This Means War

I don't think I need to explain the obvious downsides and consequences of warfare, like the millions of people who are killed in wars, the number of those people that were under the age of 25, the number of innocent civilians killed, or the money the governments spend on both weapons and training for the military, which only scratch the surface of the list of problems incorporated with war. But there is another serious downside to war that not many people consider.

The impact that war has on the environment has been apparent for many years, but the boost in technology and the increasing size and severity of the weapons has dramatically advanced the damage of warfare to, in some cases, an irreparable level. Experts have coined the term ecocide, literally meaning "the killing of the environment".

From the Romans in 146 BC salting fields around Carthage to impair food production to the looting of Iraqi nuclear facilities in recent months, the environmental destruction resulting from war has had an enduring legacy. While the spraying of Agent Orange to defoliate jungles in Vietnam and burning of oil wells in Iraq have become icons of environmental warfare, many lesser-known but no less significant acts of ecocide have been perpetrated by warring states, like the endless amount of water contaminated, impairing both the environment and the health of the citizens, and the impact of combat on endangered species.



Depleted Uranium (DU), an extremely dense metal made from low-level radioactive waste, is principally used by the United States, but also by other countries such as Britain, in defensive military armor, munitions, and missiles. Its ability to penetrate the armor of enemy tanks and other targets more readily than similar weapons has made DU extremely valuable to the US military. Of course, the US military has downplayed potential health risks posed by exposure to Depleted Uranium, which might not surprise you. “I think the evidence is piling up that DU is not benign at all,” said Malcolm Hooper, a professor of medicinal chemistry at the University of Sunderland and chief scientific adviser to the UK Gulf Veterans Association. “The inhalation of these fine dust particles represents a health hazard that was known to the military as long ago as 1974."

This is only one of the thousands of ways that warfare effects our ecosystems and our way of life. The degradation of infrastructure and basic services brought on by war can wreak havoc on the local environment and public health. Countries’ water supply systems, for example, can be contaminated or shut down by bomb blasts or bullet damage to pipes. In Afghanistan, destruction to water infrastructure combined with weakened public service during the war resulted in bacterial contamination, water loss through leaks and illegal use. The consequence was an overall decline in safe drinking water throughout the country.

Not to mention the habitats that are constantly being destroyed by the technology of modern warfare. During the most recent war in Iraq, individuals were forced to cut down city trees to use as cooking fuel. In Afghanistan, the creation of poorly located, leaky landfill sites resulted in contaminated rivers and groundwater. Military machinery and explosives have caused unprecedented levels of deforestation and habitat destruction. This has resulted in a serious disruption of ecosystems, including erosion control, water quality, and food production. An example of this is the destruction of 35% of Cambodia’s intact forests due to two decades of civil conflict. In Vietnam, bombs alone destroyed over 2 million acres of land. These environmental catastrophes are aggravated by the fact that ecological protection and restoration become a low priority during and after war. The plants and animals that are killed in the prolonged fight out of greed displayed by man is only half of the destruction as the other half of the wildlife struggle to survive in what remains of their home after we're done with it.



 


The threat to biodiversity from combat can also be illustrated by the Rwanda genocide of 1994. The risk to the already endangered population of mountain gorillas from the violence was of minimal concern to combatants and victims during the 90-day massacre. The threat to the gorillas increased after the war as thousands of refugees, some displaced for decades, returned to the already overpopulated country. Faced with no space to live, they had little option but to inhabit the forest reserves, home to the gorilla population. As a result of this human crisis, conservation attempts were impeded. Currently, the International Gorilla Program Group is working with authorities to protect the gorillas and their habitats. This has proven to be a challenging task, given the complexities Rwandan leaders face, including security, education, disease, epidemics, and famine.

The bottom line is that during devastating battles between countries, the environment is of little concern to both figures of authority and combatants. They are so consumed in the fact that our own race cannot get along that they often forget about the animals trapped in the battle field with nowhere to escape. We don't realize the long term consequences of the things we're doing. The loss of just one plant species can severely impact over 30 animal species. We are disrupting ecosystems that took centuries to build in a matter of years over our own problems of greed and selfishness. 

People work hard to give their children a good life. Why not give them a world better than the collapsing one that was given to you? Or that was given to your parents? Give them a world full of the biodiversity that we are struggling to keep. How about a world with the foundation for change?