It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


U.S. military eradicating weeds worldwide. Why?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 02:51 PM

The pertinent information is the 7th headline down the page.

I have to wonder why the U.S. MILITARY (not even dept. of agriculture, but military!) would be involved in GLOBAL eradication of weeds. Of course, it's hard to chase people down and kill them if you keep tripping over vines and such so I can understand the need for some sort of defoliant but why are U.S. taxpayers saddled with the debt of weed-eating the planet's lawns?

The article was from 2001 but the list of bases using this technology has increased.
Military Bases
Using WeedSeeker:

Air Force
- Andrews AFB, MD
- Altus AFB, OK
- Aviano AFB, Italy
- Barksdale AFB, LA
- Cannon AFB, NM
- Charleston AFB, SC
- Columbus AFB, MS
- Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ
- Dyess AFB, TX
- Elgin AFB, FL
- Ellsworth AFB, SD
- Elmendorf AFB, AK
- Fairchild AFB, WA
- Grissom AFB, IN
- Hickman AFB, HI
- Hill AFB, UT
- Kunsan AFB, Korea
- Lajes AFB, Azores
- Langley AFB, WV
- Luke AFB, AZ
- Little Rock AFB, VA
- MacDill AFB, FL
- McConnell AFB, KS
- Misawa AFB, Japan
- Minot AFB, ND
- Moody AFB, GE
- Nellis AFB, NV
- Offutt AFB, NE
- Scott AFB, IL
- Seymour-Johnson AFB, NC
- Shaw AFB, SC
- Travis AFB, CA
- Whitman AFB, NE
- Wright-Patterson AFB, OH

- Fort Bliss, TX
- Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico
- Fort Campbell, KY
- Fort Carson, CO
- Fort Gordon, GA
- Fort McCoy, WI
- Fort McDowell, AZ
- Fort Meade, MD
- Fort Riley, KS
- Fort Rucker, AL
- McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, OK
- Tonopah Range, NM

Marine Corps
- Marine Corps Recruit Depot, SC
- Yuma Marine Corps Air Station, AZ

National Guard
- National Guard Langdon/Strickland, NC

- Atsugi Naval Station, Japan
- Barking Sands NAS, HI
- Gulfport Naval Station, MS
- Kitsap Naval Base, WA
- Lemoore NAS, CA
- Meridian NAS, MS
- Norfolk Naval Station, VA
- Oceana Naval Station, VA
- Pensacola Naval Station, FL
- Port Hueneme, CA
- Sabana Seca, Puerto Rico
- U.S. Naval Academy, MD

Especially curious to me are the naval bases using this technology. I'm not in the Navy (but married to sailor for 12 years) so I'm not sure how much tripping over vines they encounter but I suspect it's not a lot.

Maybe some military person familiar with this technology could explain the interest (and ongoing expense) of weed eradication on a global scale and how such an action benefits the American people or promotes American national security?

Also, since "weeds" are generally considered anything that isn't a commercially grown crop, then all those easily-foraged-by-the-roadside edibles/medicinals are being poisoned. Just my conspiratorial brain at work here but am open to rational explanations.

posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 02:58 PM
I don't know where you live, but here in Missouri during the late spring through mid fall, just a week of not mowing a good round will have the next week looking horrid. Give it a month and you may find Japanese hidden in there that don't know the war is over.

My take on this is a routine area of surprisingly HIGH cost, world wide, being attacked as a whole and from the top. I mean, when was the last time you were on a military base with over-grown medians on their main drag or a parade ground where the guys are shuffling their feet through thick grass getting there to avoid tripping over an item they couldn't see carelessly left in the high grass?

Every base I have seen is immaculate from the Command building gardens to the approach clear outside and beyond the main gate. I'll assume it takes BIG money to maintain that almost fantasy land look of clean, neat perfection. I'll bet this idea was born from a way to slice that budget too.

Remember, Leon Panetta has become the Wal-Mart price slasher on crack lately. Anything military to slash the crap out of....except his fancy toys of course...and it's cut to the bone. Here is another example, IMO/
edit on 29-9-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 03:04 PM
reply to post by whitewave

I see we are being charged for the upkeep of US military bases? I must be missing something. No disrespect OP but whats the problem?
edit on 29-9-2012 by zonetripper2065 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 03:11 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
I don't see a lot of need for any weedkeeping at all in some of these places.
Your explanation is reasonable and I agree that military bases are kept immaculate but did you look at the equipment in the links? Most bases I've been on (granted, not a lot) would require a regular handheld weedeater not a long-armed piece of rolling machinery that reaches out 10 beyond the road. It would be ineffective, cumbersome, and impractical to try rolling it around the edges of all military buildings on any given base. I doubt they're driven over the lawns to reach within 10 feet of the barracks.

posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 03:28 PM
I wish they would come to my house. I have nutsedge that is driving me crazy.

posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 03:32 PM
What the hell???!!! Weed killing in Arizona??? Unless they're killing cacti, they just need to stop. Period. Barksdale, on the other hand, well now that's a different story. You can park your car, leave it for two days, and it's covered in vines that make pretty little purple flowers, but grow like they're on steroids. I'd hate to find one of those dern things taking over the aircraft hangers.

posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 03:34 PM
Can I propose a new heading for this thread? "Groundskeeping staff use cost-effective machinery to keep US military bases looking nice. Why?"

Can I also propose an answer to the question? "Because they want their bases to look nice, and they want to achieve that in a cost-effective way".

posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 03:35 PM
reply to post by whitewave

Actually, if I might offer a suggestion on some of this equipment. It may seem silly to us, sitting here, but I stopped trying to make real sense of military thinking for some things. Why would you need something that can stretch well beyond the point the equipment is parked? How about clearing the layers of brush and obstruction within a tree line without destroying the visual beauty of the treeline meeting nice manicured lawn or at least...well kept grounds?

It wouldn't do to have a nice treeline facing the General's base housing, for example, and have the underbrush so totally overgrown and dense that a small army could move right up to the last tree in the line w/o being seen, right?

It's just that overall thinking here, there, and everywhere in the world the Military and Gov't seems to where that's the first kind of explanation that comes to mind for why they'd want some of the exotic equipment they have. Just a few tasks in one area of a base could be enough for the base to get the Pentagon to buy whatever it is.....even when we'd see the use vs. cost as laughably beyond the pale. IMO.
edit on 29-9-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 03:38 PM
reply to post by Nite_wing

Eat those weeds, my friend! Especially with nutsedge, "edible" is built right into its scientific name!

posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 03:42 PM
reply to post by volafox

Exactly! On some of these spots, it's self-evident but others are totally unnecessary. Wouldn't have raised much suspicion if it wasn't for some of the choices. Also, for those who see just groundskeeping efforts, you might want to read the entire page even though I pointed out only one headline on it.

posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 03:43 PM
reply to post by lacrimoniousfinale

Star and LOL for you acrimonious finale.

posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 03:44 PM
one day it's weeds, the next day it's civilians?

posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 03:47 PM
reply to post by r2d246

I think it already is.

posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 09:02 PM
This product is used solely to kill weeds on pretty much every US-owned base because the bases have very high upkeep standards and this particular weed killer was approved by the GSA for purchase. So when any base orders "weed killer", this is what they get.

The purpose is to maintain visibility at all entry gates, along runways, along fence lines, and so on.

posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 12:10 PM
My take on this is that military bases are kept immaculate as much for psychological reasons as for reasons of security. More so in fact. Can you imagine the effect on the collective military psyche of an overgrown, unkempt jungle of a base. Pride would nose-dive, and not far behind would be morale, standards, motivation and so on.

posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 12:11 PM
Well if you do not keep your lawn up or garden every day the weeds are a
problem. Weeds seem to catch on perhaps and will never go away.
Where there is a bit of a weed problem you can't see what is going on
on the other side. That is a safety problem.

posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 12:12 PM
Of course the military is killing weeds.

How else will you be able to expose the rocks so they can be painted?

posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 12:32 PM
A lot of those bases have something in common. Runways. If you get weeds near a runway, you get bugs. If you get bugs, you get birds that eat them. If you get birds, you get bird strikes, which means you can potentially lose an aircraft.

Hickam is responsible for the first 2000 feet of runway at the Honolulu International Airport, because they abut each other, and they don't have their own runway. They had a problem with Cattle Egret for awhile, especially after mowing. When they'd mow, the bugs would swarm, which would bring more Egrets to eat them. Fortunately, we only had one bird strike, and that was on landing, so he was almost on the runway already.

If you use a weed killer, instead of mowing, then it will either kill the bugs, or drive them away, so you don't have a bird problem. That has been a really big problem for the Air Force, which has tried everything from flying hawks, to using Border Collies to drive birds away from the runway. They even have a dedicated bird control program that all bases are supposed to follow.

posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 12:43 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58

That's an excellent point.
Actually, this wouldn't have gotten much notice or concern from me except for the locations of some of the bases.
Taken together with some of Monsanto's shenanigans, Agenda 21, Codex Alimentarius, Georgia Guidestones population reduction mandate, etc., any program that has as a side effect (or primary goal) the purpose of eliminating our ability to feed (or medicate) ourselves is one that garners my suspicions.

Some of the bases listed would have to import weeds as there's nothing around them for miles! Honestly, what do they need weedkiller for?

It may all be perfectly legit with some of the base choices being a glaring example of our military ineptitude, then again, it never hurts to keep an eye on what's going on around you and to question everything.

posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 12:51 PM
reply to post by whitewave

Because the military is a bureaucracy. All bases are held to the same standard, and expected to do the same things, regardless of where they are. A good example is that Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona, will be sent the exact same shipment of weedkiller as Hickam AFB in Hawaii is. Whether they order it or not. And if some high mucky muck comes out, and they aren't using it, he'll demand to know why, and they'll have to reply in writing as to the fact that they don't have weeds, and there is no reason for them to use it.

The much simpler way to deal with the time consuming reports, and money spent to do the report, and launch studies to show that there are no weeds, is to simply get the weedkiller that is automatically sent out (because they buy it based on how many bases there are total, not how many actually need it), and just use it, or "Whoops! We stuck it in a warehouse for when we needed it, but someone must have stolen it!" Or "Oh damn! The roof leaked and ruined the shipment!"
edit on 10/2/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in