Re: DOD's ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD

[Aimee Houghton <aimeeh@igc.org>]

Regarding Melissa's comments on the Gulf War:

War is hell, especially on the environment. Are you suprised?

Look also at Iraq's destruction of Kuwait's oil fields, the defoliation in
Vietnam, the WWII atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the WWII
firebombing of Dresden (a cultural disaster as well), the Civil War burning
of southern cities--overall the historical preference for "scorched earth"
policies to disrupt the agricultural and economic base of the natives.

What I find amusing is that within the envirnomental engineering industry
(and many other industries with exposure to dangerous chemicals, radiation,
or work environments), there are very protective measures in place for
workers to function under. Many companies take a zero tolerance attitude
towards workplace accidents. Now we are even seeing a push towards robotics
for some of the more hazardous work. The military is the only job that as
part of its requirement is that the workers are asked to risk their lives.
 The pay and benefits aren't all that great either, compared to those in the
private sector. Aside from the environmental issues, in the Gulf War approx.
25% of the US casualties were from friendly fire. 

If you could get the DoD to invest in peace-keeping and negotiation skills at
even a small fraction of the war machines' cost, the dividends in lives saved
and environment preserved would be well worth it. Personally, I think
universal draft for men and women, with women being required to serve in
combat roles, would turn this country's attitude around towards war.

Susan Gawarecki