The Environmental Consequences of War

Background

Unsustainable discharges of waste gases into the atmosphere and large numbers of species extinctions throughout the world are but two of many indications of the increasingly deleterious impact of humankind on the global biosphere. With the civil sector of society responsible for most of this abuse, it is only natural that attempts at ameliorative action are directed almost exclusively towards that sector. However, a number of arguments readily suggest the importance of not overlooking the military sector of society in conserving the environment.

First, although military activities now contribute only about 3 percent to total human activities worldwide (as measured in terms of gross national products), every bit of ameliorative action is valuable in the increasingly dire environmental circumstances prevailing today. Second, some military activities have the potential for being environmentally disruptive at levels disproportionately high in relation to their contribution to overall human activities, thus requiring particular attention. Such examples include, among others: the Yellow River Valley (1938), Gruinard Island (1942), northern Norway (1944), Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1945), Enewetak (Eniwetok) Atoll (1952), Vietnam and Laos (1970), Kuwait and the Persian Gulf (1991), Eritrea (1991), abandoned military bases in Estonia and Latvia (1991), and Cambodia (1992). Third, there is a tendency for the military sector to consider itself immune from applicable restraints on environmental abuse, especially during wartime, but also during peacetime. Fourth – some would add – the military sector to some extent does not contribute to human welfare and thus becomes a prime candidate for curtailment.