Who among these is the one least likely to get killed in a war?
a) A soldier assaulting the enemy battlefield
b) A marine storming an enemy beach
c) A sailor aboard a warship
2007-09-28 16:57:36 · 25 answers · asked by Air-Jordan 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Depends completely on the war...
Soldiers on the battlefield are almost always going to face life or death directly. Soldiers were right along with the Marines storming beaches in past conflicts as well.
Marines face death just as directly while storming an enemy beach. Marines fight on the battlefield as well of course.
Sailors on ships CAN have it pretty easy but at the same time they CAN have it as bad as it gets in an all-out war - let's just say you wouldn't want to have been a sailor on a warship in WWII in the Pacific or Atlantic. Warships saw a LOT of action and the casualties due to enemy aircraft, submarines, mines, accidents, and other warships was really high no matter what your job... it was just as dangerous to be a cook as it was to be an AA gunner on a warship.
2007-09-28 18:08:49 · answer #1 · answered by Patriotic Libertarian 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
depending on location, location, location. Normally a sailor aboard a warship would be the safest, but unless it got hit by a missile or a plane to crash into the ship. Then you can a marine storming on an empty enemy beach. So yeah...
2007-09-29 00:02:40 · answer #2 · answered by redhotchillidawg 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It completely depends on the type of war being waged, and the capabilities of the enemy. An enemy without sea assets would pose little danger to a sailor. Yet you will always need ground troops to take and secure land.
2007-09-29 00:01:07 · answer #3 · answered by Marco R 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A sailor aboard a warship
2007-09-28 23:59:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
First, I have to disagree with Spartiate; he must not remember u-boats sinking ships during WWI, Japanese Kamikaze's during WWII (to include the attack on Pearl Harbor), and even more recently, the bombing of the USS Cole.
That being said, the answer is still (c). If you go back to any war, the majority of deaths were either storming a beach or on the battlefield. I think history will best answer your question.
2007-09-29 00:14:01 · answer #5 · answered by James J 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
c) A sailor aboard a warship
2007-09-29 04:29:29 · answer #6 · answered by Peiper 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They all serve their country and are prepared to give their life to defend it. Most everyone is saying "C". I am sure at least 17 Sailors onboard the USS Cole on the morning of 12 OCT 00 would disagree with you.
2007-09-29 00:25:05 · answer #7 · answered by erehwon 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
LEAST likely the sailor, if he is not attacking. However, in a modern world, all three have lower chances of being killed (Most wars are no longer the bloody mess of WWII)
2007-09-29 00:07:58 · answer #8 · answered by ReneDescartes 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The type of engagement dictates for the most part the degree of danger.
Each of your situations can be deadly. Different campaigns would produce different casualty rates to the above units.
I would not attempt to list any in an order of 1, 2 or 3
2007-09-29 00:06:30 · answer #9 · answered by Nvr2soon 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
c) A sailor aboard a warship
2007-09-28 23:59:40 · answer #10 · answered by ? 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋