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?
Do you need the big questions answered? Are you constantly curious? Then why not subscribe to
Unveiled for more clips like this one? And ring the bell for more thought-provoking content!
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.
What do you think? Is there anything we missed? Let us know in the comments, check out these other
clips from Unveiled, and make sure you subscribe and ring the bell for our latest content.