For the first time in more than half a century, the U.S. Army has published a new Arctic-specific manual, providing a comprehensive guide for planning and conducting operations in one of the world’s most challenging environments.

Army Techniques Publication (ATP) 3-90.96: Arctic and Extreme Cold Weather Operations was developed by the U.S. Army Combined Arms Center’s Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate in collaboration with the Army’s Northern Warfare Training Center, the Marine Corps’ Mountain Warfare Training Center and the Army’s Alaska-based 11th Airborne Division. Through two years of development with multinational partners and joint forces, the manual consolidates decades of tactics, techniques and scientific study into one publication. The new doctrine comes as interest in the Arctic surges due to global climate change and geopolitical shifts.

The last Arctic-specific manual was published in 1971. Field Manual 31-71: Northern Operations has since been discontinued. Since then, two cold-weather manuals were published: Army Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures 3-97-11: Cold Region Operations, in 2011, and ATP 3-90.97: Mountain Warfare and Cold Weather Operations, in 2016.

In recent years, the federal government, DoD and the Army all have published strategies for the Arctic region, which has emerged as a focal point for military exercises, training and strategic planning. With each exercise, the Army continues to showcase its ability to operate in the most extreme environments, such as conducting airborne operations in temperatures down to minus 20 and conducting missile launches in the northernmost reaches of Alaska.

Even with such dramatic displays of capability, key questions remain: Why would the U.S. need to fight somewhere so desolate and cold? What’s worth fighting for in the Arctic?

To answer these questions, the new doctrine helps soldiers understand three things: What are Arctic operations, why are they important, and how can soldiers meet the challenges of an Arctic environment?

Tackling the Term

Before soldiers can understand Arctic operations, they first must understand the term “arctic”—a task more complicated than it seems. That’s because, depending on the context and organization, the word “arctic” can have more than two dozen meanings (one of which is just a synonym for the word cold).

Even for an expert, it can get confusing. Rather than add to the confusion, ATP 3-90.96 does not define the Arctic. Instead, it organizes the many conflicting definitions into three main categories: latitude, climate and terrain. Each category has important tactical significance for the warfighter:

• Latitude can create up to 24 hours of daylight or darkness, as well as significantly disrupt communications because of solar storms.

• The climate can push temperatures down to minus 40 and, in some regions, down to minus 60.

• Arctic terrain reduces mobility and requires a tactical shift when soldiers move from ice cap to tundra to boreal forest.

Soldiers must understand these unique and challenging conditions during Arctic operations.

ATP 3-90.96 defines Arctic operations as “actions executed in ice cap, tundra, and boreal terrain that require special techniques and equipment.” This definition captures each important aspect of the Arctic (latitude, climate and terrain), and it gives soldiers a distinguishable way to identify Arctic operations: ice cap terrain has glaciers; tundra is a polar desert; and boreal terrain is composed of distinctive subarctic forests. 

This definition also encompasses seasonal changes—not just winter conditions. In fact, Arctic operations often are more difficult in summer because of widespread bogs (known as muskeg) that limit vehicle movement. This is an important distinction, since mobility and timing issues often are overlooked by those unfamiliar with the region.

There’s a saying in the high north: “Everything  takes longer in the Arctic.” Bulky clothes, snow and muskeg complicate things. Distances that normally would take an infantry platoon 30 minutes to traverse could take up to four hours or more. Proficiency levels are different from unit to unit, making synchronization challenging. Pair that with frequent communication issues common in northern latitudes, and the Arctic becomes a true test of command and control.

Strategic Value

The Arctic’s strategic importance has grown due to climate change, which is melting sea ice, unlocking access to trillions of dollars’ worth of natural resources and increasing accessibility of shipping lanes. However, the Arctic also has long been important to the United States. It is an area of power projection through Alaska and a region of homeland defense as one of the shortest distances between the east and west over the North Pole.

For U.S. adversaries such as China and Russia, the Arctic is equally as important. Chinese interests in the Arctic are primarily concerned with economics and political influence. On the other hand, Russia, while interested in economics, is primarily concerned with defense and projection. Particularly, Russia is concerned about protecting its northern flank, which continues to become more and more exposed as melting sea ice opens approach avenues.

By combining these things, it can be easy to assume that conflict might break out because of the Arctic. However, there are long-standing political systems to resolve Arctic-related disputes peacefully. Instead, Arctic operations are more likely to occur as a secondary, yet vital, theater in a larger conflict.

Historic Importance

Historically, the European Arctic served as an important air and sea route in both world wars. Additionally, the Alaskan Aleutian Islands were invaded by Japan in World War II. The resulting amphibious assault to retake the islands was one of the costliest in the Pacific Theater. Both examples show the historic importance of the Arctic. As the region becomes more accessible, its importance will only grow.

To visualize the role the Arctic would take in a future conflict, it’s helpful to look at the Arctic from the Russian perspective. In Murmansk,  a Russian city near the Arctic Ocean and Finland, the Arctic is home to Russia’s northern fleet and strategic second-strike nuclear capability. In large-scale combat, Russia likely would seek to project into the Atlantic Ocean to control sea lines of communication and block equipment and reinforcements from North America. From such a perspective, the NATO countries of Finland, Sweden and Norway appear as a massive land obstacle to achieving Russia’s objective.

To summarize why the Arctic matters to the U.S. Army, there generally are two reasons: the first is to reinforce NATO allies along the Atlantic, which is increasingly more important with the accession of Finland and Sweden into NATO. The second is for homeland defense through Alaska on the Pacific side of the Arctic.

Deliberate Approach

Arctic capabilities are equally—if not more—critical during periods of competition, since maintaining peace in the region depends on a capable and ready force. Preparation for Arctic operations requires a deliberate approach to ensure that organizations at every level—from tactical to strategic—make calculated and consistent advances to prevent the Arctic from becoming a blind spot in national defense.

ATP 3-90.96 assists in these preparations by offering a road map for soldiers and commanders to overcome the complex Arctic environment. It addresses the physical and operational environment, outlines specific tactics for Arctic conditions and provides guidance for every warfighting function. The manual is designed as both a foundation and a reference for arctic modernization and training.

Here are some short takeaways for commanders, planners and strategists alike:

• Operations will take longer than expected. It’s not unusual to double, triple or even quadruple conventional planning estimates. Proper synchronization and timing require extra controls.

• Sustainment is challenging. Mobility problems, massive distances and extreme weather significantly increase chances of isolation, even for brigade-sized forces. Units must have the right gear and not rely on emergency resupply. Units also must scrutinize PACE (Primary, Alternate, Contingency, Emergency) plans. In some cases, there are not enough letters in PACE for the number of contingencies needed.

• Cold-weather adaptability is needed to survive, but mobility is needed to accomplish the mission. Both skills are necessary for the Arctic. Without people and equipment adapted to the cold, armies often suffer more casualties to the weather than to the enemy. Without mobility, units struggle to accomplish their objective and sustain themselves.

• Cold-weather capability takes time to develop. Units that enter the Arctic prepared have an overwhelming advantage over those that do not. As a rule, cold-weather capability is 20% equipment and 80% training. Training should be deliberate. Leaders cannot throw units into the Arctic with little preparation and expect them to perform effectively.

These are only a few key insights among many provided by ATP 3-90-96. By equipping soldiers with the knowledge and tools to operate in extreme conditions, the Army ensures that it remains prepared for future challenges in one of the world’s most unforgiving environments.

Soldiers can download the full manual at armypubs.army.mil.

* * *

Capt. Edward Garibay is a logistics officer who is the lead doctrine author of Army Techniques Publication 3-90.96: Arctic and Extreme Cold Weather Operations with the Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Previously, he was a company commander in 1st Air Cavalry Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Cavazos, Texas. He deployed to Afghanistan. He has three master’s degrees: one in international relations and another in public relations, both from Syracuse University, New York; and the third in military studies from American Military University. He is pursuing a doctorate in Arctic security studies at Kansas State University.