Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Strategic Insanity Off the Coast of Virginia

—

by

sherlockj
in , , , ,

by James C. Sherlock

As I warned in three columns in late December, the Pentagon has now objected to Department of the Interior plans to develop offshore wind farms along the central U.S. coast.

It has warned that almost all of the areas planned for development of the huge turbines conflict with current military operations.

That is the public pronouncement.

DOD also knows that, because the wind farms are designed to provide a high percentage of the electric power on the East Coast grid, it will be charged to defend them against attack.

And it knows that defending those sitting ducks clustered together in fixed positions in international waters against modern weapons is not just a problem, but as a practical matter impossible.

But DOD apparently won’t admit that publicly. Yet. It is not clear that the Department of Homeland Security, with oversight of the Coast Guard, has even thought about it.

But if the turbines are built, DOD and the Coast Guard will be tasked to try to protect them. Their defense can’t even be attempted without a cost to the defense budget that will dwarf both in acquisition and ongoing operating costs the cost of building and operating the fields themselves.

The Navy and Coast Guard will need far more ships and the Navy more submarines, and the personnel to operate them, than they currently have.

The additional resources will need to be used for defense of the wind farms, not to meet our under-resourced national defense obligations overseas.

And the attempt will still fail against modern weapons.

Bottom line. Wind farms of strategic value to the United States built in international waters will constitute a new, self-induced national security vulnerability.

Yet America is attempting to build them, making electric power even more fragile and preposterously expensive, when we have viable alternatives.

And, though we will try at great cost, those turbines, in fixed positions in international waters, will not prove defensible against even existing standoff tactical weapons.

That is strategic insanity.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

36 responses to “Strategic Insanity Off the Coast of Virginia”

  1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “Wind farms of strategic value to the United States built in international waters will constitute a new, self-induced national security vulnerability.” https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c70e29acb41ba047eef4f81821437e90cd462fa71d61d588a7d9b56a592fb38a.jpg

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Blow one of those up and New York City doesn’t go dark. But Sherlock is missing the point. One cruise missile at the substation takes the wind farm off line. DOD doesn’t give a rat’s patootie about the windfarms. DOD is finally admitting it cannot defend the East Coast at all if 3-4,000 of those 1000-foot structures are blocking radar, sonar, submarine sensor nets and creating wonderful screens to hide threatening operations from easy detection.

      Not that Biden gives a damn about defending the U.S. against anything but the imaginary climate crisis.

      DOD will be beaten back into submission and will shut up.

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Blow one of those up and New York City doesn’t go dark. But Sherlock is missing the point. One cruise missile at the substation takes the wind farm off line. DOD doesn’t give a rat’s patootie about the windfarms. DOD is finally admitting it probably cannot defend the East Coast at all if 3-4,000 of those 1000-foot structures are blocking radar, sonar, submarine sensor nets and creating wonderful screens to hide threatening operations from easy detection. Think a cruise missile right above the wave tops.

      Not that Biden gives a damn about defending the U.S. against anything but the imaginary climate crisis.

      DOD will be beaten back into submission and will shut up. When you look at the map that accompanied the Bloomberg story it shows DOD “concerns” over the area of the second Dominion phase, but not the first. I don’t understand why one and not the other…unless it is already pulling punches.

      1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        What DoD shares in public is not inclusive of all of their concerns, Steve.

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          Why not? The kid in New England had all the documents. 🙂

      2. Charles D'Aulnais Avatar
        Charles D’Aulnais

        Shell oil has platforms off the shore of Angola. According to Andrew Young, these American-owned assets were once targeted by CIA backed rebels, and the attacks thwarted by Cuban backed Angolan forces.

        Life is strange.

      3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        “Blow one of those up and New York City doesn’t go dark”

        Nor does it if you blow up a windmill. The impact from a single terrorist attack on a single oil well could easily far outstrip power outages in NY. Just ask BP… https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/91fabe7c5f24d59e8050a3f58567abb663c5c400c1e0ef1a3632e1fbf7513ece.jpg

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          Only people on the platform died. The impact of one nuclear cruise missile or SLBM kinda outdoes that, don’t you think? Coming from a sub hidden in a wind farm? But your logic is flawed, as usual, because if you think a couple hundred drilling platforms are a defense risk, you’d better be terrified about 4,000 WTGs.

        2. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          Only people on the platform died. The impact of one nuclear cruise missile or SLBM kinda outdoes that, don’t you think? Coming from a sub hidden in a wind farm? But your logic is flawed, as usual, because if you think a couple hundred drilling platforms are a defense risk, you’d better be terrified about 4,000 WTGs.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            I don’t. Sherlock does and he says that we’ve never had off shore security assets before. Clearly we have.

            Btw, if they are going to launch a nuclear missile, you think they are going for our windmills…?

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            I don’t. Sherlock does and he says that we’ve never had off shore security assets before. Clearly we have.

            Subs can already hide around platforms which are not all solitary and are far closer to strategic targets. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/24c9879d1213d3152960bb4cdc8b8d141c494c6b5e6b01cd2e7cac88aad92dd2.jpg

          3. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            I said no such thing, but nice try.

          4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “…new, self-induced national security vulnerability.”

            “New” must mean something different to you then…

          5. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            You may wish to stop telling people what I mean. I am capable of doing that myself.

            It means we are building the wind farms in an era where vulnerabilities have changed with developments in weapons.

            Any thoughts about nuclear plants ashore rather than wind farms in international waters?

            Gives enemies a completely different risk/reward perspective.

          6. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Your words are fairly straightforward:

            “Wind farms of strategic value to the United States built in international waters will constitute a new, self-induced national security vulnerability.”

            My answer is simply having assets of strategic value in international waters is not a new vulnerability. You can wish to grapple all you like on this point but it is self-evident.

          7. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            I thought the same thing. The wind farm would be a great place to conduct missile drills undetected.

    3. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      You do know that DoD killed a federal plan for awarding oil leases in those same areas off the Virginia coast for the same reason, right?

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        They said the same thing they are saying now. There is a conflict between current military operations and the planned development. The attached map was provided to show the conflicts between Trump administration proposals for expanded offshore drilling activities and the military operation needs identified by DOD, such as undersea warfare training and air-to-surface bombing.

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/548812cf514ca32a5a983eca33dc373cb622a46833db9d42cfb066b712de9363.jpg

        They did not cite the needs to protect the assets or an increased threat from subs. Also notice the proximity to the coast vs where the wind farm will be located. Quite a difference.

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/998aff9e8dfee8b7fdcc93e049e3db805b4e447755bdc1d0d5f928f77d8f30d9.jpg

  2. Charles D'Aulnais Avatar
    Charles D’Aulnais

    Assets are always at risk, even those with point defenses.

    https://www.militarytimes.com/resizer/BGaum0KyiokTJabbonShr2_jlyo=/800×0/filters:format(jpg):quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/6WYFW2TNJJAXDHSBUSNTGZVOFI.jpg

    To quote the Airplane, “all your private property is target for your enemy.”

  3. InHocWisdom Avatar
    InHocWisdom

    When the CVOW was before the SCC for approval I submitted comments pertaining to a foreign power’s attack on the windmills, the obstruction of Hampton Roads naval ingress/egress, and enemy submarine hiding in such an offshore array Dominion. My impression was that those comments were never taken into account.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Well, in fairness, not the SCC’s bailiwick. We’ve been assured all along that DOD was fine, just fine with all this. Either that wasn’t true, or something has changed. And DOD has standing with BOEM and NOAA so its views must be considered.

  4. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    National security would dictate diversity of sources, including offshore wind. But also things like MV Pipeline are potentially important.

    1. Charles D'Aulnais Avatar
      Charles D’Aulnais

      Good point. The US Navy was completely powerless on the Colonial Pipeline attack just two years ago.

      1. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        They made up for it on Nord Stream.

  5. Kathleen Smith Avatar
    Kathleen Smith

    In decision making 101, I was taught to consider all of the possible outcomes, all strengths, all weaknesses, all good, all bad, all of the possible costs including opportunity, cost to wildlife, etc, and then, and only then, make a decision. I think we have to listen to DoD and consider the outcomes. Do politicians take decision making 101?

    1. Charles D'Aulnais Avatar
      Charles D’Aulnais

      Outcomes AND their probability.

  6. Charles D'Aulnais Avatar
    Charles D’Aulnais

    MADD has been 100% effective for decades. Make that MAD. MADD hasn’t actually been all that effective beyond increasing penalties. It’s still just as risky on the road at 2AM Sunday morning.

    Anyway, one thing that the Afghan War did was to show the world that the US was willing to commit forces 1000s of miles inland without method of egress to exact retribution. Iraq showed the world that we were willing to exact that vengeance on a nonparticipant too.

    MAD to a lesser extent. MAD Lite? MADness?

    Our assets worldwide are defended for the most part by our well known willingness to retaliate. 1000 5” navy rounds into an Iranian oil platform within sight of Iranian Silkworm ASM battery (“go ahead, make my day”) for the USS Roberts stumbling on an Iranian mine. Sixteen Tomahawks for the USS Cole. A baby formula factory in Somalia in exchange for something. Twenty-two JSOWS for some transgression by Saddam. The list is long.

    1. WayneS Avatar
      WayneS

      Declaring war on an entire country over one little sneak attack on a U.S. Naval base…

      1. Charles D'Aulnais Avatar
        Charles D’Aulnais

        Ah, nostalgia.

  7. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    https://www.baconsrebellion.com/app/uploads/2023/04/OSW-DOD-Concern-Areas.jpg

    There is the DOD map Bloomberg used yesterday. Note the lease areas for Dominion 1 and the Kitty Hawk project are not marked for concern, and Dominion 2 is marked only in yellow (letter C), which was reported as of lower concern. But clearly they are no different and whatever problem exists exists with them, too. The red colored spaces are of greatest concern to DOD.

  8. James C. Sherlock Avatar
    James C. Sherlock

    Let me see if I can explain to doubters .

    I spent 29 years in the Navy and we never spent a minute practicing defense of individual assets on the East or West Coast. Or on the coasts of the Gulf of Mexico.

    We just never had anything in the oceans off our coasts that it was necessary to defend distinctly. Because no other navy could reach those areas without interception far beyond the range of its weapons.

    Now, however, the existing weapons of potentially hostile navies can reach those targets from a very long way away or they can seed captive torpedo mines (as we demonstrated years ago in another application) near the towers in peacetime that can be activated from thousands of miles away.

    That is without developing new weapons specifically targeting offshore wind farms, which every modern navy is hard at work on. Electronic means of disruption are inevitably promising. God help them if they are connected to the internet in any way.

    The individual wind turbines need not be attacked. The power they generate has to be gathered and brought ashore. Underwater.

    If you really need ask why the proposed main source of energy for the east and west coasts are strategic assets, I can’t help you.

    If I need to explain why clustering them in fixed locations in international waters is a strategic mistake, I can’t help you with that, either.

    If you are looking for a reason to claim that these wind farms as planned are not a self-induced strategic vulnerability, you are wasting your time.

    To do so you must claim that either we can defend them, which we demonstrably cannot begin to try to do without defense resources that we do not currently possess, or that they are not in need of defense, which is preposterous on its face.

    1. Charles D'Aulnais Avatar
      Charles D’Aulnais

      Seems to me, we have tapped underwater communications lines in certain areas of the world for upwards of 60 years.

      One would be naive to believe any asset is beyond reach.

      1. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        It’s not an issue of trying to place assets beyond reach. which as you point out is not possible. It is a matter of not providing ‘low hanging fruit’ to our enemies.

        1. Charles D'Aulnais Avatar
          Charles D’Aulnais

          Like journalists?

    2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      As far as I can tell, it looks like the total US planned offshore wind capacity by 2035 is about 40 gW. We use some 1200 gW of power as a country… 🤷‍♂️

  9. Monica Wright Avatar
    Monica Wright

    Defending the coastline is what the Coast Guard is for. This is about MANPOWER not turbines. We don’t have it and can’t recruit it without doing something about the pay, benefits, and LACK OF leave time (despite what’s ‘officially’ available). In a hot job market, the military always suffers but even more so when military families are nixing whole swaths of the country off their dream sheets.

Leave a Reply

Read More