by Jake Milstein

War is bad. I know that that sentence doesn't offend anyone (at least it shouldn't), but as people who want to do something about war and the military, ecofeminists attempt to deconstruct them and look at specifically what is wrong with war.

The traditional thinker might think negatively about war because of those people who die during the fighting. That same mind might believe that the modern weapons in existence are awful for their immediate killing qualities. However, ecofeminists tak e a larger view of the issue and look at not only the killing during the war, but the killing after the war. They also broaden the spectrum of war damage by thinking beyond humanity and giving thought to other animals (for humans are certainly still anim als) and to the environment. This raises the question: What does the environment consist of? The answer is actually very simple: Any piece of nature, whether it be a tree, a person, an elephant, the soil, or an insect. If one looks at war in this more Earthly view, if you will, then the immeasurable damage to the priceless nature caused by militaries can be realized. No longer should we look simply at the "body count" after a battle, because it is not that simple. Turning a beautiful landscape into a wasteland is a tragedy in it of itself.

The point of this web page is to take a closer look at some other people's ideas about war, war tools, and/or the military and critique the from this ecofeministic point of view. If you go to the link provided and then read the critique, you (hopefull y) will see how people who speak of the military need to broaden their perspectives quite a bit.

I think it only appropriate to begin with the United States military itself. In order to do this, I believe we shall talk about three web sites. First, the Navy, with the Naval Surface Warfare Ce nter, then the Marines, with a page dedicated to their weapons, and finally, the Army, with more weapons testing. But, first, since a picture is worth a thousan d words, here is a picture from the naval page entitled, "fireball."

So, one may ask, "What is wrong with this picture?" Well, while the navy may take pride in blowing things up, as is done in this photo, in doing so they are doing unbelievable damage to the ground and surrounding foliage. Just by examining the pictur e closely, we can see the ground and topsoil being torn up, the trees in the background (which could catch on fire or somehow be hurt by the unnatural vibration), and the smoke that is being let out into the air. If this is simply a test in a somewhat co ntrolled environment, one can only imagine what weapons like the one used in the picture (I don't know what it was) would do in an uncontrolled combat environment. Actually, truth be known, we probably do know what a weapon like this would do in a combat environment because we have all watched to much television. It would destroy the lives of animals within a large radius, the soil, the foliage, and poison the air for miles around. In any event, the naval weapons page is about the Naval Surface Warfare Center, which is on the Potomac River in the Washington, D.C. area. So, we are no longer just talking about destroying dry land, but also a major river. Not only does this river contribute to the D.C. area water supply, but it holds thousands of sea cr eatures. It also connects to the Chesapeake Bay, which has even more sea life. From a human standpoint, the Bay supplies a livelihood and a water source for many Marylanders and Virginians. From a natural standpoint, they Bay supplies a home for many fi sh and shellfish as well as birds and other animals. The Bay is also home to an unbelievable number of plants (To find out more about the Bay, go to the National Aquarium in Baltimore). Not only is the navy a danger to the water and land in this area, but so is the army.

Their Aberdeen Testing Grounds (yes, the same one with the sex scandals) is right on the bay, at the corner between the Bush River and the main shipping channel of the Bay. A perfect example of how these bases are destroying the ecology of the area is that the Bush River comes with many warning on a boating chart. It is recommended that one not anchor on this river because of possible unexploded artillery. While the military may say that they are attempting to be environmentally safe, there might be undetonated mines in the Chesapeake Bay.

The Marine page has a showcase of a lot of their weapons. Obviously they are proud of them. But, we have seen what these tools of destruction do. Their point is to blow things up. The weapons are not concerned with what they hit (as if hitting anythi ng was acceptable). Each of these weapons can destroy lives, land, and water. The marines give technical data on each one of their weapons. They speak of firing range and weight, but not of their qualities of destruction. The language they use in refer ence to the weapons sounds not more harmful than stereo instructions, yet they have the capability to rip our world apart.

Four more web sites that deal with war and military technology are the Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute, the Chemical Weapon and Chemi cal Weapon Protection page, the web site of Atomic Scientists, and the Japanese A-Bomb WWW Museum. The first two web sites deal with chemical and biologica l warfare (non-atomic), while the last two deal directly with atomic warfare. Arguably, the most disgusting and vile pieces of technology ever developed by humans are discussed on these four web sites. Obviously (and thankfully) none of these pages advo cate the use of these horrendous tools of destruction and death. However, none of these pages are really complete. None of them talk about what these weapons do to the Earth and give little mention of the long term effects.

In terms of chemical weapons, I think that this picture is a pretty good implication of the horrifically unnatural effects mustard gas can have on human skin. Image, if you can, what this type of weapon has done to other animals and the Earth, which, unlike humans, have gone untreated after exposure. While no one human has experienced all types of chemical weapons on their skin, the Earth has had to endure them all. Each weapon was tested on animals, and then on the Earth before being deployed on a mass scale. There are even chemicals made simply for the Earth. In Vietnam, hundreds of thousands of tons of Napalm was dumped on the forests of the country. Not only did this destroy the trees, but also the land, the water, the people, the animals, an d much, much more. Up to today, the effects of such insidiously powerful chemical weapons can be seen in areas like Vietnam. Babies are still being born with abnormalities and the water and soil is still poisoned in areas. Though it has been agreed tha t chemical weapons will no longer be used, the military cannot be left unmonitored. As we have seen with the Chesapeake Bay, if the military goes unquestioned, the world could end up a lot like Bush River.

One of the darkest days in the history of the World was, both literally and figuratively the day the United States decided to end World War Two decisively. The Atomic Bomb was more of a terror than the end of terror it was supposed to be. It was supp osed to end a war and a threat, but instead began a whole new threat of a weapon that could actually wipe out a country, or the world.

The bomb dropped on Hiroshima killed thousands and thousands of people. Unfortunately, one factor that is continuously overlooked is the bomb's effect on the Earth and the other animals of Japan. Some of the land that was exposed to radiation is thou ght to maybe never recover to where it was before the bomb. The dead of the bomb will never be regained, the fear of the bomb will never die. The web site of the Atomic Scientists has a "doomsday clock" that estimated how close we are to the end of the world. It is not easy to understand what it means for the world to end, or for something to be as powerful as an atomic weapon. People die, animals die, vegetation dies, the effects last for decades, maybe even centuries-- who knows??

When we speak of the military and the destruction caused, we can no longer simply look at the "body count." We have to look at the environmental impact of a war, or of a battle, or of a weapon. It is unfair to ourselves and or world to focus only on the human aspect of war. Every tree that falls over when it is blown up, run over, shot through, or gassed, matters. Every animal that dies, matters. We are still looking at the impact on the environment of the World Wars, the Asian wars, and the Midd le Eastern Wars. How can we justify what we do with our military when we don't even know how much damage they have caused in the past? We are not being fair to ourselves, our neighbors, or our Earth.

---

This Web Site was created by students of the University of Southern California, participating in Gloria Orenstein's Ecofeminism Class.