dickie@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Mark Dickie) (02/04/91)
From: dickie@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Mark Dickie) [mod.note: I think this is very borderline for this group right now. Please keep replies technical, or else take them to the author via email. - Bill ] What war aims are served by intentional destruction of natural resources? Some obvious possible aims: impede enemy operations; defile an essential life support system like a water supply; signal a willingess to destroy the value of an asset if forced to give it up (like a kidnapper); extract a price from the enemy not directly related to the prosecution of the war. What else? Prior to the Kuwaiti oil fires and oil slick, I thought environmental damage in war was like the "collateral damage" to civilian targets -- frequently a cost an attacker is willing to impose but perhaps less often the main objective of a mission. Is this true, or not? How has "ecological warfare" been used in the past? How is it viewed in international law? How would a military planner decide when to use this tactic? When is it likely to be successful in achieving its aims? How susceptible is the West to eco-war? What are likely forms of eco-war, and their possible environmental consequences? Posted or e-mailed discussion appreciated.
howard@cos.com (Howard C. Berkowitz) (02/06/91)
From: howard@cos.com (Howard C. Berkowitz) In order to keep within the moderators plea to "keep replies technical," I suggest it would be useful to define just what is meant by environmental warfare. I believe it is much more common than we might think. I define environmental warfare as that which occurs when the damage to the enemy is caused not by direct weapons effects, but on some natural (or associated with nature such as a dam) area or object, the abnormal behavior of which will affect the enemy. Consider nuclear weapons effects: fallout is a direct weapons effect, but "nuclear winter," if it exists, would be environmental. In article <1991Feb4.052724.15472@cbnews.att.com> dickie@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Mark Dickie) writes: >What war aims are served by intentional destruction of natural resources? >Some obvious possible aims: impede enemy operations; U.S. attempts to trigger mudslides in strategic S.E. Asian passes (Operation Popeye?), part of efforts to impede operations on Ho Chi Minh trail. May have been reason for NVA evacuation of Son Tay prison camp, which was flooding (see Schlemmer, _The Raid_.) Defoliation operations. >defile an essential life support system like a water supply; British raids against Ruhr dams -- probably intended more against industrial than life support. >signal a willingess to destroy >the value of an asset if forced to give it up (like a kidnapper); extract >a price from the enemy not directly related to the prosecution of the war. Soviet scorched earth tactics against the advancing Germans. Crop burning by Sherman's troops in Georgia (marginally environmental) > >Is this true, or not? How has >"ecological warfare" been used in the past? How is it viewed in >international law? Don't know if international law really considers it; may be something in the Law of the Sea treaties. I believe the Hague Convention forbids poisoning wells. > >How would a military planner decide when to use this tactic? When is >it likely to be successful in achieving its aims? How susceptible >is the West to eco-war? What are likely forms of eco-war, and their >possible environmental consequences? Biological warfare against crops has been discussed in the open literature. Is this eco-war? -- howard@cos.com OR {uunet, decuac, sun!sundc, hadron, hqda-ai}!cos!howard (703) 883-2812 [W] (703) 998-5017 [H] DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the Corporation for Open Systems, its members, or any standards body.