26
C. W. Ayre et al.
Between 1946 and 1996, the United States, Britain and France conducted Cold War programs
of nuclear testing in the deserts of Australia and the atolls of the central and south Pacific.
Over five decades, more than 315 nuclear tests were held across the region. (para. 2)
There were many both in and beyond the Pacific who opposed the tests. Such opposition in the 1980s led to the declaration of a nuclear-free Pacific by Vanuatu, Palau,
and New Zealand, while members of the Pacific Islands Forum signed the Rarotonga Treaty for a South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone (ICAN 2014, p. 18; 2017). Today
“Pacific nations are enthusiastic supporters of the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons” (Bhagwan 2020, para. 17). The legacies of testing have
exacted a heavy and enduring toll on the health of both environments, veterans and
local islanders alike (Gwynne 2012; Minutaglio 1994; Barker 2017; Martin 2018;
Bhagwan 2020; Moruroa Files 2021).
This outline has been no more than a fragment of the terrible story still waiting
to be told. Martin (2018) notes that nuclear testing in the Pacific also contributed to
a shift in scientific understanding. Local-level empirical research conducted in the
wake of the nuclear blasts highlighted the interconnectedness of life and demonstrated that ‘environment’ should be more appropriately conceived as ‘ecosystem’
where lifeforms co-exist together within the web of life (Martin 2018; Capra 1996).
Relatedly, the loss of biodiversity also impacts on the resilience of ecosystems and
the capacity of life to recover from natural or human-related disasters.
Of course, this background reality of the interconnectedness of life also raises
issues of the human toll of war, of lives lost or maimed, as well as the incalculable
mental and psychological costs of war. The wastage of life and resources on an
epic scale causes needless suffering, which has been aptly described in the Christian
scriptures as a kind of ‘universal’ anguish that invites a redemptive and reconciliatory
response: “It is plain to anyone with eyes to see that at the present time all created
life groans in a sort of universal travail” (Romans 8:22; Phillips Bible Translation).
Towards a Faith-Informed Solution
Solutions to the impact of conflict on Earth’s ecosystems are needed to ensure their
sustainability, and that will involve the consideration of many factors. In one way
or another all people contribute to planetary health and/or suffer from the ecological
impacts of war, so it is important for all people to be involved in the solution. This
applies at a personal level in terms of relationships, political engagement, solicitation
of the so-called ‘poor’ as subject matter experts of sustainability, and certainly from
a faith perspective (Luetz et al. 2019).
Machlis and Hanson (2008) propose that a warfare ecology agenda may lead to
at least three outcomes. First, it may encourage the inclusion of ecological science
in military planning. Second, it may encourage the rehabilitation of former damaged
military sites to areas of conservation. Third, it can promote policies that support
peace and security.
C. W. Ayre et al.
Between 1946 and 1996, the United States, Britain and France conducted Cold War programs
of nuclear testing in the deserts of Australia and the atolls of the central and south Pacific.
Over five decades, more than 315 nuclear tests were held across the region. (para. 2)
There were many both in and beyond the Pacific who opposed the tests. Such opposition in the 1980s led to the declaration of a nuclear-free Pacific by Vanuatu, Palau,
and New Zealand, while members of the Pacific Islands Forum signed the Rarotonga Treaty for a South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone (ICAN 2014, p. 18; 2017). Today
“Pacific nations are enthusiastic supporters of the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons” (Bhagwan 2020, para. 17). The legacies of testing have
exacted a heavy and enduring toll on the health of both environments, veterans and
local islanders alike (Gwynne 2012; Minutaglio 1994; Barker 2017; Martin 2018;
Bhagwan 2020; Moruroa Files 2021).
This outline has been no more than a fragment of the terrible story still waiting
to be told. Martin (2018) notes that nuclear testing in the Pacific also contributed to
a shift in scientific understanding. Local-level empirical research conducted in the
wake of the nuclear blasts highlighted the interconnectedness of life and demonstrated that ‘environment’ should be more appropriately conceived as ‘ecosystem’
where lifeforms co-exist together within the web of life (Martin 2018; Capra 1996).
Relatedly, the loss of biodiversity also impacts on the resilience of ecosystems and
the capacity of life to recover from natural or human-related disasters.
Of course, this background reality of the interconnectedness of life also raises
issues of the human toll of war, of lives lost or maimed, as well as the incalculable
mental and psychological costs of war. The wastage of life and resources on an
epic scale causes needless suffering, which has been aptly described in the Christian
scriptures as a kind of ‘universal’ anguish that invites a redemptive and reconciliatory
response: “It is plain to anyone with eyes to see that at the present time all created
life groans in a sort of universal travail” (Romans 8:22; Phillips Bible Translation).
Towards a Faith-Informed Solution
Solutions to the impact of conflict on Earth’s ecosystems are needed to ensure their
sustainability, and that will involve the consideration of many factors. In one way
or another all people contribute to planetary health and/or suffer from the ecological
impacts of war, so it is important for all people to be involved in the solution. This
applies at a personal level in terms of relationships, political engagement, solicitation
of the so-called ‘poor’ as subject matter experts of sustainability, and certainly from
a faith perspective (Luetz et al. 2019).
Machlis and Hanson (2008) propose that a warfare ecology agenda may lead to
at least three outcomes. First, it may encourage the inclusion of ecological science
in military planning. Second, it may encourage the rehabilitation of former damaged
military sites to areas of conservation. Third, it can promote policies that support
peace and security.