Thursday, April 8, 2010

How Military Vehicles Affect the Environment

This article talks about how GPS tracking systems(specifically the Deployable Force-On-Force Instrumental Range System, or DFIRST) used during troop training can also be used to see how that exercise affects the environment. The article specifically shows what impact 80 vehicles (three kinds designated in the article: M35, M809, and HMMWV or Humvee) have on the environment, relating to vegetation loss and dust emissions. The article says that in a 144 square kilometer area, the vegetation loss is 2662.8 square meters, and the dust kicked up from the vehicles in that same area is 465.1 kilograms of particle matter.


This is the full article:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Vehicle+impacts+on+vegetation+cover+at+Camp+Atterbury,+Indiana,+USA:...-a0221596928

10 comments:

  1. This sounds like these vehicles are causing a problem to our enviornment. Hopefully we can find a way to stop this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I understand that the environment is being effected by armed vehicles but as far as I'm concerned the environment can take a back seat to my saftey

    ReplyDelete
  3. In regards to Ben's statement, that's the general consensus within the military. The problem though, is that sometimes the military does unnecessary actions, like laying massive minefields or using defoliants (plant killing chemicals). That's why Vietnam's environment is in such bad shape.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It seems like it was all for nothing now but at the time we were in war and not doing so well so we decided to take many of those actions.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Vietcong were the primary mine layers in that war. They rigged forests with tripwires and booby traps, many which are still present today. And use of defoliants not only kills the plants at hand, but damages the soil almost beyond repair. The only reason we carpet bombed Vietnam with napalm was because we were being defeated by a bunch of improperly trained guerilla fighters. This hurt our pride, so we decided to just torch the country. It was less a matter of necessity than of embarrassment. We ended up wiping out 80% of Vietnam's forests.

    Right now, though, there is an international debate going on about whether or not we should ban the use of landmines. I found a site about it: http://www.icbl.org/index.php

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh okay at first I thought the articles were just about the American Military and its effect of the environment but now is see that you mean all military... Great site!!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I totally agree with what Ben is saying. It never came to my mind that you were mentioning military all over the world. Interesting!

    ReplyDelete
  8. The entire world may be doing the same things, but it falls upon our country as the self-appointed police of the world to take care of this issue. The problem is, though, that the Joint Chiefs consider this a very small problem, as compared to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only time the military ever spends worrying about this kind of thing is during peacetime, and even then, they have Congress breathing down their necks just to do it then.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Excellent conversation and responses
    ...understand its war...and also agree that other countried are doing much worse things than our own...however, the question is, who is policing the military? The world is small...resources are recycled...what we do in one part of the world will, in one way or another, come back to haunt us. We has to have some sort of limitations...I just don't know what the answer is or who is responsible for "policing" those limitations!

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Secretary of Defense and the President are overseeing the military, and are civilians. That's one of the points of pride our country takes in the military: It's answerable to civilians. And as for who is responsible to take care of it, we are. We took on the mantle of responsibility with the numerous Presidential doctrines on foreign policy.

    ReplyDelete