Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: dickie@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Mark Dickie)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Environmental Warfare: Questions
Message-ID: <1991Feb4.052724.15472@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 4 Feb 91 05:27:24 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department
Lines: 27
Approved: military@att.att.com



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.