A Standardised Framework for Material Flow Analysis of Moderen Warfare’s Material Footprint

Abstract

Modern warfare generates enormous but mostly unquantified material and energy flows, yet no standardised method exists to measure its material footprint. This study develops a Material Flow Analysis (MFA) framework to quantify the war-exclusive material footprint of modern warfare. Building on principles of army doctrines and NATO supply classification, the framework identifies relevant material classes, including fuels, fortification materials, ammunition, repair parts, and medical waste, and categorises them along the functional military platforms within the air, ground, naval and defensive domain. The model operationalises these flows through a quartile-based intensity approach, parameterised with industry-relevant proxies and assumptions, and finally tested with data from two case studies: The Russia-Ukraine War (2022) and Operation Desert Storm (1991). Results show that warfare operates at an industrial scale: Within a two-month window, total CO2 emissions reach approximately 6 Mt for the Russia-Ukraine War and 28 Mt for Desert Storm, equalling the monthly emissions of Denmark and the Dutch industrial sector, respectively. In mass terms, the model indicates 8-10 Mt of fuels and ammunition are mobilised over two months, comparable to the global monthly cement trade or Sweden’s steel output. Fuel contribution sums up to 70-80 % of the flows by mass. Ammunition dominates the remainder, while fortification materials add merely hundreds of kilotonnes. Estimates by Initiative on GHG Accounting of War & Clingendael Institute (2025) state 230 Mt CO2-eq arises from the first three years of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. This current study, by capturing only the active warfare component, shows that 126 Mt CO2 is emitted, which is roughly half of the aforementioned study. This demonstrates that this study functions complementary rather than contradictory. The framework provides a reproducible foundation for quantifying the environmental consequences of warfare. Future research should extend system boundaries to include manufacturing and reconstruction, and integrate the framework with Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to support transparent accounting