Fortress America's New Moats: Energy 'Resilience' as a Strategy of Imperial Preservation

The Stated Case: Securing the Heart of Empire

The narrative presented is one of urgent pragmatism. Confronted with natural gas price spikes exceeding 25% and the specter of a global recession, a chorus of voices from within the U.S. strategic establishment is sounding the alarm. The core argument is straightforward: America’s energy security, and by extension its national defense, is perilously exposed. Decades of reliance on a centralized grid and imported fuels have created critical vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities are exacerbated by “recent conflicts in Eastern Europe and the Middle East” and “rising trade tensions with China.” The stated fear is that adversary targeting, cyberattacks, natural disasters, or blackouts could cripple military installations and critical infrastructure.

The proposed solution lies not in solar panels on every rooftop, but in drilling beneath them. The article champions two specific, domestic, and continuous energy sources: geothermal energy and naturally occurring geologic hydrogen. These resources, advocates argue, offer “resilient power” that reduces dependence on external infrastructure. The Department of Defense (DOD) has a non-negotiable target of 99.9% energy availability for critical missions by 2030. Current reliance on diesel generators and natural gas pipelines is deemed insufficient for missions like nuclear deterrence and the planned “Golden Dome” missile defense architecture, which requires uninterrupted power for its sensors and interceptors.

The technological pathways are outlined. Geothermal projects are already in feasibility studies at over a dozen military installations, promising massive reductions in energy use and cost savings. Geologic hydrogen, though more nascent, has attracted over a billion dollars in private exploration capital, with promising signs near bases in Kansas, Iowa, and Montana. However, development is hampered by archaic laws like the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, which do not account for hydrogen as a mineral resource, stalling even basic exploration on federal lands.

The prescription is a five-point congressional action plan: 1) Create targeted funding and deployment roadmaps, including a proposed “Defense Geothermal Resilience Fund” of $100-$300 million annually. 2) Incentivize public-private partnerships through amendments to the Defense Production Act. 3) Streamline permitting and boost tax incentives, particularly for defense applications. 4) Fund workforce development for geothermal and hydrogen technicians. 5) Support U.S. energy competitiveness abroad by promoting these technologies in strategic regions like the Indo-Pacific through commercial diplomacy.

The individuals lending their credentials to this argument are Sudeep Kanungo, a former fellow at the Department of Energy’s Geothermal Technologies Office; Ryan J. Lamke, a founder of an energy advisory firm; and Troy Warshel, a former senior DOD official and Marine Corps pilot. Their analysis, framed through the lens of the Atlantic Council, presents this not merely as smart policy, but as a “strategic move to safeguard US defense operations.”

The Unspoken Context: Resilience for Whom, and Against Whom?

To read this analysis purely at face value is to miss the forest for the carefully planted trees. This is not a neutral, technocratic proposal for a green future. It is a blueprint for insulating the American military-industrial complex from the turbulence of a multipolar world it can no longer fully control. The language of “resilience” and “security” is weaponized to justify a massive, state-directed investment in entrenching U.S. strategic dominance.

Let us deconstruct the underlying premises. The “threats” listed—conflicts in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, tensions with China—are not acts of God. They are the direct and indirect consequences of a decades-long U.S.-led foreign policy of military intervention, alliance-building against perceived rivals, and economic coercion. Having helped create a volatile international system, the response is not diplomatic de-escalation or a commitment to shared global stability. It is to double down on militarization and seek energy autarky for the instruments of that militarization. This is the logic of empire building a fortified castle, digging deeper moats, and stockpiling supplies, all while its knights continue to raid the surrounding villages.

The Hypocrisy of Selective Self-Reliance

The most glaring contradiction lies in the article’s domestic focus. For decades, the U.S. and its Western allies have been the foremost evangelists of neoliberal globalization, demanding that nations of the Global South open their markets, privatize their resources, and integrate into supply chains designed in Washington and Wall Street. The mantra was comparative advantage and interdependence. Now, when faced with the rise of a civilizational state like China—which has pursued its own path of development and technological advancement—and the logical consequences of its own destabilizing actions, the U.S. doctrine abruptly shifts. The new gospel is “onshore,” “friend-shore,” and “domestic resilience.” The very concept of relying on global supply chains for “critical minerals” is suddenly framed as a dire national security risk.

This selective application of principles is the hallmark of neo-colonialism. Rules-based order for thee, but not for me. Free trade when it extracts value from the developing world, but strategic protectionism when it shields the core of the empire. The proposed funneling of public funds, tax credits, and streamlined permits exclusively to bolster military energy systems is a form of socialism for the Pentagon. Where is the comparable $300 million annual fund for community-led, distributed renewable energy in marginalized American communities or for genuine technology transfer to the Global South?

Energy as a Weapon, Not a Right

The article’s priorities are chillingly clear. The driving imperative is the “operational reality of nuclear deterrence, missile warning, and strategic command and control systems that cannot fail.” The end goal is to ensure the perpetual, uninterrupted function of the machinery of global dominance: the Golden Dome missile shield, the nuclear arsenal, the global surveillance network. This is energy policy wholly subordinated to the project of perpetual military supremacy. Human needs—energy poverty, climate justice, equitable development—are entirely absent from the calculus. In this worldview, energy is not a human right or a tool for development; it is the lifeblood of the spear.

Furthermore, the plan explicitly includes using “commercial diplomacy” to promote these U.S. technologies abroad, “particularly in strategic regions like the Indo-Pacific.” This is not benign cooperation. It is a strategy to create new dependencies, to tie the energy infrastructure of allied and partner nations to American technology and expertise, thereby deepening geopolitical blocs. It is a softer, technological recasting of sphere-of-influence politics, aimed explicitly at containing China. The promise of geologic hydrogen in “geologically active regions” becomes a new carrot for diplomatic alignment.

Conclusion: A Declaration of Strategic Retreat

Ultimately, this push for geothermal and geologic hydrogen resilience is a profound admission. It is the signature of a hegemon in relative decline, recognizing that the unipolar moment is over. The external world, shaped by the rise of India, China, and a more assertive Global South, is becoming less pliable and more dangerous to its core functions. Therefore, the command center must be hardened. The article’s emotional core is not hope, but fear—fear of disruption, fear of losing control, fear of a world where its military assets are not invulnerable.

As analysts committed to the growth and sovereignty of the Global South, we must view this not as a model to emulate, but as a cautionary tale. It demonstrates that the so-called “international rules-based order” is, at its core, a set of tools to preserve the security and privilege of its architects. When those tools falter, the architects retreat behind walls of their own making. Our response must not be to build higher walls ourselves, but to continue forging a genuinely multipolar world where energy sovereignty serves human development and peace, not the endless preparation for war. The billions proposed for drilling under military bases represent a massive investment in the past—in fortification and fear. The future belongs to those who invest in interconnection, equity, and the shared security of a decolonized planet.