Although it's usually much more a political issue than it is an environmental issue, it seems like war is inevitably tied to environmental issues. Obviously, during wartime, the last thing that most people would be most concerned about is the environment. But perhaps it's something they should be much more concerned about. After all, to some extent, haven't most wars have been fought over land, water, or other precious natural resources?

But they do so much destruction to the land. Modern missiles and bombs literally blow up everything in their sight, obliterating natural habitats. Chemical and biological warfare such as napalm have polluted air, water, and land, poisoning and debilitating the wildlife there. Even decades later, after all the immediate destruction is gone, unexploded mines and cluster bombs have continued to destroy habitats which would otherwise be on the road to environmental recovery.

On the other hand, it can just sound silly to make threats of mass death and destruction while simultaneously showing a concern for the environment. The Russian military recently did so, when it threateningly revealed it had developed the world's most powerful vacuum bomb:

"All that is alive merely evaporates... At the same time, I want to stress that the action of this weapon does not contaminate the environment, in contrast to a nuclear one."
-http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1155952320070911

So, should we expect governments to think about the environment during wartime? If they are already at the point where they are willing to sacrifice human lives, they are probably far past the point where they'd be willing to sacrifice wildlife and plants. So, is it realistic to suggest that governments will be able to keep the environment in mind when they are actually in the middle of a war?

The question you are asking is a very important one and yes, environments are often the last thing on anyone's mind. For example, during the Vietnam war, the image of the jungle was shrank back that of the days of US westward expansion, it is mysterious and it is dangerous. The reason many argue that the US lost the war is because of the jungle and the ability of it to hide the enemy so effectively. The jungle was scary. Also, the US reverted to actually setting parts of the rain forest on fire in hopes of smoking out and exposing the Vietcong. You could even look at a place like Hiroshima where destruction was the only thing on anyones mind, whether that be of people or of nature. Its crazy to thing that ecosystems have still not recovered 60 years later, radiation is still in the soil.

But the truth is, this is war. War. In some cases it could be about fighting for personal freedoms, the survival of your people, preventing a genocide; people--in dire situations--will always, always be put in front of the environment. Sure, in areas with peace the environment can take the front seat and ask people to stop driving their cars. But when you are fighting for your actual physical life, yes i think it is ridiculous to save the trees.

If governments somehow compiled and signed a list of civil agreements about protecting certain aspects of each nation/area, then sure, add conservation zones as no fly, no march zones. That would be amazing and I would applaud any leaders who could participate in a diplomatic contract during war, as much of a oxymoron as it is. But this seems unlikely.

In another note, it is ironic that guerrillas, like those indigenous people in Burma who are fleeing their Junta government that is trying to ethnically-cleanse the country of them, take to the jungle or the unexplored undeveloped areas. Whether they are "good" guerrillas or "bad" guerrillas, nature is doing them a fat favor by basically protecting them, assuring an extended survival and giving them advantages in some cases. Nature is giving them a leg up, which, assuming they are "good", misunderstood fighters with big guns hiding out in the thickets, I think is pretty cool.

Oh, and another note, wars are always fought over either natural resources or religion. Whether it be the Roman Empire, who was constantly running out of resources so they constantly had to expand to find more, or the US who wants to pay less for and be guaranteed regular shipments of oil. Natural resources are the brute cause of all wars, besides religion.

Hint: read Jared Diamond's book "guns, germs, and steel." it explained how natural landscapes have crafted all human endeavors, even wars.