friggin believe it.... I really can't. We need more jet fuel being burned, more incendiary devices going off, more humvees running around all day burning fuel, we need the single largest polluter on the planet to do what they do best... really.
http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/10_reasons_militarism_bad.htmlTen Reasons Why Militarism is Bad for the Environment
by Simon Doolittle
As the world faces war with Iraq, many are understandably concerned with the immediate horror that war would bring. Beyond these very real dangers, we should take this opportunity to re-examine whether militarism is a healthy thing for our society and our planet. Reducing our dependence on the rule of force and de-militarizing our society would not only make the world more peaceful and free up resources to address the underlying causes of terrorism, it would also have a dramatically positive impact on our health and environment. Here are ten reasons why.
1. Militaries are notorious polluters.
According to geographer Joni Seager, "anywhere in the world, a military presence is virtually the single most reliable predictor of environmental damage." Since the end of the Cold War, many plans to convert military bases to civilian use have been cancelled because the sites are contaminated beyond any hope of restoration. And military pollution isn't limited to bases, it does significant damage to the environment at large. In the US - the world's most oil-thirsty country - the largest single consumer of oil is the Pentagon. Together, the world's militaries consume as much petroleum as Japan - the world's second largest economy - and produce an estimated 6-10% of global air pollution. As Seager concludes: "Militaries…that have little else in common share a distinctive environmental sensibility - namely, one of disregard."
2. Militarism robs other social needs.
As President Dwight Eisenhower said, "Every gun that is made, every warship fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed" - and, one should add, pressing environmental needs. In 2004, President Bush hopes to increase the US military budget to $399.1 billion. Worldwide military spending - about $798 billion in 2000 - has recently increased for the first time since the end of the Cold War. That's a lot of money not spent on finding ways to reduce poverty, hunger, and environmental degradation. Allowing social ills such as poverty, illiteracy, and hunger to fester only deepens the disparities that often lie at the heart of many environmental problems. Since militaries are such notorious polluters, heavy military spending is also a dramatic pollution subsidy. It fosters a military culture that casts aside environmental concerns as not "serious" enough to warrant attention. As one American military commander put it, "We're in the business of protecting your country, not protecting the environment."
3. Nuclear weapons are an environmental catastrophe.
Nuclear weapons pose an environmental threat to humanity unprecedented in human history. Although the world escaped nuclear holocaust during the Cold War, the nuclear arms race has not stopped; India and Pakistan now have nuclear weapons, and North Korea may have them as well. According to some estimates, the radiation from weapons testing alone will eventually cause about 2.4 million cancer deaths worldwide. Hiroshima and Nagasaki offer a frightening reminder of the terror of nuclear weapons used in combat. A year after the US bombed the two cities, 140,000 were dead in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki. Because of the much greater destructive capacity of modern nuclear weapons, a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan could kill up to 30 million people. A massive nuclear war involving half the world's weapons could trigger a worldwide "nuclear winter," blocking virtually all of the sun's light with debris, potentially for weeks, threatening everyone not killed directly in the blasts.