information help: Closed. - Help.com

Eddieeee wrote:
Who says you can’t use the topic he used as an example?! If that is what you are interested in writing about, then do it. :)

He sent out the previous student’s power point and I’m hesitant because I don’t want to do anything similar to his work. I don’t want to accidentally plagiarize! (You’d be surprised at how often that happens to people. -_-)

C★ss¡✪raptor wrote:
I once had to do a similar paper. Mine was on how polluting the water can not only damage those immediately exposed such as fish that live near the shores, but all animals involved int he food chain including whale/dolphin species and land mammals who fish such as bears and obviously humans, even Birds such as eagles. Basically, the toxins that become ingested by fish or the toxins they are exposed to become filtered through their liver and other organs. When eaten, the toxins which are trapped int he liver in the fish become ingested by whoever is eating it, like an orca.

What about a similar paper? You could use this as a starting example:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/feat…
it’s about how the after effects of the BP oil spill is showing up prominently right now, severely deforming sea life.

YES. Did you know that Al Jazeera is one of my favorite sources for the news?

mills wrote:
Do you have any topics that you’re interest in? I definitely recommend choosing something that will be interesting to you so that you will be more inclined to research the topic and write about it.

How about the environmental impact of war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environm…

I like this one SO MUCH!!! I could write forever about this! THANK YOU!!!

C★ss¡✪raptor wrote:
I love that source, it’s so simple and effecient! not to mention easier to navigate than a few others :P

Definitely! I log onto it and BBC every morning without fail. :)

The Economist and Wired are also good.

mills wrote:
No problem. :)

I’m generally opposed to choosing just any topic to write a paper on, especially if it’s boring or doesn’t appeal to me. My papers tend to turn out better if it’s a topic of interest.

I agree. My best papers are the ones I’m interested in. I wrote a 10 page paper on Pakistan last semester and I could have written more because it was so interesting to me. I wasn’t looking forward to this paper at all but I’m so in love with this topic. I can’t wait to get started!

Dr. Ralph wrote:
I really like the mills idea too. Did you do your own new avatar Araz, or did Big Alone do it? It is very nice, not annoying like so many of the moving avatars. Oh and I just read the ten things to tell teenage girls. Very true. Excellent post.

Al made it for me. :) I’m glad you liked it! Yes, that post is very true. I have to glance at it myself sometimes as a reminder, because I’m guilty of a few of those things too.

C★ss¡✪raptor wrote:
whoaaa I have never heard of herbicidal warfare…

hey if you write this essay you should post it after…. this stuff is so cool!

i wonder what sort of long term effects radiation would have on wildlife and foliage…

I will! :)

mills wrote:
I’m glad you like it.

Good luck with your presentation tomorrow and writing your paper.

Thank you, Mills! You helped a lot!

If anybody cares, here’s my paper. It’s 7 pages single spaced, so it may be difficult to get through. Also, I kind of went off on a tangent on the Gulf War. It’s good filler, though, I suppose. In my defense, I just finished and I took exactly 8 hours to do it.. Not my best work, but it’ll get me an A in class. Also, I couldn’t attach the chart. Sorry. :/

The effects of war on the environment have had a significant, detrimental impact on the global climate and the world since the early BC era. War has left devastation in its path for centuries – destroying vegetation and land, polluting the environment, and taking the lives of millions of people each year. Yet, to this date, war seems to be the solution to many of the conflicts for governments and nation-states. Ideally, warfare should be a last resort, but all too often it is seen as an easy means to solving disputes. Battle is never constructive; war is always devastating and wreaks havoc on the victor and loser’s environment, economy, and citizens.

The salting of the earth is commonly known as one of the first tactical measures used to harm an enemy during and after warfare. The Book of Judges 9:44 states “All that day Abimelek pressed his attack against the city until he had captured it and killed its people. Then he destroyed the city and scattered salt over it.” The plowing of salt into the earth prevented future vegetation from growing and has been attributed to many battle stories from pre-biblical times to the middle ages. Some historic scholars believe the Romans salted the earth, such as the battle in Carthage, although much of the information provided is based on speculation and documentation written after much time had elapsed. Thousands of years ago, “warring Mesopotamian city-states breached dikes to flood the fields of their enemies (a tactic that resonates with recent events in that part of the world).” (Deweerdt, 2008)

These environmental crimes are minor, however, compared to the many transgressions that have occurred afterwards throughout the years until present, modern times. From the burning and pillaging of our ancestors to the lasting effects of Agent Orange in Vietnam, the damage caused by combatants has been significant for those directly impacted and the generations to come. The case studies of war’s impact on the environment are numerous, although there are a significant amount of battles that have had a significant enough impact on the global climate which have lasted for generations. As you can see from the map above, armed conflict has affected a significant percentage of the world.

In a desperate attempt to end World War II, America dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. On August 6, 1945, a uranium bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, followed by a plutonium bomb on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945. The destruction by the bombing was unprecedented and the damage to Japan was tremendous and universally decried by the global community. The direct aftermath of the bombs resulted in the death of all human beings and animals within the direct site of impact. Due to a water shortage, fires could not be extinguished, and firestorms killed thousands of people who survived the bombing. The Japanese suffered radiation sickness and the total estimated death toll was as follows “In Hiroshima 100,000 were killed instantly, and between 100,000 and 200,000 died eventually. In Nagasaki about 40,000 were killed instantly, and between 70,000 and 150,000 died eventually.” (Enzler, 2006) The short-term environmental effects were that of air pollution and radioactive debris, as well as radioactive sand which clogged drinking wells. Vegetation was destroyed and several water sources were polluted.

The long-term effect of the bombing has overwhelmingly been that of radioactive debris and the high doses of radiation has negatively effected the human population, as well as the animal population and vegetation. Restoration was a long process and the aftermath led the United States to promise never to use the atomic bomb again. The testing of nuclear weapons, however, has not ceased and will not cease in the near future. Japan is still recovering decades later. The citizens still exhibit a higher than average rate of cancer and deformities compared to other countries around the world. The effects that the bomb had on the atmosphere and global warming are still unknown.

In 1945, the United States entered war with Vietnam. The Vietnam War was a thirty-year war, resulting in mass casualties for all of the countries involved. This proxy war was fought in Vietnam with North Vietnam battling alongside the Soviet Union and China against South Vietnam, the United States, New Zealand, and South Korea. North Vietnam was bombed continuously, and when that failed to provoke surrender, herbicide was used to remove potential cover for Viet Cong guerrillas and destroy vegetation. The use of herbicide coined the term ecocide, which is known as the “the deliberate destruction of the environment as a military strategy.” (Deweerdt, 2008) This was not the first incident of the use of chemical warfare, but was by far the most destructive. The herbicide used was “Agent Orange”, named for the color of the containers it was sealed in. In addition to the herbicide, the military set afire land and haystacks, igniting the earth with aviation fuel. Domestic animals were killed and the peasants were left to starve. It is approximated that 72 million liters of chemical spray were used throughout the war. In addition to the deaths of thousands of Vietnamese civilians, the spray killed many species of animals and resulted in damage to the environment that, forty years later, has yet to fully recover. “The environmental and health effects were devastating. The spraying destroyed 14% of South Vietnam’s forests, including 50% of the mangrove forests. Few, if any, have recovered to their natural state.” (Adley & Grant) In addition to the destruction of the environment, there are still approximately six million unexploded bombs in Vietnam. The removal of these bombs has been frustratingly slow due to government bureaucracy.

Initially, when the trees lost their foliage and remained bare for months, the US military saw the operation as a success. The damage done to these forests was unprecedented. Certain areas had become desert-like and much of the damaged forests were prevented from recovering because of invasion of scrubby bamboos and exotic grasses. Vietnam’s coastal mangrove forests were wiped out and unable to recover. Ecologists Gordan Orians and E.W. Pfeiffer reported in 1969 that “they observed only 64 birds belonging to 12 species-where they would have expected hundreds of birds representing perhaps 80 species. The only other vertebrate they saw was a lone crocodile on a mud bank… a vast gray landscape, littered with the skeletons of herbicide-killed mangroves.” (Deweerdt, 2008) Vietnamese forester Phung Tuu Boi studied recent satellite photos of Vietnam and “found that images from both hardwood forests and mangrove areas show areas of altered vegetation-in long, straight strips that correspond precisely to the flight paths of the C-123 cargo aircraft that did most of the spraying.” (Deweerdt, 2008) Although Vietnamese scientists attempted to rebuild and fix the environment, US scientists were banned from the area for decades. Due to this injunction, the extent of the damage is still unknown to a certain degree. It is an inarguable fact that the damage done was one of the worst chemical attacks in the history of warfare.

In the early 1990s, the “Gulf War was fought between Iraq, Kuwait, and a number of western countries.” (Enzler, 2006) Kuwait, an oil rich country, had declared independence from Britain in the early 1960s and was undergoing advanced economic growth. Saddam Hussein charged Kuwait of stealing oil and petroleum from Iraq in 1990 and invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990. Hussein claimed that Kuwait implemented a method known as slant drilling to illegally obtain petroleum from Iraq. Although this is the stated reason for invading Kuwait, there is a large amount of speculation as to the reason for the invasion. There were five popular theories for the invasion of Kuwait. The first of these motivations for invading Kuwait could have been that Iraq was in debt $80 billion dollars to finance the war with Iran. Kuwait was owed $65 billion of that debt, which they refused to forgive. Secondly, Kuwait is also rich in resources, which was a huge incentive for Iraq to invade and claim. The third possible reasoning was that much of the drilling by Kuwaitis was within a disputed border territory and the fifth theory is that Kuwait was overproducing oil and under pricing the price of petroleum, causing Iraq further financial difficulty. Kuwait was also extremely unpopular in the Middle East, having a large Shia’a majority and an unpopular royal family. Iraq, a progressive state compared to Kuwait, felt justified in their attack. (Cooper & Sadik, 2003) After the attack on August 2, 1990, battle waged on. After several attempts by the United Nations to liberate the people of Kuwait, Operation Desert Storm began January 1991 in which several western countries, including the United States, provided soldiers and military aid to the people of Kuwait. The battleground of the war consisted of Iraq, Kuwait, and the bordering regions. As Iraq retreated, however, Iraqi forces dumped one million tons of crude oil into the Persian Gulf and set afire 600 barrels of crude oil. This was one of the largest environmental disasters in history. The effects of the Gulf War are long lasting and the overall impact is largely speculative. Immediately, after the burning of the oil wells and dumping of oil, it was reported that 25,000 migratory birds were killed. The crude oil that was spilled into the desert formed oil lakes, which seeped into groundwater aquifers. It was reported that half a ton of air pollutants were released into the atmosphere. The oil fires led to reports of smog formation and acid rain. These toxic fumes impacted both the inhabitants of Kuwait as well as wildlife. “A soot layer was deposited on the desert, covering plants, and thereby preventing them from breathing. Seawater was applied to extinguish the oil fires, resulting in increased salinity in areas close to oil wells. It took about nine months to extinguish the fires.” (Enzler, 2006) The fires were blazing for nine months primarily because many water sources had been damaged from the war. Dams and sewage water treatment plants were targeted and damaged, which created an additional problem of sewage flowing directly into other water sources. The drinking water was polluted as well. In addition to these significant damages to the environment, heavy machinery used during the war caused soil erosion in the desert, which stirred existing sand dunes. This could potentially lead to further problems for Kuwait in the future. Depleted uranium missiles, weaponry that can adversely affect future generations due to their cacogenic properties, were also used affecting both soldiers and civilians in Kuwait.

Several studies have been conducted in Kuwait, with results being largely inconclusive. An environmental group, Green Cross International, sent a team of scientists in 1998 to investigate the environmental effects of the Gulf War. The results were disheartening. The team reported seeing a “a quiet desert green with waving grasses… other problems are literally below the surface and one needs only to scratch the desert to find the remains of the continuing environmental damage.” (Enzler, 2006) The spilled oil is right under the surface and continuously damaging Kuwait’s water sources. The temperature increased that year by 5 degrees Celsius for the region. The damage to the environment may have environmental repercussions for the entire world, affecting both the global atmosphere and oceanic surroundings.

Kuwait and the Gulf War was just one of the transgressions Iraq committed against the environment under Saddam Hussein’s regime. To combat a Shia’a uprising in the early 1990s, Hussein ordered the draining of marshes in the Mesopotamian wetlands. These wetlands provided water in the middle of a desert to thousands of people in Southern Iraq. The marshes are approximately 10% of what they were originally.

The damage to the environment was dire and long lasting. Local temperature for the area increased significantly, which damaged coral reefs and caused dikes and channels to form. “Several species endemic to the marshes-the smooth-coated otter, the bandicoot rat, the long-fingered bat, and a species of barbel fish-are thought to have been driven extinct. Dozens more bird species were placed in danger of disappearing forever, and Persian Gulf fish and shrimp landings declined.” (Deweerdt, 2008) Countries internationally have attempted to restore the marshlands after the downfall of the Hussein regime and US/Iraq War, but after massive restoration, the marshes are still only 40% of what they were initially. The region has experienced an unprecedented amount of sandstorms and dune formation and the recovery will take an unknown, but lengthy, amount of time.

The use and testing of unstable materials has negatively impacted the environment drastically and with unpredictable consequences. There has been a growing concern over the effects of depleted uranium, nuclear weaponry, and mines. Depleted uranium is “an extremely dense metal made from low-level radioactive waste… principally used by the United States, but also by other countries such as Britain, in defensive military armor, conventional munitions, and some missiles. Its ability to penetrate the armor of enemy tanks and other targets more readily than similar weapons made of other materials has made DU extremely valuable to the US military.” (Adley & Grant) Although there has not been much research as to the effects of depleted uranium on the environment, it would be common sense to acknowledge that those effects are most likely detrimental and not harmless. They produce radioactive dust particles, which alter the air quality and have been used in wars such as the War in Iraq. The long-term effects of these weapons are unknown and scientists can only speculate as to what the future holds if depleted uranium continues to be in use.

There are currently five nation-states, which are considered to be nuclear-weapon states under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Those states are the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China. India, Pakistan, and North Korea have conducted nuclear tests and Israel is believed to have possession of nuclear weapons. South Africa developed nuclear weapons, but has disassembled. Other states previously possessing nuclear weapons are Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine, all of which have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The possession of these weapons makes these countries dangerous not only to other countries, but also to themselves because these radioactive, volatile substances are often mishandled. An example of this is the looting of Iraqi nuclear facilities in 2003. After the beginning of the War of Iraq, the Tuwaitha nuclear plant was looted and an estimated two hundred blue plastic barrels containing uranium oxide were stolen. The radioactive contents were dumped and the barrels were rinsed out in the river and used for the storage of food and water. This spread radioactive material throughout the environment and adversely affected the health of Iraqi civilians. This kind of mishandling has significant effects upon the environment. “Toxic substances seep into the ground (rendering the soil unsafe), disperse through the air (spreading wide-scale pollution), and taint water and food supplies. Iraq’s national nuclear inspector has forecasted that over a thousand people could die of leukemia.” (Adley & Grant)

Aside from the obvious effects of the weapons mentioned above, landmines placed during wartime in countries are a less recognized threat to the environment. “A Khmer Rouge general called them ‘the perfect soldier’: cheap, efficient, expendable, never hungry, never needing sleep. But eighty percent of landmine victims are civilians, not soldiers; and nearly a quarter of those are children.” (PEACE PLEDGE UNION, 2011) These undetonated explosives leak radioactive material in the soil and prevent agriculture from growing. Every year, 20,000 people die from explosions of land mines. The removal of these landmines is a painstakingly long and expensive process. The UN compiled a list of countries with active landmines, of which several have over a million. The countries with the most landmines, from the greatest to least, are as follows: Egypt, Iran, Angola, Afghanistan, Iraq, Cambodia, Kuwait, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Mozambique, and Somalia.

Common tactics used during wartime globally are that of deforestation. Deforestation can have a devastating, long-term effect on the environment locally, and eventually nationally. After decades, the effects of deforestation have shown themselves to effect the atmosphere and oceanic temperatures globally. A common warfare tactic, the most well known instance of deforestation was that of the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam. Deforestation in Germany and Africa has often been overlooked. The Sierra Club reported that 35% of Cambodia’s forests were destroyed over a period of two decades due to civil war. The United States also cut down mass amounts of forestation in Germany, following World War I, to deter industrial development and reconstruction. Other instances of deforestation include Rwanda, in which acres of forest were destroyed to prevent the concealment of the opposition.

Several species face endangerment and extinction due to warfare. A case example of the threat to an endangered species is that of the Rwanda genocide of 1994. Many refugees were displaced and forced to live in the forests, forcing the endangered gorilla population to relocate. The welfare of this endangered species was not of great concern to the general population, with the country at a state of war. The International Gorilla Programme Group is currently trying to bring the species out of a state of endangerment. Excessive poaching and the destruction of the environment by militants can also be attributed to the extinction and endangerment of many species. During the Congo War, in the current Democratic Republic of Congo, national parks housing endangered species were exploited for minerals and resources, while refugees’ hunted wildlife, and elephants were hunted for ivory. “A survey by the WWF showed that the hippopotamus population in one national park decreased from 29,000 thirty years previously, to only 900 in 2005. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) listed all five parks as ‘world heritage in danger’.” (Enzler, 2006)

Several laws and regulations have been implemented since the early 1970s to help lower the cases of ecocide and environmental warfare. On May 18, 1977, The Environmental Modification Convention, also known as the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, was held in Geneva. The agreement was passed on May 18, 1977 and enforced on October 5, 1978. Article I of this convention clearly stated “Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.” (”Convention on the,” 1976) The article recalled the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment as well, which was adopted at Stockholm on June 16, 1972. Several conventions have been held following the Convention in 1977, of which The Ottawa Treaty, also known as the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention and officially known as the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, is exceptionally notable. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines was instrumental in bringing about this treaty and received the Noble Peace Prize as a reward for their effort. “Icbl (international committee,” 12/2). There are now laws against ecocide and other war transgressions.

These laws and regulations, while progressive, are not sufficient in combating the effects of war on the environment. Greater measures should be made and some type of mechanism to enforce these types of laws should be implemented. The reason for this is because when there is nothing to enforce the laws, no change will occur. Laws without consequences are completely ineffective and at some point, are simply arbitrary. Without reform, the environment will continue to be degraded by militia and those in power through force and complete disregard for the environment. The UN could play a larger role because it’s a global governing body and possess the facilities to reach several different countries, such as Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rest of the nation-states suffering the aftermath of war. Nations that would be hesitant to accept aid from specific countries would be more accepting of assistance from an intergovernmental agency, and therefore may be willing to sign and implement conventions protecting the environment in the case of war.

References

Icbl (International Committee to Ban Landmines). (12/2).
Retrieved from http://www.icbl.org/index.php/icbl/Tr…

Deweerdt, S. (2008, January/February). War and the Environment. World Watch Magazine, 21(1),
Retrieved from http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5520

Enzler, S. M. (2006, September). Environmental effects of warfare.
Retrieved from http://www.lenntech.com/environmental…

Adley, J., & Grant, A. (n.d.). The environmental consequences of war.
Retrieved from http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/pos…

Cooper, T., & Sadik, A. (2003, September 16). Iraqi invasion of Kuwait; 1990.
Retrieved from http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/ar…

Convention on the prohibition of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques. (1976, 12 10).
Retrieved from http://www.un-documents.net/enmod.htm

PEACE PLEDGE UNION. (2011). Learn peace.
Retrieved from http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/infodocs/…

I don’t know, I found the guidelines odd myself! I’m glad you liked it. :D If I had more time, I would have improved it, but I think it’s good enough for this class.

Thanks for all the help, mills! :)

mills wrote:
I think it’s very good.

I would wish you good luck, but I don’t think you need any luck as far as I can see. ;-)

You’re too kind! Thank you =D

C★ss¡✪raptor wrote:
****! That’s awesome!!!!!! You’re going to get awesome marks. (And I learned some cool stuff too, thanks!)

Thank you!!! :D