Explanation of advantages— Science Diplomacy

AT T Non-military

Coast Guard = non-mil asset

CI – Coast Guard has a statutorily mandated non-military function – excludes the rest of the military

Dolan, 5 – Master’s Thesis for the Naval Postgraduate School (Mark, “THE SEAMLESS MARITIME CONCEPT” https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=452965)

Capability and resource redundancy is expensive. However, contingency and surge compatibility is both necessary and appropriate. Where does appropriate compatibility and surge capacity become unnecessary redundancy? Navy and Coast Guard discussions concerning the Coast Guard as the national patrol boat manager, Deepwater communications and weapons systems interoperability, and deployment schedules are outstanding examples of complementary capabilities and cooperation. While the Navy’s justification for capabilities is solely dependent on defense missions, the Coast Guard’s justification includes readiness for defense missions and traditional Coast Guard missions. The redundancy discussion frequently fails to recognize that the Navy does not have a requirement to execute non-military missions. Moreover, the Coast Guard through its statue as a law enforcement agency and military service must be prepared for both. The same is not true of the Navy.

This doesn’t mean that the Navy cannot be an appropriate supporting service during times of maritime homeland security duress; it just means the Navy force should not be built for that secondary purpose. The Navy’s warfighting capability set includes numerous assets that can augment the Coast Guard during crisis.

Some amount of redundancy is desirable. How much redundancy is appropriate is a constantly changing, depending of the security and defense environments, deployments, threats, resource status, etc. At a minimum the redundancy must include a Coast Guard force structure and capability mix sized for the non-military mission and readiness for defense missions. The Navy force structure planning and capability mix must be sized for military missions. The Navy does not need to be built to nonmilitary mission specifications; however, that does not preclude the use of Navy resources and capabilities in dealing with homeland security contingency plans. A Seamless Maritime Concept would include all resources.

Icebreaking missions are non-military in peacetime

Garrett, 81 – Thesis written for the Naval Postgraduate School (Jeffrey, “Arctic Alaska and icebreaking : an assessment of future requirements for the United States Coast Guard” http://calhoun.nps.edu/public/bitstream/handle/10945/20435/arcticalaskaiceb00garr.pdf?sequence=1)

I. BACKGROUND: ICEBREAKING AND THE COAST GUARD

The Coast Guard is in certain ways unique in the country's governmental structure. It is, by definition, an armed force of the United States yet virtually the entire thrust of its peacetime role is distinctly non-military. This dual nature is characteristic of individual operating units as well as the organization as a whole. The sheer scope of duties is also noteworthy; there are fourteen operating programs (or major endeavors) carried out by 38,400 uniformed personnel, 5,400 civilian employees, 11,700 selected reservists and an auxiliary of 42,500 [Reference 160] . The Coast Guard has been descriptively categorized with regard to these features as a dual-role, multi-mission agency: it is a military service performing a wide range of civilian duties [Ref. 2]

Coast Guard icebreakers are non-military and used for research—there is bright line in form and function between its warships and icebreakers

Magnuson 13

Stew, D.C based journalist and former foreign correspondent, “Sticker Shock: $1 Billion for New Icebreaker” http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2013/June/Pages/StickerShock$1BillionforNewIcebreaker.aspx//sd)

“Design of a new icebreaker should start immediately, emphasizing research as well as escort and logistics capabilities, and should reflect the needs of both primary and secondary users,” the report stated. Since then, the service was forced to retire several icebreakers and was only allocated the funding to build one, the Healy. It is a medium-size ship intended for scientific research, and was not commissioned until 16 years after the 1983 report. The Coast Guard now only has two heavy polar icebreakers remaining, the Polar Star and Polar Sea, which have exceeded their 30-year service lives and have been in and out of mothballs for several years. Polar Star, after undergoing repairs, returned to service in December after six years of being docked. After upgrades, it is expected to last another seven to 10 years, said the March 2013 CRS report, “Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization,” authored by Ronald O’Rourke. Polar Sea broke down in 2010 and is no longer operational, the report added. A 2011 study for Congress said one heavy icebreaker would cost $800 million to $925 million based on 2008 dollars, but by 2012 it would swell to $900 million to $1 billion. The Coast Guard has requested relatively small amounts in the 2013 and 2014 budgets — $8 million and $2 million respectively — to kick off the acquisition program with an eye toward awarding a contract in about five years, and delivery in 10, about the time Polar Star would be decommissioned. O’Rourke said Congress will have to decide whether it will fund a new ship all at once, or incrementally. A one-year allocation may come at the expense of other shipbuilding programs, he noted. The Coast Guard during the corresponding 10 years will be attempting to acquire some 25 offshore patrol cutters, one of its most expensive acquisition programs to date. It is currently having a hard time completing its fleet of eight national security cutters. It is requesting funding for the seventh for fiscal year 2014. Whether it will receive the greenlight from Congress to build the eighth in these austere budgetary times remains to be seen. The national security cutter, a sophisticated ship with expensive weapons, communications and sensors, costs almost half the amount of an icebreaker, which doesn’t require any of those high-tech systems, Bright said. The unique ships use mass and velocity to move through frozen waters. As they are propelled forward, they move up onto the ice, and the weight of the hull breaks it. That requires a large ship with powerful engines, a 2007 National Academies study on the Coast Guard’s icebreaker fleet stated. It also has reinforced steel and a double hull at the bow in case of a breach. “Protecting the rudders and propellers or propulsion units is of paramount importance in icebreaker hull design,” it also stated. They must not protrude from the ship. Despite the lack of weapons and other high-tech systems, “there are also special items that go on those ships, and that jacks prices up,” Bright said. And “at 13,000 to 17,000 tons, that is an awful lot of steel to buy,” he added. Slattery said the seven- to 10-year estimate of additional service life for the Polar Star is “generous.” “It is unrealistic that that replacement vessel will come online by the time they are going to have to pull the Polar Star out for good,” he added. It has been about 40 years since U.S. industry has built a heavy icebreaker. The medium-sized Healy was built by Avondale Shipyards in Louisiana, which has changed hands twice and is now owned by Huntington Ingalls Industries. It announced its plans to shutter the old Avondale yard this year, then reversed course, and said it would now build oil and gas exploration equipment, according to a company press release. Even $200 million per year in incremental funding would be a “pretty significant chunk of the entire recapitalization budget,” Slattery said. That’s not the worst of it. This high pricetag is only for one vessel. The requirements on the books call for three medium and three heavy icebreakers, he noted. The Healy is essentially a research vessel for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, he pointed out.

Here are the legal sections of Coast Guard code that draw the bright-line on military versus science

NRC 7

(National Research Council. Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World: An Assessment of U.S. Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2007. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11753&page=R1//sd)

14 U.S.C. 94 requires the Coast Guard to conduct oceanographic research and to cooperate with other government agencies as may be in the national interest. 14 U.S.C. 141 authorizes the Coast Guard to utilize its personnel and facilities to assist, among others, federal and state agencies. Under this authority the Coast Guard provides icebreaking services to user agencies such as the Department of Defense and the National Science Foundation; upon proper request, the Coast Guard conducts icebreaking in harbors and channels to relieve flooding conditions.

Non-military agencies administer Coast Guard icebreakers

Markestad 6

(Jon Markestad is a senior marine engineer with The Glosten Associates. He is a graduate of the University of Washington with a B.S.E. in Mechanical Engineering and is a licensed marine engineer in Washington. “U.S. Coast Guard Icebreaker Fleet” Marine Technology and SNAME News43.3 (Jul 2006): 24. Pg online at ProQuest//sd)

The content in the presentation was a great learning source about the US Coast Guard icebreaker fleet, in particular the USS HEALY. Captain Daniel K. Oliver, from the U.S. Coast Guard, gave an interesting presentationon the HEALY's design and last year's tour of duty, which included many wonderful pictures to illustrate the topic. Last year the vessel spent a few months in northern Alaska doing research for NOAA and NSF then traversed the Artic. The traverse was in conjunction with the Swedish icebreaker ODEN, and included a stop at the North Pole. The traverse ended in Scotland where the research crew left the ship. The trip back to Seattle was by way of the Caribbean and the Panama Canal.

Empirically, Coast Guard icebreaker ships can be dedicated to science missions

Forcucci and Chayes 6

(Dave, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Dale N. Chayes Senior Staff Associate - Lamont Res Eng. Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. Marine Geology and Geophysics, “Ocean Observations in the Arctic From the US Coast Guard Icebreaker Healy” American Geophysical Union, pg online proquest//sd)

Since 2001 the US Coast Guard Icebreaker Healy has been dedicated to supporting marine research cruises to the Arctic. The ship deploys for about 6 months a year during the Boreal summer and typically supports three to four scientific research legs alternating between the East and West Arctic during alternate years. The US National Science Foundation funds a majority of the programs on Healy while other federal agencies, primarily NOAA, have funded a few programs. Healy maintains a variety of continuous underway data acquisition systems, including meteorological, oceanographic, and seafloor mapping instrumentation. In-hull acoustic instrumentation includes two Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCP) (75 and 150 kHz), multibeam (swath) bathymetry, and sub-bottom profilers. A thermosalinograph provides temperature and conductivity data from a continuous flow through seawater system. Besides the standard meteorological package, other systems include a Terascan satellite receiver and a forward looking digital camera. In the past, ship of opportunity (SOO) science programs have sailed on Healy during funded cruises and during transits. Healy also participates in NOAA's Voluntary Observing Ship (VOS) Program. A state of the art Iridium satellite communication system provides data communication at high latitudes where Inmarsat does not provide coverage. Due to the limited number of ships and platforms operating in the Arctic, Healy is an important resource for obtaining ocean observations in the Arctic.

Coast Guad = Staturorily non mil

Including the Coast Guard doesn’t justify other military agents

Allen, 8 - Admiral Thad W. Allen Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard (“United States Coast Guard Model Maritime Service Code”, http://www.brymar-consulting.com/wp-content/uploads/security/MMSC_2008.pdf)

Although U.S. Coast Guard personnel have served in every major United States conflict since 1790, the Coast Guard also performs many non-military missions. The Coast Guard’s multi-mission character is defined by its ability to conduct distinct yet complementary functions in the maritime domain—law enforcement, national defense, mobility, maritime safety, environmental protection, and humanitarian response. This unique character positions the Coast Guard to meet a broad range of national interests within the maritime domain.

To carry out these missions, the U.S. Coast Guard has been delegated certain police powers. This is one of the major differences between the Coast Guard and the other military services which are prohibited from engaging in direct law enforcement. The Coast Guard, due to it role as both a law enforcement agency and a military force, has implemented strict policy guidance and oversight systems to ensure that this broad grant of authority is not abused. Specific legal authorities also allow the Coast Guard to be assisted in its law enforcement mission by the other military services, again, under specific limits.

The peacetime role is non-military

Gizzo, 3 – practicing attorney in West Harrison, New York and a Program Specialist with the Department of Public Safety in Westchester County.(Tom, “A Call to Arms: The Posse Comitatus Act and the Use of the Military in the Struggle against International Terrorism,” 15 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 149 (2003)

Available at: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilr/vol15/iss1/4)

NOTE: This card says the Coast Guard is run by the DOT – this changed to the Department of Homeland Security at the very end of 2002, after this article was written but before it was published)

Federal courts have steadfastly recognized the principle that the amended Act of 1956, "[b]y its express terms... prohibits only the use of the Army and the Air Force in civilian law enforcement." 31 The Act makes no mention of either the Navy or other military subdivisions, including the Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and the National Guard. At the time of the passage of the original Act, the Army was the only type of military used in the United States. The Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard and National Guard all existed at the time of the amendment of the Act in 1965, but specific prohibitions of their use in domestic law enforcement were not included. As a matter of policy, however, the Navy, in 1988 adopted the restrictions of the PCA, but authorized exceptions to this policy when specifically approved by the proper authority.32 The Coast Guard functions as a branch of the armed forces, but during peacetime, under Title 14 of the United States Code, it is under the authority of the Department of Transportation, 33 making it non-military, and therefore the Act does not apply to it. 34 Similarly, the National Guard is not limited by the PCA during its normal function of state service since the Act only applies to forces in federal service. 35 Additionally, the Army has the ability to assist civilian law enforcement during times of great national disaster under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief Act of 1984(Stafford Act), 36 which was amended in 1988. The Army's37 assistance is requested by the governor of a given state from the President of the United States, when a state of emergency occurs, which results from a national disaster. The result of this request is that active duty soldiers are deployed under the supervision of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)38 . The courts have affirmed the above distinctions by narrowly defining "army" as used in the Act. 39

The last military mission of the Coast Guard was in Vietnam – the entire organization culture is non-military

Holmes, 13 – professor of strategy at the Naval War College (James, “America Needs a Coast Guard That Can Fight” Foreign Policy, 3/15, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/03/15/america_needs_a_coast_guard_that_can_fight)/

The last time Coast Guard cutters undertook a traditional naval mission was in Vietnam -- and even then, U.S. forces faced no real threat to their command of offshore waters. World War II, when Coast Guard seafarers dueled U-boats in the Battle of the Atlantic, thus represents the service's last true encounter with high-intensity naval warfare.

Strategies pursued by constabulary agencies differ fundamentally from those pursued by combat arms. Military theorist Carl von Clausewitz depicted international competition as an interactive struggle for strategic advantage. Neither contender is a lifeless mass on which the other imposes its will. Both sides think; both react; both thirst to win. Navies fight antagonists capable of contesting their use of the sea for military purposes. Relative parity is required; otherwise, the strong simply sweep feebler opponents from the briny deep. Navies win nautical command; coast guards help exercise it.

Coast guards also have adversaries, but they are starkly different in character. Mother Nature is one. No strategist can outthink a tsunami or an earthquake. Coast guardsmen succor the afflicted, then orchestrate recovery efforts. Coast guards do confront living adversaries, of course, but they are wrongdoers who disrupt good order at sea -- not the fleet's ability to transit hither and yon as it pleases. The gunrunner or human trafficker is a suspect to be apprehended and brought to justice, not an enemy to be outdueled and compelled to submit to U.S. political aims. Different assumptions about institutional purposes, the operating environment, and the adversary give rise to disparate cultures -- even among outwardly similar services roaming the wine-dark sea.

It’s statutorily defined in both military and non-military roles

O’Rourke, 14 – Specialist in Naval Affairs at the Congressional Research Service (Ronald, “Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress” 6/5, http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34391.pdf)

The prepared statement of the GAO witness at a December 1, 2011, hearing before the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that focused primarily on icebreakers states:

Another alternative option addressed by the Recapitalization report would be to fund new icebreakers through the NSF. However, the analysis of this option concluded that funding a new icebreaker through the existing NSF budget would have significant adverse impacts on NSF operations and that the capability needed for Coast Guard requirements would exceed that needed by the NSF.

The Recapitalization report noted that a funding approach similar to the approach used for the Healy, which was funded through the fiscal year 1990 DOD appropriations, should be considered. However, the report did not analyze the feasibility of this option. We have previously reported that because of the Coast Guard’s statutory role as both a federal maritime agency and a branch of the military, it can receive funding through both the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and DOD. For example, as we previously reported, although the U.S. Navy is not expressly required to provide funding to the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard receives funding from the Navy to purchase and maintain equipment, such as self-defense systems or communication systems, because it is in the Navy’s interest for the Coast Guard systems to be compatible with the Navy’s systems when the Coast Guard is performing national defense missions in support of the Navy. However, according to a Coast Guard budget official, the Coast Guard receives the majority of its funding through the DHS appropriation, with the exception of reimbursements for specific activities. Also, as the Recapitalization plan acknowledges, there is considerable strain on the DOD budget. A recent DOD report on the Arctic also notes budgetary challenges, stating that the near-term fiscal and political environment will make it difficult to support significant new U.S. investments in the Arctic. Furthermore, DOD and the Coast Guard face different mission requirements and timelines. For example, DOD’s recent report states that the current level of human activity in the Arctic is already of concern to DHS, whereas the Arctic is expected to remain a peripheral interest to much of the national security community for the next decade or more. As a result, the Coast Guard has a more immediate need than DOD to acquire Arctic capabilities, such as icebreakers. For example, with preliminary plans for drilling activity approved in 2011, the Coast Guard must be prepared to provide environmental response in the event of an oil spill. Similarly, as cruise ship traffic continues to increase, the Coast Guard must be prepared to conduct search and rescue operations should an incident occur. For these reasons, it is unlikely that an approach similar to the one that was used to build the Healy would be feasible at this time.63

Coast Guard = non-mil purpose

Coast Guard icebreakers have a nondefense research role

NRC 7

(National Research Council. Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World: An Assessment of U.S. Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2007. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11753&page=R1//sd)

After World War II, the Lighthouse Service and Steamboat Inspection Service were assimilated into the U.S. Coast Guard. Polar operations continued throughout the Cold War and into the 1970s. U.S. Coast Guard icebreakers assisted summer tug-and-barge sealifts to Prudhoe Bay in the 1970s as the Alaska Pipeline was built and supported several years of testing in Maritime Administration studies of commercial icebreaking ship design. Even before the end of the Cold War, icebreakers were increasingly in demand for nondefense research in the Arctic. Throughout its history, the U.S. Coast Guard’s mission has expanded in response to the changing needs of the nation. Today, the U.S. Coast Guard provides unique benefits to the nation because of its distinctive blend of military, humanitarian, and civilian law enforcement capabilities. To serve the public, the U.S. Coast Guard has organized its responsibilities into five fundamental roles: (1) maritime safety, (2) national defense, (3) maritime security, (4) maritime mobility, and (5) protection of natural resources, and a unique mission in ice operations in which icebreakers play a key role. These roles may again be altered in response to the pronounced, large-scale environmental changes that are occurring in the Arctic. It is highly likely that commercial endeavors will develop in this region; these developments will lead to increased commercial traffic, resource exploitation, and associated international interface, which will directly affect U.S. Coast Guard statutory responsibilities and pose significant challenges to the Coast Guard’s future ability to execute these responsibilities in the ice-affected waters of the Arctic.

Coast Guard icebreakers have a statutory role in polar scientific missions for observation

NRC 7

(National Research Council. Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World: An Assessment of U.S. Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2007. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11753&page=R1//sd)

Even before the effects of environmental changes were widely recognized, the Arctic was a target for scientific inquiry as one of the least explored areas of the planet. It seems clear that the rapid environmental changes now under way will continue to require active scientific observation and study. While science support is not exclusively a U.S. Coast Guard mission, oceanographic research is directed by statute and has been part of the service’s Arctic operations since John Muir sailed with the Revenue Cutter CORWIN in 1884. Science support remains a compatible mission for U.S. Coast Guard-operated icebreakers. U.S. icebreaker presence in the Arctic, for any or all of the potential missions discussed above, would synergistically enhance the ability to conduct scientific sampling and observation. In yet another area of competition, robust marine research capabilities in the Arctic will also bolster the international standing of U.S. scientists and research programs, as well as preserve the benefits of applied research. The U.S. Coast Guard’s science support role, primarily through logistics in McMurdo Sound, is addressed in U.S. Coast Guard statutory authorities. The presence of U.S. Coast Guard icebreakers in the Antarctic every year brings a variety of additional national capabilities to the region, not the least of which is a visible maritime presence.

“Exploration” is discovery through observation and recording

NAS 00 – National Academy of Science Study, “Ocean Exploration”, http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/osb/miscellaneous/exploration_final.pdf

What Is Ocean Exploration?

As defined by the President’s Panel on Ocean Exploration (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2000), ocean exploration is discovery through disciplined, diverse observations and recordings of findings. It includes rigorous, systematic observations and documentation of biological, chemical, physical, geological, and archeological aspects of the ocean in the three dimensions of space and in time.

AT National Sec = Mil

National security is a bad bright-line for the non-military distinction—it includes financial and energy security

US Legal 10

(National Security Law & Legal Definition, http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/national-security//sd)

National security is a corporate term covering both national defense and foreign relations of the U.S. It refers to the protection of a nation from attack or other danger by holding adequate armed forces and guarding state secrets. The term national security encompasses within it economic security, monetary security, energy security, environmental security, military security, political security and security of energy and natural resources. Specifically, national security means a circumstance that exists as a result of a military or defense advantage over any foreign nation or group of nations, or a friendly foreign relations position, or a defense position capable of successfully protesting hostile or destructive action.

The term “national security” does not imply military security, but other non-military threats

Tarnoff 93

(Peter, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs during the first Clinton term, “Defining National Security: The Nonmilitary Aspects” pg online at http://books.google.co.in/books?id=shxDOnuVcyYC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false//sd)

For decades, the term national security has meant— by and large—military security. That meaning has increasingly been called into question as the waning tensions of the Cold War have coincided with rising concern over a variety of nonmilitary threats to America's security. In this study Joseph Romm examines the growing policy debates concerning several of these new threats: domestic drug use and the international drug trade; the greenhouse effect and other global environmental problems; America's growing dependence on imported oil; and America's declining economic competitiveness. In each case, Romm analyses the implications of these threats to our conception of national security and the tradeoffs between domestic and foreign policy priorities. He argues that many of the new national security threats are interconnected; that energy security is, for instance, inextricably tied to environmental and economic security issues. In his summing up he offers a new definition of national security and suggests a new national agenda.

Government definition of national security is too broad and includes non-military security

Lubliner 11

Paul Lubliner is a graduate student at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University. He has written articles for Mesomerica and the International Affairs Review. “The Merits of (Re)defining U.S. National Security” pg online at http://www.iar-gwu.org/node/348//sd)

The current U.S. government's definition of national security is from the Department of Defense (DOD). According to DOD, national security is: A collective term encompassing both national defense and foreign relations of the United States. Specifically, the condition provided by: a) a military or defense advantage over any foreign nation or group of nations; b) a favorable foreign relations position; or c) a defense posture capable of successfully resisting hostile or destructive action from within or without, overt or covert. This definition cannot be used effectively as a basis for U.S. National Security Strategy because of its deficiencies. First, it states that national security is actually a collection of three definitions. Given that these definitions are not mutually exclusive, separating them into different silos confounds the creation of a cohesive national security strategy based off of the collective definition. Basing a strategy off of either the first or second definition is too restrictive. Furthermore, in the third definition, it is not clear what "from within and without" refers to, although presumably the U.S. homeland. This third definition is also too restrictive to stand alone because a good definition involves more than a "defense posture capable of successfully resisting hostile or destructive action." Indeed, providing "the condition" is also a matter of being able to successfully preempt or avoid hostile or destructive action through international aid, diplomacy and constructive political, economic and social policies. Further, "the condition," might be broadly defined to reassure people that it is foreseen as something positive. A more useful definition though would describe national security in terms of the ability to provide a given condition rather than as the condition that is a result of that ability because the former's greater focus on ability is psychologically more empowering. Finally, it should be clear that national security keeps individuals safe both physically and psychologically; hence integral to the definition is that Americans must have confidence in the very mechanisms and efforts that exist to keep them safe.

Polar Ocean Fleet = Non-mil

The polar ocean fleet is non-military because of its scientific purpose and cooperative effort between the National Science Foundation and the Coast Guard

Augustine 13

(Norman Ralph Augustine is a U.S. aerospace businessman who served as Under Secretary of the Army from 1975 to 1977. Augustine currently serves as chairman of the Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee. Blue Ribbon is led by Augustine, but includes the US Antarctic Program’s members “NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION SUMMARY RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE U.S. ANTARCTIC PROGRAM BLUE RIBBON PANEL” pg online at http://www.nsf.gov/geo/plr/usap_special_review/usap_brp/rpt/nsf_brp_response.pdf//sd)

Following a survey of the USAP's polar ocean fleet, the BRP concluded that action should be taken to restore the fleet to support science, with appropriate research icebreaking capability, as well as logistics and national security, via appropriate operational icebreaking capability, in both polar regions over the long-term. With respect to icebreakers, NSF is participating in an interagency effort, led by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), to assess government-wide requirements for icebreaking. USCG will consider this information as it proceeds with design and construction of a new polar class icebreaker (initial funding requested in the 2013 President's Budget for USCG). NSF is also actively engaged with USCG in monitoring progress on the reactivation of the USCG Cutter Polar Star (WAGB-10). It currently appears that this vessel will be available for the 2013/14 break-in to McMurdo Station and possibly for the subsequent 7-10 years. NSF is pursuing options for meeting future science activities that require a Polar Research Vessel (PRV). A University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) led community-based refresh of the mission needs requirements for a PRV was delivered in February 2012. A lease/buy analysis is currently underway to inform the Foundation's decision regarding possible acquisition of a research icebreaker. NSF agrees with the BRP that it would be beneficial to identify additional opportunities to leverage resources with our international partners. Further leveraging could be promoted through the research community, the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs (COMNAP, an international organization of National Antarctic Program operators), and program-to-program exchanges. Significant potential for collaborative logistics and research may exist in the Antarctic Peninsula region where NSF and other nations have, or would like to pursue, active programs. For example, consideration is already being given to shared use of vessels and development of an air link. NSF is currently reviewing opportunities and developing a roadmap for potential science and operational collaborations in this region. Once completed in 2013, the roadmap will serve as the basis for formal discussion with our international partners.