Are “Green” Weapons a Good Idea?

The Sunday Times (UK) reports today on efforts by one of the world’s largest weapons manufacturers, BAE, to develop a new generation of “green” weapons that minimize environmental harm. The company’s efforts include:

• Bullets with lower lead content because, as the company states on its website, “lead used in ammunition can harm the environment and pose a risk to people”. BAE says its plantin Radway Green, near Crewe, has been working on eliminating lead from its bullets altogether.

• Armoured vehicles with lower carbon emissions. The company is using “hybrid” engines, which can be powered by batteries as well as conventional diesel engines.

• Weaponry with fewer toxins. BAE is working to reduce Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and other hazardous, and often carcinogenic, chemicals in its products.

• Safer and sustainable artillery. The company has started manufacturing “insensitive” shell explosives at its plant in Glascoed in south Wales. They do not blow up accidentally and have an unlimited shelf life, reducing the need for disposal.

• Energy saving measures and recycling, including experimenting with turning waste explosives into compost.

BAE’s design practices are supported by the British Ministry of Defense, which wants “ecodesign” to be incorportated into all new weapons systems. According to the Ministry’s Sustainable Development and Environment Manual, “[a] concept of green munitions is not a contradiction in terms. Any system, whatever its ultimate use, can be designed to minimise its impact [on the] environment.”

Not suprisingly, human rights-groups who work to limit the arms trade are less enthusiastic:

“This is laughable,” said Symon Hill of Campaign Against Arms Trade. “BAE is determined to try to make itself look ethical, but they make weapons to kill people and it’s utterly ridiculous to suggest they are environmentally friendly.”

I think the Ministry of Defense has the better argument. There is no question that war is inherently environmentally destructive, but it’s also not likely to disappear anytime soon. Given that, isn’t it morally preferable to limit the impact of war on the environment as much as possible? Moreover, I think it’s unacceptably anthropocentric to dismiss ecodesign not because it isn’t technologically feasible, but because it’s being used with objects that are intended to kill humans. The environment is no less an innocent bystander in war than civilians, so why should the obligation to protect the former depend on the obligation to protect the latter? It’s bad enough that humans seem determined to find new and better ways to kill each other; they have no business — and certainly no right — to take the environment down with them.