Is War More than Just a Moral Issue?

Picture by Lisa Padilla
     In the heat of the moment of an argument, debate, or any form of altercation, it can be challenging to not be overtaken and flustered with emotions and to think rationally. Generally, people will tell you to count to 10, and take a moment to ponder the situation and possible repercussion of your action. The same consideration should be given in times of war, especially in a generation where violence and militancy are so prevalent as in manufactured games such as Call of Duty Black Ops or Modern Warfare 3. Engaging in such conflict can be detrimental to the environment in which we live. Thus, an area of science deemed warfare ecology has been established to alleviate the disparagement between nature and the environment. An article from the journal Nature, "Spoils of War," serves as brief overview and summary of the ideology of warfare ecology, which is expounded upon in greater depth, with various data and examples, in the BioOne article: "Warfare Ecology". Sure we know that war can immediately result in mass murder, but it is the subtle effects on the environment that are sometimes overlooked; if all of our resources are depleted, death too will eventually be the outcome.
     According to the Nature article, “Spoils of War,” this genre of science proposes that “by studying warfare's effects on the environment, and the environment's effects on war, [that] researchers hope to short-circuit the cycles of violence leading to natural-resource crises leading to violence.” It is the suggestion of the article that humans have an utter disregard for the environment and are “much better at conflict than planet management,” and war especially. For example, deforestation rates amplified as a direct result of ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan. Also, within the same article it discusses how Vieques, Navy-training exercises have stimulated higher cancer rates amongst people living on the island. Ultimately, the article acknowledges that the violence of war can be harmful to the environment; however, the generic scope of the article merely skates over the issue and fails to provide sufficient convincing details to bolster its relevancy.
     Conversely, the BioOne article is formulated like a scientific journal and plunges deep beneath the surface into what warfare ecology is, evidence of war’s impact on the environment, why the study is pertinent, and plausible solutions to combat the wreckage. The article goes about doing this by delineating the issue of war into three subcategories: preparation, conflict, and post-war activities. Alone, war preparation that occurs before conflict even emerges (such as training) contributes 6% to the overall consumption of raw materials and 10% to gashouse emissions. In order to supplement the modern preparation there is substantial amount of resources that are exhausted, stockpiled, and it also entails weapons testing, training, and the associated facilities that house these activities. “Active training often leads to residual unexploded ordnance (UXO), chemical contamination, landscape cratering, vegetation removal, soil erosion, and socioeconomic disruption. [Subsequently], post-war conditions include intense pollution, UXO, damaged and destroyed infrastructure, degraded landscapes and ecosystem services, socioeconomic disruption, refugee populations, and long-term illness” (such as the cancer related incidents previously mentioned in the Nature article).
     However, both authors acknowledge the benefits of the environment that can emerge from the occurrence of war. In the “ Spoils of War” article, it references how a demilitarized zone between North and South Korea has generated a haven for endangered species where they can be protected. Then in “Warfare Ecology,” Camp Pendleton in California is exemplary of how a buffer zone can be utilized to house species that are on the cusps of extinction. However, as mentioned in the Nature article, warfare ecologists don’t hope for war because of its simultaneous advantages, but would rather prepare for such instances so that when they do arise the effects can be regulated and peace be promoted.
     For both of the articles, although the future of warfare ecology is uncertain, it can be assured that it will always be a relevant area of study because war will always exists. Until the idea of warfare ecology is more mainstream, the issues correlating war and the environment will be generally flouted by the importance of war as the Nature article consents that the defense budget is 100 times greater than the amount of money allotted for science. However, it ascertains that warfare ecologist will continue to work and make due as they have always done. Likewise in the BioOne article, it states that “the development and advance of warfare ecology is both a scientific and a moral necessity… for as Plato wrote, ‘only the dead have seen the end of war.’”

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/476371a.html

http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1641/B580809

"Spoils of War." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 24 Aug. 2011. Web. 08 Feb. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/476371a.html>.
Machlis, Gary E., and Thor Hanson. "Warfare Ecology." BioOne.org. American Institute of Biological Sciences, Sept. 2008. Web. 8 Feb. 2012. <http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1641/B580809>.