The common interests of the ecological and peace movement arise first and foremost from the basic concern of both movements, namely the preservation of life, which is not present without peace and without protection of the livelihoods from their destruction. Both movements are natural allies in their commitment to the future.
They are also opposed to the system that has created the military-industrial complex with their interest in a viable nature. And they have in the people, who as living beings have an objective interest in living in a fertile world, a common mobilization base against the economy of resource waste and against the strategists who declare that they want to prevent war through its preparation.
This especially in the youth, which has life to a large extent still ahead of them. She wants to be the future in a world that has one. The military bears a significant share of the world’s ecological destruction in favour of short-term and short-sighted profit interests of competing world corporations. This is not only due to the waste of resources on Earth and the waste of human creativity for the economy of death.
The fossil fuels burned by the Air Force, Army and Navy, as well as the fires triggered by them in maneuvers and wars, are not exactly quantified in the literature for understandable reasons.
There is evidence that the approximately 800 U.S. military bases and bases alone in approximately 70 countries, their many officially confirmed operations and covert operations, their fleet associations in the Atlantic, Mediterranean, Pacific, Persian Gulf, Red Sea and Indian Ocean mean that the U.S. Army is more polluting the Earth’s biosphere than 140 countries together.
In addition, the effects of combustion exhaust gases, as well as the destruction and environmental poisonings caused by wars, are added. This applies to wars so far as well as impending ones, from which the danger can also be assumed that they will end apocalyptically on the basis of the atomic infrastructure alone.
The damage to nature, which the military consider, is particularly evident in the nuclear war strategy: the Essen annual conference of Nato called the Joint Air Power Competence Center (JAPCC) demanded in 2017 on the topic of “deterrence” from the nuclear states “plans and doctrines” for the use of their nuclear potentials.
An example of this was provided 35 years ago by the British-US military strategist Colin S. Gray in his Text “Victory is possible"-victory is possible.
Its concept included a Mix of:
- offensive guidance (the military talking here, from the beheading blow)
- so-called civilian defence, and
- a missile defense system to possible nuclear retaliation for the possible opponent at the time, the Soviet Union — intercept.
In May 1982, the Pentagon of the United States “wrote a 125-page” defense guideline”, which explicitly spoke of a “protracted” nuclear war, in which it was supposed to “maintain the upper hand” (“to prevent”).
It is obvious that the militarists here accept the demise of civilization cheaply, since no one can assume, in such a crazy approach, that anyone will survive this Inferno safely.
As of 1983, studies have shown that there is a risk of the Earth’s atmosphere falling below zero as a result of the fly ash caused by nuclear strikes. The mirror of 13 August 1984:
The conclusion, the Nobel Prize winner Herbert A. Simon drew from the scientist’s thesis, already 100 megatons of atomic ‘payload’, discarded exclusively via cities, could trigger the nuclear Winter (…)
One might object that the strategy of Gray is outdated, and since the theory of the nuclear Winter was known, the military would have certainly abstained from such a ascension command on their own personal survival interest.
However, current developments such as the “conception of civil defense” of the Federal Ministry of the interior, which also assumes civil protection measures against nuclear contamination in the event of conflict and then a so-called mass attack of injured persons, among other things, speak against this. It is in this concept, reactions to the “following threats:
- Use of conventional weapons,
- Use of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear agents (CBRN hazards),
- Use of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems,
- Cyber Attacks,
- Failure or disruption of Critical infrastructure”.
The concept of the Federal Ministry of the interior follows the NATO Council’s plan of February 2016 for civilian preparedness (Guidelines on Civil Preparedness). This is about processes after the destruction of the environment and life.
But it gets even worse, even more massive, the radioactive contamination is, in fact, increasingly likely, and with irresponsible intent: According to the NATO-backed one-sided breach of the Treaty for the prohibition of nuclear medium-range missiles, the USA have declared, without evidence of the work of U.S. defense contractors to new nuclear systems, which should have a wider applicability.
“The U.S. Department of defense plans to advance after the end of the INF Treaty between the United States and Russia, the development of a new missile system. The announced Pentagon chief Mark Esper”.
This also applies to the nuclear systems that are located in Büchel near Koblenz in connection with the so-called “nuclear participation” of Germany. According to NATO plans, the systems will be replaced in the next few years by a new attack technique equipped with a target finding head and no longer a fall bomb. The website of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) criticizes: the " improved target finding technique makes the System more operational (…) “; The Guardian uses the phrase “more usable” for this purpose.
In addition to the improved target determination, there is a significantly more precise dosage of the effect with the result that a nuclear Fallout can be limited. The US and NATO are trying to sell them to the public.
All this means that, in addition to the irresponsible depletion of resources and the eminent combustion exhaust gases, which go to the military’s account, there are other existential reasons for the peace and the environmental movement to express their similarities in joint actions. Peace for Future, Nature for Life, disarmament, rigorous and broad resistance to the machinery of death, that is the commandment of the hour.