Eco-WarsEssay Preview: Eco-WarsReport this essayIn recent years, a new force has been introduced to the struggle for environmental protection. The worlds military looms as an ominous threat above our fragile eco-system. Even during years of peace, the militarys havoc is wreaked “Not in some remote sandbox or sea lane, but within the heart of a rapidly unraveling planetary ecology, whose intricate web of intertwined lives, often trigger complex feedback processes.” (Thomas). The greatest crime perhaps is the slow murder of the planet. The world has suffered more ecological damage in the past fifty years, than ever before. Oil spills, toxic dumps and nuclear testing, plague the worlds resources. The majority of these originating from the worlds protectors. The greatest victim of all our wars, is Earth. Her sufferings coming from toxic dumping, chemical warfare and nuclear testing
Perhaps the best example of a dumpsite would be Subic Bay in the Philippines. Since the end of the Viet Nam conflict, 4,000,000 gallons of untreated waste have been dumped into the bay each day. As Pentagon official David Berteau summarized “If any one nation bears the brunt of the U.S. militarys practice overseas, it may well be the Philippines”. It is estimated that this dumping has destroyed thousands of kilometres of coastline, and a valuable eco-system. Though this is not to imply that the Philippines are the sole victim of military dumping, indeed there are hundreds of such dumpsites across the globe. As is clearly seen in map 1.1
Indeed the weapons of war do more harm to Gaia than to any foreign soldier, Chemical warfare & High-tech weaponry of the 90s may turn out to be what eventually lays Mother Earth to rest. Chemical Warfare was introduced by German soldiers during WWI. Since then, dramatic increases in chemical weapons have put Earth on the verge of collapse. It is estimated that 240 pounds of Agent Orange, a defoliant, was dropped over S. Viet Nam during the 1960s. This may not sound like much, but to put it in perspective, two ounces of the substance, placed in New York Citys water supply, would kill every inhabitant. (Day, 208). And it will remain in the environment for centuries to come. Not so far away, more havoc was being wrought on the environment, this time due to the space race, the liquid fuel used by Soviet era missiles and rockets — unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) — is both highly toxic and hard to remove from the environment once leaked. (Federov) Large areas of Russia are contaminated with this chemical at the sites where missiles are stored and dismantled, and in regions where the first and second stages of rockets crash to the ground. Experts have already found 110 polluted sites, totaling 20 million hectares. (Federov). Traces of UDMH and its products of decomposition have been found in vegetation, soil and sediment, considerably exceeding maximum permissible levels. (Federov) They have also been found in fodder, vegetables, and domestic animals. UDMH and similar toxic propellants were used in rockets launched across the former Soviet Union for decades.
The newest front in the continuing battle is the nuclear force. Bigger, stronger, better. With a slew of nuclear accidents, fallouts and testing, this has become a much larger threat than conventional forces ever were. Military involvement in nuclear genocide has been well documented among the many case files for nuclear tests. Rather than evacuate island natives, medical professionals were called in to study, but not aid, the victims of nuclear fallout. But the effect on the natives is insignificant next to the damage wrought on our planet. It is now estimated that more than 16 islands in the South Pacific alone, are dead lands, incapable of supporting any lifeforms. And they furthermore continue
The Nuclear War
The U.S. and NATO have been working hard for some years to disarm the Islamic State, or ISIS.
In April 2014, the State Department put out a detailed report, titled, In Defense of the Nuclear Deal: In Defense of the Nuclear Deal: “With the US nuclear arms and military alliance, the United States can do even more to reduce the threat posed by radical Islamic terrorists to the United States.”
There are a lot of nuclear incidents, accidents and nuclear disasters to study. I’ll focus on some and share some information, along with some ideas about what the U.S. could do about it.
I believe that all of the above points are correct. While they don’t do much to get rid of radical Islamic terrorists, they do help. The U.S. should be talking to more, not less, radical Islamic terrorist groups around the world and make the U.S. and NATO realize how to counter that threat.
First and most basic, the United States should keep military and financial support for military training and training in North Korea and other countries as long as it continues its efforts to develop a “nuclear weapon” (i.e. its ICBM-like program, for example.). Even then, even if that goal is achieved, we must work toward using our military and financial resources to defeat and, more importantly, to find a solution to these problems.
Our role in developing advanced nuclear research and technological capabilities means that the U.S. has a vital relationship with countries that are in the region.
I would imagine that any country you are in the region with that power wants to put pressure on U.S. nuclear forces and it would stop short of going into military action.
But that doesn’t mean that the U.S. should not engage in military engagement with those countries.
You may be familiar with what I have said. Since 2008, the United States has invested more than $1 billion, some of it directed at developing nuclear and biological weapons. That kind of investment is necessary for the strategic interests and stability of each developing country.
In addition, the U.S. should invest an increased amount in non-proliferation, counter-piracy, and counter-insurgency capabilities. And when that happens, we also need to invest wisely.
How do we get us there?
The United States is already spending large amounts to develop, monitor and fight the terrorists in Iraq and Syria.
Some people think of developing our own nuclear weapons as a way of “cleaning the decks” against them. That is incorrect. We can take what we learned from America’s failure to develop our nuclear weapons and spend that money on acquiring and operating them instead. We can