Most discussions on the national security consequences of our dependence on petroleum cover ground that is well-trodden. A 2006 Council on Foreign Relations study concluded that "the lack of sustained attention to energy issues is undercutting U.S. foreign policy and national security." Conservatively stated, dependence has hindered our policy options abroad, and more squarely, oil is a catalyst for post-9/11 terrorism. With few exceptions, the U.S. military is powered, fueled, and transported by the very resource we are expected to safeguard. To be a prescient leader in national security, the Department of Defense must also occupy the high ground of energy security.
The Air Force has explored the use of synthetic fuels, or synfuels, for aircraft, yet it is not clear that synfuels or biofuels are long-term and cost-effective or scaleable alternatives. While synfuels might be (conventionally) cost-effective, the process of liquefying coal requires significant amounts of water and produces considerable carbon emissions, two byproducts that must be addressed hand-in-hand with energy needs. Effective solutions must be scaleable and use a comprehensive "well to wheel" analysis, not only in terms of cost, but also in terms of environmental consequences.
The military's oil demand is not an intuitive place to focus effort since the Pentagon's use of oil constitutes less than two percent of U.S. oil consumption. Further, our national security apparatus is the one slice of consumption where we should gladly pay a premium for high-octane liquid fuel. But in parallel with transforming to "ready" technologies—plug-in hybrids, sustainable biofuels, and broad-based conservation efforts—we must also pursue high-risk and transformative solutions. One of the most successful avenues for doing so is military research and development (R&D).
From the Manhattan Project to Apollo, there have been tangible benefits to society from the military's long history of technological innovation. Radar, microwaves, and GPS have found mainstream civilian use but were initially funded by military research. Military requirements and innovation are well poised to push game-changing solutions for wider industrial benefit.
The most well known arm of military R&D is the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). This small group of scientists brought us stealth technology and the Internet. Calls for a second Manhattan Project on energy suggested that DARPA might offer a sound model to force such a revolution. In response to these pressures Congress mandated the creation of a new energy research agency in DARPA's image, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), with the goal of reducing foreign oil imports and improving efficiency. While the concept of ARPA-E is well-intended, implementation is stalled by debates over structure and funding. In the interim, the best parallel strategy for improved innovation is through existing military R&D agencies, considering the military's own needs.
Given current attention to this issue, the energy research budget of the U.S. government is modest: approximately $3.5 billion annually (compared to $8.8 billion for missile defense research) in Fiscal Year 2009—less than either Japan or the European Union by any normalized metric. Funding for proven military research entities should be significantly expanded around high-risk basic science and applied energy research. Military requirements would then accelerate commercialization and lower impediments to market for such alternatives.
Oil dependence is sufficiently troublesome given our reliance on capricious states and the economic threat of a shock or disruption. Climate change, peak oil prices, and competition with food supplies further underscore the imperative of this critical issue. Funding for military R&D has always been an investment in national security, just as pursuit of innovation has always been a mainstay of global power.
Military spending in energy R&D will result in more than military hardware advances—such innovation will also drive commercialization by the private sector. With energy security and national security now so inextricably entwined, investment in military energy R&D must be redoubled with the reasonable expectation that such outlays would be followed by petroleum's strategic demise.