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.

 

Statistics show its safer to fight in Iraq than live normaly at home...

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   
I cant seem to find this number, so maybe one of you rocket scientists can figure it out for me


How many US troops have served in Iraq during this war? I know we have about 150,000 there right now, but how many separate individuals have been? Is this number available even?

The reason why I want this is so I can calculate the percentage of dead vs. served. If I measure against the amount on the ground right now, I get about .1%, or 1 in a 100.

But this number isn’t accurate. It really needs to be against total number served.

Anybody have this?



[edit on 3-2-2005 by skippytjc]




posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Here's what I've found so far:


UPI

The Pentagon confirmed to United Press International Wednesday that a cumulative total of 955,000 troops from all military services had been deployed for Operation Iraqi or Enduring Freedom by the end of September. More than 300,000 of those troops have been deployed more than once, the Pentagon said.

One government source said the total number of troops deployed has likely hit 1 million since then.

The Pentagon data shows that 708,000 of the troops who have served in war come from the active duty force. That means that roughly half of the United States' 1.4 million active duty troops have gone to war. Slightly more than 245,000 troops from reserve and National Guard units have also been deployed.



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Let me add what my overall suspicion is:

I bet that the death rate of US soldiers in Iraq vs the quantity served is LOWER than if those very same males in their age groups would suffer back at home living a “normal” life.

I.e. compare the death rate of these soldiers based on REAL data and compare it to whatever the death rate is for males between the ages of 18-40 or so back home.

Anybody else think I am right on this?



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Thanks man!!

So, if 955,000 troops have served, and we are a little shy of 1500 dead to date, we can assume the following:

1,500/955,000 = .16%

If my math is correct, thats roughly about 1 in 600 have died serving in this conflict.

Now the big question!

What is the death rate among American males between the ages of about 18-40?

I bet you everything it is higher than 1/600 over a simular time period.

Anybody want to chase down those numbers for me? I think its worth it!



[edit on 3-2-2005 by skippytjc]



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Let me add what my overall suspicion is:

I bet that the death rate of US soldiers in Iraq vs the quantity served is LOWER than if those very same males in their age groups would suffer back at home living a “normal” life.

What? Why? Surely being overseas in a combat zone during a war is more dangerous than not.

The Iraq war is supposed to have the lowest fatality rate of any war the US fought tho. But lower than regular life? I can't imagine it.

Whats the total number of deaths in the Iraq War?

Here is a pdf on death rates from '94-2001

specifcally, in 2001 males with less than 12 years of "educational attainment" (meaning that they did not complete high school, which a cynic would say is equivalent to many US service men), based on "45-47 states plus DC" is 745.8 per 100,000, but this is for all ages from 25-65 and its an underestimate because, according to point 3, deaths without educational info are not included.

Here we are informed that the CIA factbook has a US death rate of 8.7/1000 people.

It continues

if you are a male in the age group of 25 to 44 then there is 0.2% (200 per 100,000) that you would die this year (of any cause).

So if there are 9.55 times as many troops involved in the Afghan War and the Iraq War to date, over, lets pretend 4 years, that means there need to be 38.2 times as many servicemen deaths from that 955 thousand troops. So thats 38.2 X 200 = 7640 US deaths required to meet a similar Domestic death rate, right?

200 per 100,000
955,000 troops /100,000 = 9.55
9.55 X 4 = 38.2
38.2 X 200 = 7640

Whats the number of US deaths from both these wars then?

Am I missing something?



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   
here's a bigger paper on death rates fromthe cdc that i haven't looked over yet

www.cdc.gov...



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Thanks man!!

So, if 955,000 troops have served, and we are a little shy of 1500 dead to date, we can assume the following:

955,000 served in the Iraq War and the Afghan War, enduring freedom was the afghan war.

If this is true its astounding. I figure that one or both of us made a silly mistake, because, it simply doesn't make sense that the average soldier in iraq and afghanistan is safer than his civilian counterpart.



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Whats the number of US deaths from both these wars then?

Am I missing something?


What's missing is that the troops are rotated.
Although about a million troops have served, there are only about 125,000 - 150,000 there at any one time.

There have almost certainly been deaths among those who have returned to US soil and they are not counted in those 1,400 troops that have died in Iraq because they did not die in Iraq.



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Maybe I missed something, but isnt .2% higher than .16%?


I dont find it so hard to imagine that the death rate at home is lower than the Iraqi conflict to far. Even though its a combat situation, all the other elements are strictly controlled. I.e very little goofing off.

At home, boys will be boys and we do dumb things like drink and drive, extreme sports, dumb guy things. All of which dont really happen in military life and all can lead to excellerated deaths.



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase

Originally posted by Nygdan
Whats the number of US deaths from both these wars then?

Am I missing something?


What's missing is that the troops are rotated.
Although about a million troops have served, there are only about 125,000 - 150,000 there at any one time.

There have almost certainly been deaths among those who have returned to US soil and they are not counted in those 1,400 troops that have died in Iraq because they did not die in Iraq.


Good point Ace. But I think we can all agree that the death rate in combat in Iraq right now is not very different than at home living "normal" lives.

You basically have no more chances of dying in Iraq than you do going to work at the mall.

Id say that a facinating statistic.

If I were a Iraqi insurgent or terrorist, id be pretty ashamed at my success looking at the numbers in this light. Imagine your enemy is SAFER fighting you than spending time with the wife and kids!!!

[edit on 3-2-2005 by skippytjc]



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   
I think there was only 12 really big soldiers there at any time. The rest of the soldiers were aliens on training missions and we sent them back to their home plant to carry on the Zionist aggression against the universe.



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
What's missing is that the troops are rotated.
Although about a million troops have served, there are only about 125,000 - 150,000 there at any one time.

How does that make a difference? Total involved and dead as a result of combat injuries. Rotation doesn't make a difference.

If a soldier is shot or wounded in iraq, and evacuated to landsthul and dies, I'd think he'd be counted as a war casualty no?

I think this is pretty serious, I understand the logic behind there being less deaths over there than in the US,but still, does it apply to other wars?

Whats the casualty rate for american soliders in WWII? Compared to civilian casualty rates? IE is this normal for war? THe logic behind the death rate in iraq being lower applies to any war just as much as to iraq.



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Also, are comparable statistics kept for non death casualties? I think that in any consideration, that does have to be included.

It wouldn't negate that fact, at least so far, that a soldier in these Terror Wars is safer than an average citizen in terms of life, but what about people who loose limbs or are paralyzed?



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Nygen, the rotation does need to be factored in. We cant assume these troops arent falling prey to thier own death rate when not in action back home during the time we are measuring.

So, we are assuming that people die at a rate of .20% in civillian life vs .16% during combat in Iraq. But not all 955,000 were fighting at the same time, so a portion were always at the home death rate of .20%

But, this doesnt weaken my theory at all. But it is a factor.

[edit on 3-2-2005 by skippytjc]



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
How does that make a difference? Total involved and dead as a result of combat injuries. Rotation doesn't make a difference.

It makes a difference if you count how many soldiers died during three to six months in Iraq vs how many civilians died in a year in the US.
The time scales are different and if the soldiers only spent 1/4 of the time in Iraq and 3/4 of their time in the US or Germany and you only count the deaths that occured during their short time in Iraq then the figures are distorted.



If a soldier is shot or wounded in iraq, and evacuated to landsthul and dies, I'd think he'd be counted as a war casualty no?


There were some questions about that months ago and I think the answer was no. The Iraq war deaths may only count those who died in Iraq not in Germany of the US.



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Also, are comparable statistics kept for non death casualties? I think that in any consideration, that does have to be included.

It wouldn't negate that fact, at least so far, that a soldier in these Terror Wars is safer than an average citizen in terms of life, but what about people who loose limbs or are paralyzed?


I can only guess this not having ever fought in a war, but Im sure most dont think about injury, they think about dying. And non-combat deaths need to be a factor in any serious study, but most soldiers dont think about dying that way. They imagine dying by getting shot or getting blown up.

So, from a psychological stand point, I.e. what a soldier primarily fears, he is safer fighting in Iraq than not. And thats what I am trying to show here.

I guess we can bottom line this by stating that statistically, fighting in iraq is not much more dangerous than living a regular life back home.

If I was one of those deserting cowards hiding in Canada right now, Im sure I wouldnt be happy learning this statistic. I.e I sold all my self respect and dignity to avoid something less dangerous than going to the market.



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   
(Sorry to keep posying on my own thread, but I keep having thoughts)


I just realized this may prove another thing that gets frequently debated here: Accurate news reporting.

If we assume that serving in combat in Iraq is not much more dangerous than living back home, wouldnt that kinda prove that the media is only focusing on the negative stuff?

I mean, we all assume everything has gone to hell over there from what we see and hear on the news. But the actual statistics show it isnt as bad as we think. The numbers dont lie, even if we arent exact, its still telling.



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   
According to an article on the number of wounded, they say about 6% of the wounded required amputations. (link)

There's about 11,000 wounded from Iraq so 6% of that would be almost 700 amputees.

Surely that's higher than the civilian population.



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
According to an article on the number of wounded, they say about 6% of the wounded required amputations. (link)

There's about 11,000 wounded from Iraq so 6% of that would be almost 700 amputees.

Surely that's higher than the civilian population.


I dont doubt any of that. But I tried to point out before, if you were contiplating going to serve in Iraq, you probably arent thinking of getting wounded, your thinking of getting killed. Getting shot or from an explosion. From that perspective, the odds of dying at all at home, are greater than dying this way in Iraq.



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 03:43 PM
link   
For the sake of the population, DRAFT!!!




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join