured vehicles face problems too, with inadequate air conditioning and unreliable performance in high temperatures.
Operating in extreme cold, as the Alaska exercise made clear, brings challenges of its own. While the High North remains largely inaccessible today, diminishing ice cover is expected to gradually open the region to military operations, commercial shipping, and natural resource extraction, with significant strategic implications for Arctic nations. But while a warming climate is driving this shift, forces deployed there will still contend with the challenging conditions associated with cold environments. If the footwear failures faced by U.S. Marines deployed on the multi-national Cold Response 26 exercise in Norway and Finland earlier this year are any indication, there is a long way to go.
We must also consider the pressure placed on the armed forces by natural catastrophes. ‘Once in a lifetime’ storms and extreme weather events now take place regularly, placing significant pressure on military units called to respond. Adversaries, meanwhile, have shown a willingness to take advantage of natural disasters to spread disinformation and sow discord. Climate resilience must not be excluded from budgetary and planning decisions. It must form part of broader deterrence and defence readiness efforts, as NATO’s own defence posture recognizes.
Decarbonizing the Battlespace: Tactical Emissions and Net-Zero Capabilities
Beyond these immediate operational pressures, defence decision-makers must also plan for the longer term. Reliance on fossil fuels is a major source of vulnerability. Recent events in Eastern Europe and the Middle East have once again shown this, economically and beyond. Some nations have responded by increasing domestic fossil fuel production, but this is not a sustainable solution.
Defence readiness planning should instead include a reduction in tactical emissions and eventual divestment from fossil fuels. This should encompass the electrification of the battlespace, which not only reduces reliance on lengthy, high-risk logistics convoys but also confers tactical advantages, such as lower acoustic and thermal signatures for wheeled and tracked platforms. Operations are becoming increasingly power-hungry, driven by the advent of novel weapons, such as laser directed energy weapons, and digitalization. Any advantages gained through energy efficiency and self-sufficiency will help to improve defence readiness.
The Role of Industry: Integrating Climate Security Across R&D Lifecycles
Governments and military customers need to ensure that climate change is factored into planning and requirements. The defence industry, in turn, has an important role to play: Research and Development needs to account for the pressures of a changing climate at every stage to ensure that the armed forces are adequately prepared. From assessing early customer requirements to incorporating climate security into scenario development to designing products for end-users expected to operate in a more volatile environment, there is scope to include climate concerns throughout any product or service lifecycle. This could mean acting as a ‘fast learner’ and following the lead of the commercial sector, as seen in the development of electric vehicles. But the defence industry will also need to set the pace and drive innovation. Progress must be driven forward from both ends of the military-industrial complex.
Achieving true defence readiness will require collaboration at all levels. The world may seem more fractured and cross-border relationships more tenuous, but sharing knowledge and aligning climate security resources are more important than ever. Events such as the Montréal Climate Security Summit are an important opportunity for governments, military representatives, scientific experts, international organizations, and the defence industry from around the world to come together with a shared purpose: addressing the causes of climate change and strengthening the defence readiness of our armed forces.
About the author: Mari Troskie is a Senior Operational Analysis Consultant at QinetiQ Ltd. UK. She has a BA in War Studies, MA in Conflict, Security and Development and MSc in Environmental Decision Making. Over a fifteen-year career, she has worked on a range of Environmental, Operational Risk and Defence related research projects, including assessing Air and Missile Defence capabilities, experimenting with autonomous robotic solutions, wargaming influence and deterrence and designing climate security scenarios.
The views expressed in this op-ed are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of the Institute or its staff.
Photo: Army photo/John Pennell. Department of National Defence / Combat Camera / 2022. Crown Copyright. The use of this image does not imply or constitute endorsement by the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Armed Forces.
