What Would Happen If Humanity Weaponized Natural Disasters? | Unveiled

What Would Happen If Humanity Weaponized Natural Disasters?

In the expected way of things, natural disasters happen as the result of a natural process. Earthquakes occur through tectonic plate movement; hurricanes form out of complex weather patterns; volcanoes erupt when the pressure below becomes too much. Alongside Earth’s history of natural disasters, however, there has always been whispers that humans might one day control them. But could it happen? And if it could, then at what cost?

This is Unveiled, and today we’re answering the extraordinary question; what would happen if humanity weaponized natural disasters?

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a natural disaster as “a sudden and terrible event in nature that usually results in serious damage and many deaths”. Unfortunately, there are plenty that come to mind. Things like hurricanes, earthquakes, and forest fires happen all over the world… while some natural disasters are more (or less) common depending on where you live, like volcanic eruptions. Other examples of nature causing us major problems include landslides, tsunamis, famine and drought, extreme heat waves, and extreme cold snaps. Lightning strikes can be considered a natural disaster, too. And asteroid strikes. These events can all be devastating. And, while prior warning can be had with some (like floods and hurricanes) they’re often extremely difficult (and sometimes impossible) to accurately predict.

Nevertheless, according to stats from “Our World in Data”, natural disasters are responsible for a thankfully declining average of around 0.1 percent of deaths in modern times - around 50,000 per year. This figure was once much higher, with more than ten times as many deaths-by-natural-disaster recorded one hundred years ago, around the 1920s, for example, and that’s despite the global population being much lower then. Naturally, there are always fluctuations in the figures, because some years are worse than others for the size and number of disasters that occur. That said, since the 1970s the frequency of disasters actually occurring has “increased almost three-fold”, according to a 2015 paper by the “Asian Development Bank”, with human-induced climate change thought to be to blame. While these trends appear to be at odds with one another, one suggestion is that the death rate has dropped in recent times (despite more disasters) because humanity has learned to better plan for (and respond to) disasters, in general.

Might the next step, then, see us exercise an even greater control over the natural world, to not just respond to it… but to shape it, as well? What if humanity developed a way to use natural disasters at will?

First off, in this particular “alternate” reality, humans should now be able to predict standard, naturally occurring disasters with even greater success and accuracy. Which, in itself, should be a positive leading to even fewer deaths… and in some cases to the disasters themselves being totally avoided. The less positive aspects come when we move beyond that, however, and weaponize natural events. Now, there could be many more deaths, amid many more disasters, with humans directing what happens. The effects of such a shift could quickly become quite as devastating as the waging of nuclear war. If it were to become possible to somehow aim natural disasters at targets, then they could prove even more inescapable than they already are, today. There has already been some precedent for this in the real world, too, and various examples of the natural world having a hand in how war plays out.

Both Napoleon and Hitler famously failed to invade Russia, for example, in large part thanks to famine and freezing temperatures on the ground, which decimated armies. Further back in time, the Mongol army was twice defeated when attempting to invade Japan (in 1274 and 1281) thanks in large part to devastating typhoons. The weather, even uncontrolled as it was on those occasions, has historically played a huge role in how wars unfold. But perhaps the most infamous example of controlled weather used in war to date is Operation Popeye, a top-secret US military strategy attempted during the Vietnam War… which involved cloud-seeding in a bid to extend the Vietnamese rainy season. The US Army had genuinely developed tech capable of manipulating the clouds, to make them rain, as they tried to disrupt the enemy frontline and supply routes.

Such tactics have since been legally banned. But, in a world where those restrictions were lifted, it’s clear how the landscape of war could change forever. Although traditional ammunition would no doubt still have its uses, to attack another country with literal earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, or heatwaves could cripple the target like nothing else. The effects of weaponised disasters would have the potential to cut off whole regions or countries, more so than even the largest explosion. And they’d be ongoing, too, with wildfires (for instance) raging for weeks at a time. Or floods unrelenting until the enemy gave in. These would be widespread and long-term assaults, rather than a series of quick, one-off attacks.

In fact, fully weaponize the weather and there might not even be the chance for conventional warfare, at all. Foot soldiers would be easily slowed by a large enough storm; navies could be quickly crippled by a man-made tsunami; the air force could be forced to land rather than fly through a purpose-built hurricane. As such, war would be less about organizing people, and more about getting the best grip on the environment. Across land, sea, and sky. Even entire, mobilized militaries might have very little chance against the wrath of nature.

Perhaps, in this alternate world, it would then be better for nations to most invest in ways to at least survive the countless disasters that could be thrown at them. This, too, would change a lot about how the world works and looks. The building of cover-all fireproof shelters, miles-high flood walls, and earthquake-proof infrastructures would take hold. The towns and cities most likely to thrive would be those least likely to be penetrated by whatever’s happening outside. The world could soon be marked, then, with completely closed-off communities, stockpiling food and self-generating power, separated by huge stretches of effective “no man’s land” where no-one would dare to venture… for risk of becoming exposed and vulnerable to the weather and the elements. Tall buildings and towers would be more of a risk, although lookout posts would be needed to monitor any adverse weather on the horizon. Underground structures could be safest of all, or even underwater habitats, as all settlements try to limit the damage that can be done to them. Earth would turn into something of a planet of fortresses, where only the strongest can withstand the weapons of the day.

No matter the level of preparation, though, some countries and areas would be far more susceptible than others. Anywhere along the coast, for example, which includes so many of the world’s major cities at present, would be much more at the mercy of floods, tsunamis, and hurricanes. Islands could be more vulnerable, too. As would anywhere that’s situated along a fault line - including along the notorious Ring of Fire - where triggered earthquakes and eruptions would be a constant, inescapable threat. More than seventy percent of volcanoes (and the majority of earthquakes) are (or occur) along the Ring of Fire across the Pacific Ocean… and so, in this alternate world, places ranging from New Zealand, to Peru, to Indonesia would face increased risk.

Elsewhere, larger nations by area might be forced to relocate populations based on where natural disasters are most (and least) likely to do damage. The United States has more than 170 volcanoes, for instance, with many of those on its western side… while Russia has a similar number, with most of them on the eastern side. We can see, then, how people might be forced to flee certain territories, and the world map would evolve as a result.

Perhaps the safest places to be (at least at first) would be those areas that currently experience the fewest natural disasters, in the real world… which, according to the World Risk Index includes the likes of Estonia, Iceland, Barbados and, statistically safest of all, Qatar. But even those relative safe zones could very quickly become targets, once the weather is under human control. The unfortunate truth is that likely nowhere could ever count itself truly safe, so long as “weather war” were possible. A unique form of cold war could descend over Earth, with the immense threat of “mutually assured destruction” hanging over every nation’s every move. Add into the mix that a genuinely occurring natural disaster could now be fatally misinterpreted, too… and Earth becomes an extremely uneasy place to live.

It’s clear to see why there have been attempts made to clamp down on practices like cloud-seeding, then. Tech like that, which humanity already has to a certain degree, could be the first step along a dark path toward inevitable destruction. Thankfully, we’re not there quite yet, but the possibility offers a more than bleak outlook. In this world, there wouldn’t just be storms on the horizon… but full-scale acts of war. And that’s what would happen if humanity weaponized natural disasters.