Re: How is plant, and wildlife in general, affected by human warfare?

War is as bad for plants and animals in its path as it is for humans.

Before the 20th century, environmental damage in warfare was mostly limited to trenching and felling of trees. This could leave a bleak landscape after a battle, but one which would soon recover. A road trip around the eastern US will locate areas of serene forest with unusual dips and low stone walls, which are the remains of trenches dug in Civil War battles. 150 years later, the trees have grown back, but the trenches are still not filled in, and have in many cases changed the drainage of entire landscapes.

Conflicts of the 20th century introduced three incredibly destructive technologies into warfare: land mines, fire bombing ('napalm'), and defoliants ('agent orange'). Land mines have produced a curious split effect for wildlife: while animals are susceptible to land mines just as people are, mined areas are effectively 'no-man's land' and therefore provide a sort of refuge: "Tigers and Land Mines".

Fire bombing and defoliants, used extensively by the US in the Vietnam war, have the explicit purpose of destroying vegetation. The human consequences of Agent Orange (which contained dioxin, extremely poisonous to humans) tend to obscure the lasting damage to the landscapes of southern Vietnam where it was used. Fully 10% of Vietnam was bombed with defoliants during the conflict, and in many of these areas, the soil now supports neither forests nor farms. Details here: "The Environmental Impact of War".

The human toll of war tends to overshadow, but modern weapons of war cause environmental destruction on a grand scale.