Scorched-earth policy

Characteristics and typical targets

This approach can be carried out by forces operating in enemy territory or by a state seeking to prevent an invader from exploiting its own resources. It focuses on tangible resources and infrastructure rather than simply engaging enemy combatants. Common targets include:

• Food stocks, livestock and crops;
• Water sources and irrigation systems;
• Transportation networks: roads, bridges, railways and rolling stock;
• Telecommunications and power plants;
• Industrial facilities, fuel and raw-material depots;
• Shelters and civilian housing when used by combatants or to deny cover.

Armed forces may apply scorched-earth measures themselves or order civilians to remove or destroy goods; for discussion of operations in enemy versus friendly areas see military doctrine descriptions.

History and notable examples

Scorched-earth tactics have appeared in many eras and theatres of war. Notable historical cases often cited in military history include:

• Russian actions during invasions of the 18th and 19th centuries, including the retreat before Napoleon's 1812 campaign.
• Union General William T. Sherman and his March to the Sea during the American Civil War, which combined military action with systematic destruction of supplies and infrastructure.
• Campaigns by Kit Carson against the Navajo in the 19th century that involved forced relocation and destruction of resources.
• Lord Kitchener's operations in the Boer War, which included measures to deny supplies and to isolate guerrilla forces.
• Large-scale retreats and defensive destructions in the 20th century: early Soviet retreats under directive from Soviet command in 1941 as Germany launched its invasion, and the broader context of the German invasion of the Soviet Union.
• Wartime destruction across the Eastern Front involving both Soviet and German forces in different phases of World War II, and the wider Soviet war effort in the USSR during WWII.
• Modern examples of environmental and economic denial tactics, such as the deliberate burning of oil wells by retreating Iraqi forces in the 1991 Gulf War (burning oil wells), which combined scorched-earth aims with ecological damage.
• Other recorded instances and associated operations are described in military histories and archives (studies of the Eastern Front and subsequent scholarship).

Consequences and legal context

Scorched-earth measures can produce short-term military benefits but often inflict severe civilian suffering: famine, mass displacement, destruction of livelihoods and long-term environmental harm. Because these tactics frequently affect non-combatants and civilian property, modern international humanitarian law places limits on their use. Deliberate and widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure and resources can be unlawful under conventions and customary rules that protect civilians in armed conflict; the precise legal assessment depends on intent, military necessity, and proportionality.

Strategic trade-offs and modern relevance

Commanders consider scorched-earth measures when alternatives are limited, but the decision involves strategic trade-offs. Denying supplies may slow an enemy, but it can also alienate local populations, complicate post-conflict recovery, and create long-lasting political and humanitarian problems. Contemporary military planners and legal advisers therefore weigh tactical gains against ethical, legal and strategic costs. For further reading and case studies consult historical analyses and doctrinal materials such as encyclopedic entries and specialized studies (campaign accounts, biographies and archival research).