Casualities of War-what is too many?

Question

We lost 58,193 Americans in Vietnam war
We lost 407,300 Americans in WWII.
We lost at least 618,000 Americans in Civil War

So far as of April 29th 2007 we have lost 3,351 Americans in war with Iraq.

I hear you all. I especially agree on the civil war issue in Iraq. However, is there a bigger picture here? Does the US fully see the civil war and fear that al quaida is trying to use that to their advantage and thus that is why we must stick it out? thanks for all the conversation. i really thought there should have been many many more who chimed in.

Answer 1

It depends on what you're fighting for.

In the Civil War, America was fighting for it's very existence, and it won.

In WWII it was fighting fascist empires that had conquered most of europe and much of asia - and attacked the US itself - and it won.

In Veitnam, it was opposing the spread of communism. And it lost, because the American people just didn't want to fight anymore. And, in spite of that loss, communism only spread to Cambodia, where only 2 million died in the killing fields.

In Iraq, the US is fighting Islamist extremists while Shiite theocrats and Sunni fascists fight a civil war of thier own. And, it's looking like the American people just don't want to fight it anymore...

Answer 2

One is too many but so far in Iraq we have lost less than the number that died during the Pear Harbor attack. That does not even count the war that attack started.

As a mother of a US Army Officer, I wish no one had to die but this has been the safest ever for our troops. They are better trained & better equiped than any other war plus with volunteers you get a desire to defend that does not come by forced service. May our soldiers be safe as they serve.

Answer 3

Most people when they join the military already know that they could die...it is not the Girl Scouts, no cookies being sold here...we are taught from the beginning that casualties are a part of war...their is no such thing as a war without deaths...the Democrats just like to use it as a rallying cry...wars are won on by the blood and sweat of the soldier...

The advancement in Army Medicine has greatly improved the survivability of wounded soldiers on the battlefield...the Army Medic is a Intermediate EMT or higher on the battlefield...a soldier can be wounded and be at a Combat Support Hospital in less than 20 minutes...the ratio of wounded to dead soldiers can be directly contributed to the Army Medical Corp..."Trained to Save!"

Answer 4

The stats that "mark" gives are incorrect. Here's the stats if you can read PowerPoint:

http://www.tamhsc.edu/homeland/files/20%20August%20-%20San%20Antonio/20%20Aug05%20Change%20is%20Hard.ppt

And here's the HTML version:

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:G3L6AFNh6HIJ:www.tamhsc.edu/homeland/files/20%2520August%2520-%2520San%2520Antonio/20%2520Aug05%2520Change%2520is%2520Hard.ppt+vietnam+war+casualty+kia+wia+rtd&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

In a nutshell, the figures are as follows:

8.8% = Fatality Rate for Injured Personnel - OIF/OEF
16.5% = Fatality Rate for Injured Personnel - Vietnam/Gulf 1
22.8% = Fatality Rate for Injured Personnel - World War 2

Thus, warfighters today are only 1/2 as likely to become fatalities compared to Vietnam, not 1/3 as erroneously stated.

Now, as for the crux of the question:

(1) Casualties are excessive when they either render an entire military combat ineffective, or they start impacting the replacement birth rate or labor force, or any combination of the above. Napoleon's ill-fate 1812 campaign is a good example. The carnage of the First World War is a good example.

(2) Casualties are acceptable when the political aims of going to war in the first place are balanced out by the economic and social gains from having changed the "status quo" - the so-called "peace dividend". By this measure, the Second World War was worth it, considering bringing Germany and Japan into line with respectable nations has turned them into fairly democratic economic powerhouses (and made the world a better place thereby).

Thus, in a nutshell again, the blood has to be worth the peace.

Answer 5

It depends on what they fight for. In World War II Americans fought and died for a really important and good cause. About the Iraq war the same can't be said.

By the way when you speak about casualties of war you should not speak only about the Americans but also those of the affected countries, especially civilians.

Every human being killed is too much. Sometimes it is necessary to kill or to die to stop or prevent something worse (as it was the case in World War II). But otherwise it should always be avoided.

Answer 6

Considereing troop strength is far less than those wars , less casaulties should be expected. A soldier in Iraq has around a 0.7% chance of being killed, a soldier in vietnam during 1968 (the worst year) had a 2.7% chance of being killed. But soldiers in nam were 3 times more likely to die of their wounds than soldiers in iraq.

Answer 7

I would say any amount of death and suffering from war is too much...

However, dying is a part of life for everyone and the manner in which our servicemen and women meet their end is much more significant than a heart attack, car accident, old age, etc. which commonly causes death here at home.

They die as citizens devoted to a cause. Although their deaths are no less tragic, I am glad people are over there doing their jobs and keeping myself, my family, and my friends safe and prosperous.

Answer 8

Enough to keep us working Americans motivated to keep our jobs through fear of having to join the military.

Not so many that it causes a baby boom like WWII. The economic effects of WWII's population shift are going to hit us like a truck in a few years.

Answer 9

You know that peace can only be won when we've blown 'em all to kingdom come.

Answer 10

What is your price for freedom? Freedom never comes free.