It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9% US casualty rate? At this rate, will their be a military in 5 years?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 06:39 AM
link   
No matter if slightly over or underreported, the US army could get fresh fodder by handing out green cards to mexican illigal immigrants in the unlikely event troops drop below critical?

In the meantime it's all a matter of public opinion, how just is the war, how succesfull is the war and how many people its worth dying for the goals.

New in this game is to what extend the Bush administration wants absolute control of the media to determine wich part of the public voice gets heard...

In worldwar 2 many, MANY more casualties than in iraq, but even in France that war is remembered as an heroic act of the usa government at that time and most people in the usa still think it was worth it.

In Vietnam the public opinion decided that the war lacked the moral justification to allow it to continue that long and bringing home so many casualties.

So, the job of the iraqi insurgants is to prolong the conflict and wearing tired the public opinion in america, while the job of Bush is to pick off the insurgants BEFORE the public opinion grows tired and provide enough moral justification to keep this thing going, but since thats a little hard, peddling fear/hate about iranian nukes exploding soon now in a theater near you, will do nicely.


[edit on 8-12-2004 by Countermeasures]




posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
But do you really believe that the US had 5.000 combat casualties in Iraq, and over 15.000 non-combat casualties from cancer, syphillis, etc ?


Absolutely. Example - During Gulf War I, my friend - a female marine - had
her unit go. There were 20 females in her unit. 12 of them became
pregnant during Gulf War I. These 12 would have been
considered 'casualties' as far as your way of counting goes because they
were discharged for medical reasons during a war situation.

Pregnancy, cancer, kidney stones, dehydration (desert heat), blood
disorders, appendix surgery, gallbladder surgery, 'female' things like
lumps in the breast requiring aspiration or surgery, mens prostrate
problems .... all these would be considered 'casualties' from your
perspective.

I have no doubt that there are MANY combat casualties. But I in no
way believe 20% of our troops are injured in combat there let alone
90%.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Hehe, those female marines chose a very convenient time to get pregnant, If i was the platoon commander I would put them on contraceptives or otherwise court marshall them for screwing around and dodging the duty!


[edit on 8-12-2004 by Countermeasures]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Countermeasures ... from what I heard around town, most of them
LOST their babies and there were severe abnormalities. I don't know
what was in the atrophine that they were injecting .... but YIKES!
VERY sad!



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:32 AM
link   
All military units have about 10% out at any given time due to injuries, even in peacetime. This is stuff like twisted ankles, shin splints, flu, etc..

For example: My 4 years in the Army I was “wounded” many time: 4 strep throats (desert sand can actually cause this), a badly sprained ankle, 4 wisdom teeth removed (impacted no less!), 2-3 bad cases of the flu, and a pulled hamstring. I was considered pretty healthy. This was peacetime, where we had time to rest and were not constantly on a war tempo. Our division suffered at least 1-2 fatalities each year due to stupid things like falling off a missile launcher or getting hit by a drunk driver while doing convoy road guards

I was treated at a large medical facility several times (because the local guys were just too busy) so that facility would report having treated me. Normally that facility only treated “serious” injuries but overflow has to go somewhere. No biggie, usually just an exam and advice to take a few days off for rest.

Almost everyone I know has this kind of stuff happen.

Now, I’m not saying that the injuries treated at Landstuhl were minor but they were not all critical. Remember, things like pinkeye might be moved there or just a number of things (the wisdom teeth would probably have to be treated outside of Iraq).

My brother in law is a marine just returned from Afghanistan. He was “wounded” when a camera dropped on his foot. He was treated at a hospital for a broken bone on his foot. He then was on limited duty (he was on guard duty around the perimeter but no patrols) for a while. He did not “officially” return to full combat status for a month.

I think the real casualty rate is around 2-4% but some people on this board really really want this figure to be much higher. At 2-4% per year then we have suffered around what…14,000 soldiers over 2 years at 3%. About exactly what everyone seems to be reporting.

That’s a very low figure and a testament to how well trained our troops are in a very difficult situation.

This is not meant to miminize the impact on families and loved ones of the soldiers that ARE casualties.

Oh, and I don’t think we’ll have any problem with replacing 3-4% of our troop strength per year. That’s a pretty normal recruiting goal.



[edit on 12/8/2004 by MrNice]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Oh and a division is about 5,000 soldiers. Add to that 2-4 casualties a year due to dumb stuff (we got around 1 suicide and 1 vehicle accident “off duty” casualties per year in our division) and we’re looking at 5 casualties per annum per 5000 soldiers.

(250,000 soldiers / 5000) x 5 gives us: 250 deaths and who knows how many injuries treated if we were not having a war at all.

Please remember that the military is a VERY dangerous environment even in the best of circumstances and our soldiers ALWAYS are at risk no matter the situation. Just being careless during a nighttime training exercise can mean sudden death.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Countermeasures
Hehe, those female marines chose a very convenient time to get pregnant, If i was the platoon commander I would put them on contraceptives or otherwise court marshall them for screwing around and dodging the duty!


[edit on 8-12-2004 by Countermeasures]


Aren't you jumping to some conclusions that are uncalled for? I think so. I do know of some married couples who are on tour (both in Iraq) only different company assignments and locations. They do get some R&R ya know and they are married.

For all anyone knows some of those that are married and R&R may use the rhythm method of birth control for religious reasons and as we all know that is not always effective considering it is a natural method. Kind shoots your theory for court marshal and birth control right out the window in those cases.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Compared to historical wars the casualty rate is really pretty low, in that sense the usa army must be doing something right, the problem is more in keeping the peace and getting the support of the people.

better knocked up than knocked out? One thing I find pretty cool about the american army is that females can make a decent career in it and do many mens jobs if they really want it, but I wouldn't want babyboomers at boomboom time...

I am sorry to hear that some of them had miscarriages, it could be stressfull environment, the atropine, or maybe inhaling some of the 320 ton depleted uranium, perhaps combination of all those things....



[edit on 8-12-2004 by Countermeasures]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Countermeasures
Compared to historical wars the casualty rate is really pretty low, in that sense the usa army must be doing something right, the problem is more in keeping the peace and getting the support of the people.

[edit on 8-12-2004 by Countermeasures]


With that I certainly can agree, the casualty rate is pretty low. The only reason we started commenting was because a few tried to exagerate the actual figures by inflating them using biased sources of their own that had used figures higher of their own rather then figures from government sources.

I do know about you but I tend to believe the US media and even the media in the UK and others but sorry when it comes to unknowns, I tend to get very skeptical and I am sure you would also.



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Countermeasures
Compared to historical wars the casualty rate is really pretty low, in that sense the usa army must be doing something right,


www.abovetopsecret.com...

I wasn't sure if this article was 'war on terror' or 'medical' forum.
It says the fatality rate in Iraq is the LOWEST EVER for wounded
US Military in war. LOWEST EVER.



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Countermeasures
Compared to historical wars the casualty rate is really pretty low, in that sense the usa army must be doing something right,


www.abovetopsecret.com...

I wasn't sure if this article was 'war on terror' or 'medical' forum.
It says the fatality rate in Iraq is the LOWEST EVER for wounded
US Military in war. LOWEST EVER.


Thanks Flyer that was very current information indeed. That proves that the figures given were in fact inflated by 15% since some claimed the rate was 25 %, when in fact it is only 10%. Here from your post for those doubting Thomas's






U.S. Combat Fatality Rate Lowest Ever
Ceci Connolly
Washington Post
12.9.04

EXCERPT -

Ten percent of soldiers injured in Iraq have died from their war wounds, the lowest casualty fatality rate ever, thanks in large part to technological advances and the deployment of surgical SWAT teams at the front lines, an analysis to be published today has found.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join