22
C. W. Ayre et al.
These damages are just the tip of a very large iceberg of wastage and ecological bereavement, and reflect but one commodity. Analysis of debates on “peak
oil” conclude that the notion mainly lost currency because it clashed with “the
commonly held views that see economic growth as always necessary and desirable and depletion/pollution as marginal phenomena that can be overcome by means
of technological progress” (Bardi 2019, para. 22).
Furthermore, when the impacts of war on the human community are observed,
invariably those impacts are greatest in war zones. News bulletins regularly depict and
report the devastation to buildings, historical artefacts, and of course people living in
such communities (BAS 2020). The impacts on community health are overwhelming
in their own right, offering vast opportunities for further research. Among some of
the studies that have been conducted, Savabieasfahani et al. (2015) concluded that
the “anthropogenic release of pollutants into the environment is especially harmful to
growing foetuses and young children” (p. 1). Data for their study included distressing
photographs of newborn babies with severe congenital abnormalities or medical
issues including cancer, brain damage, and other associated dysmorphia. The troops
themselves are also victims of respiratory disorders and other effects of air pollution,
while psychological consequences and mental health concerns amongst returned
veterans are becoming ever more apparent. To consider the devastation caused by
landmines or soil contamination from chemical toxicity adds to the ghastly array
of issues and stresses. Furthermore, and by no means the least significant, is the
impact on the natural ecology and wildlife (Westing 1981; Gwynne 2012). Machlis
and Hanson (2008) present the case for more research in this field:
The development and advance of warfare ecology is both a scientific and a moral necessity.
Scientific reasons include the widespread ecological consequences of warfare, the complexity
of warfare’s interactions with natural and social systems, and the distinctive characteristics of
war – the deliberateness, destructiveness, and the intensity of its ecological impacts (p. 734)
Research into the effects of war on biodiversity and the environment has generally
found that those impacts are overwhelmingly deleterious (Lawrence et al. 2015).
Research also suggests that future studies may have a growing role to play in averting
resource conflicts and thereby strengthening peace and security (Machlis and Hanson
2008, p. 734).
Nuclear Testing in the Pacific
In terms of the Pacific Islands, many of the more significant impacts of war have been
imposed on them, in part by past colonial practice. To date, many visible reminders of
war can be found throughout the Pacific (Fig. 2.1). Such relics yield a grim glimpse
into the past and may remain capricious, unreckonable and treacherous today. More
specifically, it is worth reflecting on the more sustained issue of nuclear testing over a
period of 50 years where the Pacific Islands region lends itself as a useful cautionary
C. W. Ayre et al.
These damages are just the tip of a very large iceberg of wastage and ecological bereavement, and reflect but one commodity. Analysis of debates on “peak
oil” conclude that the notion mainly lost currency because it clashed with “the
commonly held views that see economic growth as always necessary and desirable and depletion/pollution as marginal phenomena that can be overcome by means
of technological progress” (Bardi 2019, para. 22).
Furthermore, when the impacts of war on the human community are observed,
invariably those impacts are greatest in war zones. News bulletins regularly depict and
report the devastation to buildings, historical artefacts, and of course people living in
such communities (BAS 2020). The impacts on community health are overwhelming
in their own right, offering vast opportunities for further research. Among some of
the studies that have been conducted, Savabieasfahani et al. (2015) concluded that
the “anthropogenic release of pollutants into the environment is especially harmful to
growing foetuses and young children” (p. 1). Data for their study included distressing
photographs of newborn babies with severe congenital abnormalities or medical
issues including cancer, brain damage, and other associated dysmorphia. The troops
themselves are also victims of respiratory disorders and other effects of air pollution,
while psychological consequences and mental health concerns amongst returned
veterans are becoming ever more apparent. To consider the devastation caused by
landmines or soil contamination from chemical toxicity adds to the ghastly array
of issues and stresses. Furthermore, and by no means the least significant, is the
impact on the natural ecology and wildlife (Westing 1981; Gwynne 2012). Machlis
and Hanson (2008) present the case for more research in this field:
The development and advance of warfare ecology is both a scientific and a moral necessity.
Scientific reasons include the widespread ecological consequences of warfare, the complexity
of warfare’s interactions with natural and social systems, and the distinctive characteristics of
war – the deliberateness, destructiveness, and the intensity of its ecological impacts (p. 734)
Research into the effects of war on biodiversity and the environment has generally
found that those impacts are overwhelmingly deleterious (Lawrence et al. 2015).
Research also suggests that future studies may have a growing role to play in averting
resource conflicts and thereby strengthening peace and security (Machlis and Hanson
2008, p. 734).
Nuclear Testing in the Pacific
In terms of the Pacific Islands, many of the more significant impacts of war have been
imposed on them, in part by past colonial practice. To date, many visible reminders of
war can be found throughout the Pacific (Fig. 2.1). Such relics yield a grim glimpse
into the past and may remain capricious, unreckonable and treacherous today. More
specifically, it is worth reflecting on the more sustained issue of nuclear testing over a
period of 50 years where the Pacific Islands region lends itself as a useful cautionary