Ignoring global catastrophic risk threatens American national security

When it comes to exotic threats to the globe, there is a tendency to totally dismiss events that are highly unlikely or simply too troubling to consider. But in the op-ed below, former lawmakers Brad Carson and Mike Rogers argue that’s a fallacy that could critically cost the US should America fail to plan, now, for the unthinkable.

A growing set of extremely consequential but poorly understood threats to our country — from another worldwide pandemic to more exotic but very real disasters — requires a response on par with their potentially devastating impact. As former senior US national security officials, we believe that is imperative the federal government assess and develop practical mitigation steps for a wider range of these unconventional and emerging catastrophic risks.

Fortunately, there is an immediate step our leaders can take to mitigate these risks: Congress and the president should sign the Global Catastrophic Risk Management Act into law this year.

Recent events such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine have highlighted that some of the gravest man-made and natural risks to our national and homeland security may be underappreciated by the US government, not to mention less-discussed threats like asteroid strikes, supervolcanos or nuclear war. The coming decades will be defined by this type of risk: threats that are vaguely “on the radar” of the government but are often dismissed as being too unlikely or unconventional to be taken seriously. Greater attention to these high-consequence risks is of tremendous importance to our national defense, security and welfare.

Not all government agencies are silent on these existential risks, and lawmakers and administration officials would be well-served to listen to the national security and intelligence community when it comes to planning for them. As the US National Intelligence Council indicated in its Global Trends 2040 report:

Technological advances may increase the number of existential threats; threats that could damage life on a global scale challenge our ability to imagine and comprehend their potential scope and scale, and they require the development of resilient strategies to survive. Technology plays a role in both generating these existential risks and in mitigating them. Anthropomorphic risks include runaway AI, engineered pandemics, nanotechnology weapons, or nuclear war. Such low-probability, high-impact events are difficult to forecast and expensive to prepare for but identifying potential risks and developing mitigation strategies in advance can provide some resilience to exogenous shocks.

This is also not totally uncharted territory. Some federal agencies are already charged with assessing and addressing these risks. For example, the Department of Health and Human Services has a mandate to prepare for pandemics even worse than COVID-19, NASA tracks asteroids and considers technical means of deflecting them, the State Department has a particular focus on weapons of mass destruction arms control, and the Pentagon is increasingly developing expertise on the risk of emerging technologies.

But while all of these are threats to national and international security will require whole-of-government effort to mitigate, they are all currently treated separately and distinct. In an age of increasing connectivity, each of these individual agency efforts are still marked by different priorities, resources and even the sense of urgency applied to mitigating the threats. In fact, there has never been a coordinated, comprehensive, whole-of-government assessment of global catastrophic risks facing the US, nor a plan in place to address them in the event they occur.

In introducing the Global Catastrophic Risk Management Act, Senators Rob Portman, R-Ohio, and Gary Peters, D-Mich., have taken an important first step in recognizing the urgency of these threats. Their bill defines global catastrophic risk as “the risk of events or incidents consequential enough to significantly harm, set back, or destroy human civilization at the global scale.” Its companion legislation was introduced Friday by House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, and member Rep. Dina Titus, D-Nev.

The legislation would facilitate a broad, intra-governmental assessment of the full threat landscape of global catastrophic risks to the US. This assessment would be an important first step and is instrumental to our national-level planning for societal resilience beyond the known and anticipated risks. Hurricanes, earthquakes, terrorism and other natural and man-made risks are already part of our planning. However, we also need to think about and plan for those existential, low-probability, but very high-impact events.

Internally within the government, this critical analysis will be used to review our nation’s continuity of operations and continuity of government planning (COOP/COG) to survive these risks. COOP/COG planning is effectively our “last line of defense” in our darkest hour of need to maintain the basic functions and constitutional nature of our great nation — everything from our so-called “doomsday bunkers” to national emergency communication networks. We can’t defend against threats that are not well understood. This bill will help the Defense Department more broadly understand the scope of threats and prioritize against other existential threats like nuclear weapons.

Both the risk assessment and COOP/COG reviews are critical steps toward reducing global catastrophic risks to the country and thus the security posture of DoD. We urge Congress to enact this measure as soon as possible. Few agenda items should be given higher priority. The longer we wait to act, the less secure our future becomes.

Brad Carson is a former Under Secretary for the Army and Member of Congress. Mike Rogers is a former Member of Congress and Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.