Wow. Why have this much critical infrastructure near flood zones? Given that climate change is increasing the frequency of major floods, why hadn’t they hardened their protections?
One report in particular...
> The 22-page assessment delivered to Congress on Thursday says about two-thirds of 79 mission-essential military installations in the U.S. that were reviewed are vulnerable to current or future flooding, with more than half vulnerable to current or future drought. About half also are at risk from wildfires, including the threat of mudslides and erosion from rains following the blazes.
The truth is that the location of military bases is a political decision and the wisest decision-making processes (e.g., one that included good flooding estimates) are not always used. Of course, reality has a way of intruding into political thinking and decision-making but usually only long after critical decisions were made. But the crows eventually come home to roost.
IOW not everything is driven by the political topic "climate change". Sometimes its simply flooding, flood zones and extremely capitalistic local land developers.
As for flood mitigation, I’m sure it’s the same as it is anywhere: risk assessments probably considered the likelihood of ‘really bad’ flooding, and the potential impacts, too low to be worth the cost. (As to whether that was wise or not, I’ve got no idea.)
(Edit— from Wikipedia:
”Secretary of the Air Force Stuart Symington chose to locate the Air Force's crucial long-range atomic strike force at Offutt primarily because the base was centrally located on the North American continent, placing it well beyond the existing range of long-range, nuclear-armed bombers to (then) stay safely out of range of hostile missiles or bomber aircraft.”)
https://www.omaha.com/news/military/one-third-of-offutt-unde...
Also, climate change = extreme weather is very handwavy. How is climate change falsifiable?
Climate change doesn't exist according to the government, remember?