Environmental Impacts of War

War strategy has historically been configured by environmental factors in various ways. Armies have used forests for cover, mountains and valleys for strategic advantage, and rivers and waterways for transport of arms and materials. At times, deliberate destruction of natural resources has also been a military strategy through “scorched earth” campaigns that were practiced as early as the Scythian wars against the Persians around 500 BC to deprive the enemy of food crops. Most recently, Saddam Hussein deliberately set ablaze Kuwaiti oil wells in 1991 to diminish the economic potential of the adversary, leading to widespread air and water pollution in the Persian Gulf region in what was called an act of “ecocide.”

Often, strategic targets that are chosen for bombing have a particularly damaging impact on the environment. For example, the bombing in 1999 by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization of the Serbian city of Pancevo (in the former Yugoslavia) targeted fertilizer-manufacturing sites, chemical plants, and a refinery to reduce the productive capacity of the adversary. However, the most notable impact was the release of pollutants across a wide area of the surrounding countryside.

Apart from the direct and deliberate linkages between ecology and war, there are also specific [Page 956]indirect impacts of warfare on the environment since resources and physical space are needed to support the military-industrial complex. The ecological footprint of war has increased dramatically over the past century due to the need for massive material and energy sources to build and execute weaponry. Most weapons are still manufactured with metals despite the rise in composite materials for making some aircraft components. The energy consumption for military operations is staggering. For example, the U.S. military consumed 1,100 trillion British thermal units of energy in 2006 (1% of total U.S. energy consumption), which is equivalent to the entire energy consumption of Nigeria. Furthermore, the use of various chemicals, including radioactive materials, is concentrated in military-industrial complexes. As reported to regulatory agencies, the U.S. military on average generates about 750,000 tons of toxic waste material annually, making it the largest polluter in the country (greater than the five largest chemical companies combined).

The physical space needed for research and testing of military weapons is also staggering. Entire island archipelagos have been displaced for military testing practices, such as Bikini Atoll in the South Pacific (site of nuclear weapons tests) and the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean (the site of the British military base of Diego Garcia).

Several blown-out wells damaged by retreating Iraqi soldiers in Al-Ahmadi oil field burn June 5, 1991, in Southern Kuwait. In 1991, retreating Iraqi smashed and torched 727 wells, badly polluting the atmosphere and creating crude oil lakes. In addition, up to 8 billion barrels of oil were spilled into the sea by Iraqi forces, damaging marine life and coastal areas up to 400 km away. Kuwait sought more than $16 billion compensation for the environment destruction caused by Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War.

Source: AFP/Getty Images.

A latent environmental impact of war is also evident in policy prioritization. During times of war, environmental factors are often considered [Page 957]secondary to national security priorities, and accountability of armed forces in terms of environmental compliance is greatly diminished. For example, prior to the Iraq War, the U.S. military asked for a series of exemptions from environmental regulatory compliance and was granted several allowances pertaining to endangered species, hazardous waste disposal, and air emissions through the National Defense Authorization Act of 2003.

...