Objecting to Federal Land Sales on Military Strategic Grounds

Opening Statement

“I’m here today to voice strong opposition to the proposed sale of federal lands as a budget measure. While I understand the fiscal pressures facing our government, selling our public lands would compromise critical military and national security interests that far outweigh any short-term financial gains.”

Key Military Strategic Arguments

1. Training and Readiness Infrastructure

Federal lands provide essential training areas for military exercises that cannot be replicated on private property
Large-scale maneuvers, live-fire exercises, and joint operations require vast, controlled territories
Loss of these lands would force expensive relocation of training facilities or compromise military readiness

2. Strategic Buffer Zones

Federal lands often serve as natural security buffers around sensitive military installations
Private development near bases creates security vulnerabilities and operational constraints
Maintaining federal control ensures compatible land use that supports rather than hinders military operations

3. Airspace and Flight Corridors

Many federal lands lie beneath critical military airspace and flight training routes
Private ownership could lead to development that interferes with low-level flight training and testing
Controlled federal lands ensure clear airspace for national defense operations

4. Research and Testing Facilities

Remote federal lands host classified research, weapons testing, and technology development
These activities require absolute security and land use control that only federal ownership can guarantee
Private ownership introduces unacceptable risks to sensitive defense programs

5. Strategic Resource Security

Federal lands contain mineral deposits and natural resources critical to defense manufacturing
Maintaining federal control ensures reliable access to materials needed for military equipment and infrastructure
Private ownership could limit access or inflate costs during national emergencies

Economic Counter-Arguments

Short-term vs. Long-term Costs

“While land sales might generate immediate revenue, the long-term costs of relocating military infrastructure, acquiring new training areas, and addressing security vulnerabilities would far exceed any budget savings.”

National Security Investment

“Federal lands represent a national security investment that pays dividends in military readiness and strategic flexibility. This is not the time to mortgage our defense capabilities for short-term budgetary relief.”

Closing Statement

“Our federal lands are not just real estate—they are strategic assets that support our national defense infrastructure. I urge you to reject this short-sighted proposal and instead pursue budget solutions that don’t compromise our military readiness or national security. The true cost of selling these lands will be measured not in dollars, but in our reduced capacity to defend our nation.”