Malaysia Must Not Ignore Weather and Water Warfare Threats
The idea that wars could be fought not only with bullets and missiles but through rain, drought, and manipulated rivers may sound like science fiction. However, history and contemporary conflicts demonstrate that environmental systems have long been viewed as strategic tools of warfare.
Weather modification and water
weaponization challenge established norms of international law and ethics,
while posing serious risks to civilian populations. For Malaysia, a country
increasingly exposed to climate volatility, flooding, and water stress; ignoring
these unconventional forms of warfare would be a strategic blind spot.
One of the clearest historical
examples of weather warfare was ‘Operation Popeye’ during the Vietnam War
between 1967 and 1972. The United States conducted a covert cloud-seeding
programme aimed at extending the monsoon season over key supply routes used by
North Vietnamese forces. By inducing heavier and prolonged rainfall, the objective
was to turn roads into mud, flood river crossings, and disrupt logistics
without direct battlefield engagement.
Although the tactical
effectiveness of the operation remains contested, its exposure shocked the
international community and revealed that weather modification was not merely
theoretical, but operationally deployed.
This episode ultimately led to
the adoption of the 1977 United Nations Environmental Modification Convention
(ENMOD), which prohibits the hostile use of environmental modification
techniques.
Despite ENMOD, the strategic
temptation to manipulate environmental systems has not disappeared.
Technological advances in atmospheric science, climate modelling, and
geoengineering have revived debates about whether weather can be shaped
deliberately for strategic advantage. The danger lies not only in intentional
use, but in the dual-use nature of these technologies.
Civilian cloud-seeding programmes
intended for drought mitigation or agricultural support can, under different
circumstances, be repurposed or perceived as hostile acts. Weather systems are
inherently unpredictable, and any attempt to weaponize them risks unintended
cross-border and long-term ecological consequences.
Closely related to weather
warfare is the concept of ‘water weaponization’, which has a much longer and
more visible history. From ancient sieges that poisoned wells to modern
conflicts where dams, canals, and water treatment facilities are targeted,
water has repeatedly been used as a tool of coercion.
Recent wars have highlighted how
controlling or destroying water infrastructure can cripple civilian life,
undermine food production, and destabilize entire regions. Unlike weather
manipulation, water weaponization is often more direct and immediately observable,
but its humanitarian consequences can be equally devastating.
A comparative view of weather
warfare and water weaponization reveals important distinctions. Weather warfare
relies on atmospheric interventions: cloud seeding, aerosol dispersal, or
climate modification technologies whose outcomes are uncertain and often
uncontrollable. Water weaponization, by contrast, focuses on tangible
infrastructure such as dams, reservoirs, and rivers, making its effects more
predictable but no less destructive.
Legally, ENMOD explicitly bans
hostile environmental modification, while attacks on water infrastructure are
governed by international humanitarian law, particularly rules protecting
civilian objects. Yet enforcement in both areas remains weak, especially in
conflicts involving non-state actors or grey-zone strategies.
For Malaysia, these issues are
not abstract. The country’s geography and climate make it highly dependent on
predictable monsoon cycles, stable river systems, and functional water
infrastructure. Flooding, landslides, and drought already impose heavy economic
and social costs.
In such a context, any deliberate
interference whether through hostile weather modification or attacks on water
systems would magnify existing vulnerabilities. Moreover, Southeast Asia’s
interconnected climate systems mean that environmental disruptions in one
country can easily affect its neighbours, increasing regional instability.
Malaysia’s critical
infrastructure further amplifies these risks. Hydroelectric dams, irrigation
networks, and urban water treatment facilities are essential to national
resilience. Disruption to these systems whether through kinetic attacks, cyber
interference, or environmental manipulation could quickly escalate into food
insecurity, energy shortages, and social unrest.
In an era of hybrid warfare,
where state and non-state actors exploit non-military domains to achieve
strategic goals, environmental systems represent an attractive but dangerous
target.
Geopolitically, Malaysia operates
in a region where major powers are increasingly active, and where competition
often unfolds below the threshold of open conflict. Advances in climate science
and weather technology among global powers raise legitimate concerns about
transparency, trust, and intent.
Even the perception that a state
is manipulating weather or water resources could inflame tensions. Malaysia
must therefore approach this issue not only as a defence concern but as a
diplomatic and governance challenge.
Rather than pursuing any form of
offensive environmental capability, Malaysia’s strategic response should
prioritise resilience, law, and cooperation. Strengthening domestic legal
protections for water and environmental infrastructure is essential.
At the international level,
Malaysia should advocate for stronger monitoring and confidence-building
measures related to weather modification technologies, building on the
principles of ENMOD. Transparency and data-sharing can reduce suspicion and
prevent misinterpretation of civilian environmental programmes.
Investment in climate resilience
and early-warning systems is equally crucial. Robust meteorological monitoring,
flood management infrastructure, and water governance reforms can reduce the
impact of both natural and deliberate disruptions. By strengthening its
adaptive capacity, Malaysia makes itself a harder target for any form of
environmental coercion.
Finally, regional cooperation is
indispensable. Environmental systems do not respect national borders, and
neither do the risks associated with their manipulation. Malaysia should work
within ASEAN to develop a regional framework on environmental security,
encompassing shared data, joint responses to extreme events, and collective
norms against the weaponization of weather and water. Such cooperation would
not only enhance security but also reinforce regional trust.
Weather and water are
foundational to human survival and economic stability. When they are turned
into instruments of warfare, the consequences are indiscriminate and enduring.
History shows that environmental manipulation is not a theoretical danger but a
demonstrated reality.
For Malaysia, acknowledging this
risk and preparing accordingly is not alarmism but it is prudent statecraft in
an era where climate and conflict are increasingly intertwined.
25.12.2025
Kuala Lumpur.
© All rights reserved.
Comments