> After that, they are no longer a threat because there is no fuel.
Not necessarily. I bet that the new replacement ecosystem will be, in fact, much more flammable. The water has quit the area.
The issue we worry about post fire is not more fire, it's landslides next time whatever excuse we get for a rainy season comes around.
You simply can't burn a forest to the ground twice without growing another forrest in between.
The succession goes grassland, scrubland, forest. The grass is indeed more flammable, but the fires are much less intense. Dry cheatgrass, for example, flares up with incredible enthusiasm, but burns to ash in literally seconds.
Not exactly true.
The problem is that nobody wants to pay the money to do so--especially the people who live in those areas.
In addition, you only get to burn those forests once. After that, they are no longer a threat because there is no fuel.