War and Nature: an Environmental Military History of Pennsylvania”

“War and Nature: An Environmental Military History of Pennsylvania” By: Ian Graham The Origins of Letterkenny Army Depot In 1941, the war department declared that a specific area in Chambersburg Pennsylvania had been chosen as one of twelve new U.S. ordnance sites to fuel the war effort in Europe. Their primary mission: to receive incoming war supplies, handle the acquisitions organization, and ship these materials consisting of ammunition, trucks, parts, and other supplies to the war front. The residents of Chambersburg did not dispute the war department’s acquisition of nearly 21,000 acres bought from the general public and transformed into a war cache. Letterkenny Army Depot would play a pivotal part in victory for the war effort. However, while Letterkenny of Chambersburg was doing its part for the war, residents did not know that their environment would change forever. This hardworking military establishment enjoyed a short break following World War II, before a new war was on the horizon; a Cold. Following the election of President Eisenhower, Letterkenny Army Depot had new missions and orders to follow making it a permanent military installation. Its new mission was technology research, weapons housing and deconstruction, and industrial waste disposal. It is during this time that the Chambersburg residents would regret their unyielding acceptance of military operations in their hometown. Letterkenny as well as Tobyhanna army depot in Northeastern Pennsylvania have drastically altered Pennsylvania’s ecosystems and urban environments from 1954 to the present, however, the real changes and significant decisions took place between 1945 and 1968, the most prominent and serious years of the Cold War. A Tale of Two Depots: Tobyhanna Tobyhanna Army Depot was probably the most ecologically and urban friendly military base in Pennsylvania before the Cold War. The army arrived in 1912 and declared the site of Tobyhanna a prime spot. The base sits on a 26,000 acre landscape, but the surrounding landscape remained nearly unaffected as the base’s primary function was technological research and manufacturing. The base operated in harmony with the ecological and urban environment of Northeastern Pennsylvania. No surrounding forestry was cut down or cleared to make room for more of the base, and the surrounding terrain “is not to be altered under any circumstance”. Before the final additions of the base were built in the 1950’s, public support of the construction was crucial due to the economically depressed region. During the decline of anthracite coal mining, the base received over 600 applications for employment two years before it was opened. The base not only preserved the environment but also created jobs and brought economic prosperity to Northeastern Pennsylvania. Of course, these were words being spoken in 1956, and the times have changed since then but nevertheless the surrounding ecosystem and urban environment remained nearly unaffected. Letterkenny During the arms race between 1958 and 1964, Letterkenny received an average monthly shipment between 100 and 250 drums of nuclear and petrol waste for storage and disposal. It was unclear from 1958‐1964 where in Chambersburg these chemicals were being stored or disposed of. Rocky Spring Lake was the prime suspected area and and in the early 90’s, the EPA proved this to be true. Though the waste was never officially found in Rocky Spring Lake, in 1995 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found small traces of mercury and radiation in the water. The radiation, declared miniscule but large enough to put the base on notice. The commander of the base in 1996 put a fishing ban on the lake until cleaning of the area could be administered. Today, most of the lake remains off limits to the general public. Tobyhanna’s Downfall As the Cold War drew on, so did the attack on the environment. Tobyhanna Army Depot began nuclear research and was responsible for maintenance and disposal of nuclear and industrial waste that followed it. Some of the waste made its way down to Letterkenny, but not all. For Tobyhanna to keep up with the demand of disposal, an additional six acres of land were cleared out for the storage of nuclear waste. Later, the army seemed to ignore any warning of the ecological and urban effects these actions might produce. The EPA discovered volatile organic compounds (VOC) and other contaminants in the rivers and streams surrounding the base of Tobyhanna flowing into the highly populated and remote urban areas in the year 2000. Carbon dating traces the cause of these pollutions back to 1962 when Tobyhanna was asked to do missile and explosive computer research as well as industrial and nuclear disposal and storage for the nuclear arms race. In 1963, Tobyhanna cleared out 1,257 additional acres to make room for explosive test sites and training grounds. No actual nuclear tests were done at this site; however, the explosive tests of TNT, Nitro‐glycerin, napalm, and others put the VOC’s in soil and plants which later washed down into the aquatic ecosystem which in turn was distributed to urban societies. Ian Graham Research Paper Capstone 4/10/09 The relationship between war and the environment is a very rarely discussed topic in both the environmentalist field and the historical field. Some, however, were motivated enough to do substantial research and make excellent unique arguments that are similar to each other and yet quite different as well. Authors Richard P. Tucker, Edmund Russell, Barry Weisberg, Nancy Lee Peluso, and Michael Watts offer each of their own insights to the correlation between the military and the environment. Three prominent schools of thought emerged from the works of these authors. The first school of thought is that there is a natural balance between war and nature in that nature has an advantage as well as an obstacle to overcome. This is a good way to view war and nature, at least in the pre-technological history of it. The draw back of this school of thought is that it only applies to war long before the First World War and is not analogous of any wars after that. A second school suggests that nature is the absolute target of attack by the military and no natural balance exists. This concept is a good way to view wars during and following World War I. It is especially useful school of thought should one research war’s effects on the environment during the Vietnam War. The only draw back is that it doesn’t apply to all wars during that time period or even after. Should an environmental historian make an attempt to apply this school of thought to any war for environmental history research, it would be subject to a lot of criticism and debate and no real argument would be made solid. The final school of thought suggests that nature is the cause of violence and not merely a bystander in war’s way. This is a very broad and deep argument. Some could apply this school of thought to nearly any 1 time period and military incident throughout the course of history. However, the application of this argument is always speculative and not based on any real solid fact or evidence. There is of course another method to approach these schools of thought. Not many would think that one could apply multiple arguments to one specific area and time period. Letterkenny Army Depot and Tobyhanna Army Depot, throughout each of their own personal histories, encompassed the three schools of thought mentioned above along a very specific time line. Beginning with a “natural enemy, natural ally” relationship and ending with the military’s attack of nature to force nature into a means to serve their own ends. The Cold War forced these bases into an ecological shift spanning from the years between 1945 and 1968, probably the most prominent and heated years of the Cold War. Additionally, as one will notice, the combination of the three schools of thought into one specific area and time period can be viewed as speculative but in this particular case is based on solid fact and evidence. Authors Richard P. Tucker and Edmund Russell in their book Natural Enemy, Natural Ally , discuss an often overlooked subject in history concerning war and its relation to the environment. The essays in their edited volume explore a variety of topics such as; the ways in which landscape can influence military strategies, the impact of war and peace on timber resources, and the spread of pests and disease in wartime. Richard P. Tucker an adjunct professor of natural resources and environment at the University of Michigan along with Edmund Russell, an associate professor of culture and history at the University of Virginia span their discussions of war and nature chronologically beginning with pre-colonial America and ending with a brief overview on the Persian Gulf. The book contains several arguments rather than a single argument. First, the essays consistently argue that war is a major force in environmental change and that the environment shapes warfare. Secondly, this edited volume examines current 2 developments and popularity of the war and environment correlated topic in the academic field. Finally, Russell and Tucker attempted to compile this book as an encouraging motive for further future research. The two scholars argue just how the environment can be both an enemy and an ally. “Natural ally” emphasizes that nature has long been an ally of peoples at war, providing the raw materials for food, clothing, and shelter that underpin military success. 1 “Natural enemy” is obviously defined as quite the opposite. It describes the negative aspects of nature on the military such as pests, diseases, poor landscape, and insufficient water supply turning the environment into a “new enemy to combat.”2 Should one doubt these definitions, consider an excellent example as quoted by William Greeley, one of the foremost foresters in the United States during World War II.

Load more