As I read this article and seethed at the factual innacuracies and childish innuendo I suspected that it was the same old rubbish dredged up in the 1980s and lo and behold I was right. Shoalwater Bay is a magnificent example of untouchedand pristine ecosystem because the military has controlled that land for so long keeping meddling do-gooders, like the author, out of the area.

Huge buffer zones surround the minimal impact areas used for military ordnance and when the area is not being used for military exercises the only people allowed onsite are the botanists and archeologists recording flora, fauna and significant indigenous sites, aided of course by the locals. Significant indigenous sites are considered so important that they are not even marked on maps used by the military to avoid sticky-beaks going into areas that are best left untouched.

The same management by exclusion applies to other significant military training areas in the country's north and west. It is because of the military's management, their environmental officers (yes the defence organisation does employ environmental scientists) and the tenure that they hold over large and significant tracts of land that we are even able to have these arguments now. Many countries can't.

The author needs to concentrate on treating warts and swine flu and leave environmental management to the people who have looked after the environment since Federation.

Yes, the reality is that war does have a huge impact on the natural environment, if not globally, at least locally. And this impact tends to be ignored on reporting of war stories.
Our politicians also ignore the reality that 'economic stimulus packages' will also have an environmental impact.
www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog

It is a little hard to believe that this exercise will leave no footprint, and it is hoped that the Defence Department will be called upon to prove that no damage will be done, or any done will be repaired.

In the meantime, however, I will not be taking anything Sue Wareham says seriously. She is a serial green alarmist, as her previous articles prove, and she has a big problem with anything military, as her article before this one proves.

Wareham’s ‘carbon footprint of the exercises…’ is absurd. It is one thing to care about possible destruction of flora a fauna, but linking the carbon mania to military exercises which are vital for our defence capability is bordering on the lunatic. Dr. Wareham and her like will say anything in defence of their green pagan religion; even against the ADF and other organisations protecting their rights to make the ludicrous charges that they do.

These people would probably protest against any defence of Australia from an aggressor because of the ‘carbon footprint’!

This article has to be seen as the product of extremist and dangerous thinking. Fortunately, even our current government is unlikely to take any notice of such bizarre prattle

"I'm sorry, Mr. Churchill, and General Eisenhower, but do you realise the damage that this proposed "Operation Overlord" will do to the precious dune ecosystems of Normandy? I'm afraid we really can't allow it.

In fact gentlemen, you would do well to listen to what Mr. Hitler has to say about protecting the environment: he even sponsors organic farming! Isn't that nice for the planet?"

The Australian Defence Forces need to train for events such as East Timor, humanitarian aid such as given to Ache or any UN peace keeping work (Rwanda, Middle East etc)
Yes it uses fuel and it causes some damage but that is the cost of being prepared.
The argument could well be extend to all emergency services were real life training is so important.
Rural Fire Services practice their training by having large prescribed burns.
Dr Wareham would stop that as well I suppose.
In fact the ADF has invested considerable resources into providing simulator training to reduce fuel costs and wear and tear on ADF assets.
The world has many ugly people who are happy to hurt others.
We have defence forces to prevent those situations.
Dr Wareham would have us unprepared and vulnerable.
Can you imagine going under the knife of a surgeon who has never practiced procedures!

I’ve got to agree with the general trend of the comments so far.

The ADF is very good at conservation on their land, compared to how that land would have been degraded if it wasn’t defence land. Of course there are some areas of high impact…and large areas of no impact.

While I’m not sure just how well something like Talisman Sabre helps prepare our defence forces and strengthens relations with allies, it is clear that they need a great deal of training and that international relations are extremely important. Maybe they could do it more frugally, I don’t know.

Maybe some of the money would be much better spent on developing renewable energies and directing our society towards sustainability. The threat to social coherence from rapidly rising fuel prices and the continuation of our grossly unsustainable practices is in my opinion considerably greater than any military threat that might develop in the next decade.

But of course it is prudent to have a strong military preparedness, and deterrence factor and against aggression.

It’s a difficult balance.

Basically I think that Sue Wareham is missing the mark with this article and would do a lot better to put her energies into addressing the threat to our social fabric and hence the quality of life and health of the people of this county, that is being imposed upon us by grossly unsustainable rapid population growth and very high per-capita profligacy, and the worship of a continuous-expansion economic model.

The physical damage and oil consumption / CO2 production of our armed forces is extremely minor compared to this.