The Internal Conflict of Modern War

I read two surprising stories about the Russo-Ukrainian conflict recently. The first left me with a glimmer of hope: Climate experts tallied the additional greenhouse gas emissions from the first two years of conflict at 175 million tons of CO2 equivalent, caused by everything from fuel and ammunition use and the projected carbon costs of reconstruction, to increased landscape fires and redirected commercial flights (rerouted to avoid Russian and Ukrainian airspace).¹ In total, this warming will lead to extreme weather around the world that’ll cost an estimated $32 billion. The Ukrainian Minister of Environmental Protection even noted that it would include climate-related costs in its reparation demands, which got me imagining those demands being discussed in a post-war summit and serving as a deterrent for future instigators.

The climate, countless species, and Earth are often undiscussed victims in global wars. Whether because of anthropocentrism, or the salient horror of atrocities humans can wage on other humans (published on the front pages of newspapers around the world), the broader devastation we wage on Gaia in every violent conflict is typically overlooked (a point I’ve been aware of since helping produce State of the World 2005: Rethinking Global Security, which included potent analyses on the environmental costs of war). So, every effort to remedy that myopia is commendable).

But then, not long after, I read this shocking article about new evidence pointing to Ukraine authorizing the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline in 2022. These blasts, most likely “the largest single methane emitting event ever recorded,” potentially released the equivalent of Denmark’s annual emissions (45 million tons of CO2 equivalent).² I get the strategy—block the sale of Russia’s natural gas to Europe. However, the hypocrisy of calling for climate reparations while intentionally inflicting massive climate damage oneself is hard to stomach. And it raises a bigger issue as well: How can we make interstate conflict more sustainable?

Alternatives to War

Considering the suicidal nature of war—from nuclear conflict at the extreme to the long-term devastation of Earth’s systems that conventional weapons contribute to—it’s time to consider alternatives. Ideally, two countries’ champions could duke it out with the winner extracting concessions from the loser.³ Of course, while that works in action movies (and Bible stories), I can’t imagine that really being accepted by both sides (or how to prevent cheating). But ultimately modern war boils down to marshalling resources (financial, human, and technical). Whoever maintains enough surplus capacity to build the weapons needed to bomb and launch (and withstand) attacks tends to win—whether that capacity comes internally or from larger coalitions who give or lend those resources.

So what about devoting those resources to Earth restoration? Every day on the front pages of newspapers, there’d be another story of a bold assault: Russia spends $50 million and mobilized 100,000 young people to reforest Siberia, followed by an almost immediate counterattack by Ukraine and allies: the appropriation of $65 million to clean up plastic pollution across India (the largest source of open burned plastic waste in the world). After a quiet week, a surprise move by Russia: it will shutter 20 coal power plants in Kazakhstan and replace the lost capacity with wind turbines. Ukraine, caught off-guard, scrambles to announce its $30 billion plan, supported by several European allies, to dismantle the remaining nuclear reactors at Chernobyl, and make the surrounding exclusion zone a permanent memorial parkland.

Week after week, the battles would be waged, reaching hundreds of billions of dollars distributed to fix humanity’s broken relationship with the planet (all monitored by independent global governance officials). Eventually, as both countries (and their allies) deplete their coffers, and the people grumble under growing inflation and reduced social services, the people would demand peace. Negotiations would take into account how much Earth-healing each side achieved and terms would be laid out accordingly.

Lessons from Eminiar VII

Ok, I know that sounds ridiculous, and in truth it reminds me of the old Star Trek episode where Captain Kirk and his crew come across two planets, Eminiar VII and Vendikar, currently at war. Almost immediately after arriving, the Enterprise is “blown up” in an attack. Except it wasn’t, because all war activities were actually caculated by a supercomputer, with “casualties” reporting to “disintegration machines” for annihilation if they’re hit. This way, none of the infrastructure (or nature) is hurt in the process.

Of course, Captain Kirk wasn’t up for destroying himself or his shipmates and destroyed the computer instead, hopefully forcing the two sides to come to terms to avoid “the horrors of war” (though the episode ends before the conflict is resolved, so there is a chance that they just went back to the old ways of violent conflict).⁴

As silly as simulated warfare sounds, it sounds far better than intentionally dropping bombs on buildings, civilians, even soldiers, tanks, and military facilities (along with all the indirect devastation from famine, disease, and pollution). This also means that the machinery of war isn’t being built in the first place, reducing mining, the use of energy, the production of toxic chemicals, and so on. And while Captain Kirk argues that by making war “so neat and painless” the Eminians had no reason to stop it. But he said this to a man, Anan 7, who not only had to calculate the casualty lists but had lost his wife in the last Vendikar attack.

Regardless, this thought experiment begs the question: is there a way to dematerialize warfare, or at least shift it to posturing that would actually help the world instead of accelerating civilization’s death spiral? In an era of reality TV, global Olympics contests, and international sports leagues (not to mention global governance institutions), one would think we could innovate how we address and respond to conflict. Of course, some will argue that we need to move entirely beyond conflict—and mediate peacefully when differences arise. I agree that would be ideal, however, perhaps our nature, along with millennia of cultural programming, make that unrealistic. Maybe there’s a middle ground—a less destructive, or even constructive way to wage war. I’m not sure. But either we figure it out, or as Einstein noted, most likely we’ll be back to fighting with stone spears in future conflicts.⁵

Endnotes

1) Surprisingly, rerouted flights contributed 14% of total emissions. Read the full report here.

2) The variation in estimates of total emissions is significant. This PBS article suggests it was a third of Denmark’s annual emissions.

3) This ritualized warfare could have lots of restrictions: for example, in what circumstances this could be triggered (i.e. post-mediation); how frequently it could be enacted; and how many years of training occur before the actual battle, all of which could reduce the regularity of conflict further. Of course, the engagement could be transformed even further into a non-lethal athletic contest or even a battle of brains rather than brawn, or some unique mix. And while this may never be realistically considered, at the least, it’d make a good concept for a short story!

4) It’s also worth noting that Kirk actually threatens to issue General Order 24 to destroy the entire planet and its hundreds of millions of inhabitants if Anan 7 doesn’t release him and his party—again reinforcing just how dangerous the access of planetary weapons can be when one man has the launch codes.

5) This interesting article explores Einstein’s quotation, which may have been first said by someone else. But here’s the popular Einstein version: “I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” (However, in the version first published in 1947, Einstein’s answer actually referred to “stone spears” not sticks and stones. In truth, if humans survive, we’ll still be able to make bows, and the massive global stockpile of small arms means we’ll probably be shooting each other with guns for generations to come. The bigger point is that if we have a nuclear war, there probably won’t be another war after that at all—for either humans will be gone or civilization will be.)