Posted on 11/03/2007 9:08:48 AM PDT by InfantryMarine
Military Death Numbers compiled by a friend from DOD reports.
Below is some very interesting data reference deaths in the military. I guarantee you will not read this in your local newspaper nor will you see it on the daily news broadcast. I pray this will help you to enlighten folks around you to the brave and courageous young people serving in our military.
Deaths in the Military
1980 .......... 2,392
1981 .......... 2,380
1982 ......... 2,318
1983 .......... 2,465
1984 .......... 1,999
1985 .......... 2,252
1986 .......... 1,984
1987 .......... 1,983
1988 ......... 1,819
1989 .......... 1,636
1990 .......... 1,508
1991 .......... 1,787
1992 .......... 1,293
1993 .......... 1,213
1994 ......... 1,075
1995 .......... 1,040
1996 .......... 974
1997 .......... 817
1998 .......... 826
1999 .......... 795
2000 ......... 774
2001 .......... 890
2002 .......... 1,007
2003 .......... 1,410 [534*]
2004 .......... 1,887 [900*]
2005 .......... [919*]
2006 .......... [920*]
Figures so noted with an asterisk (*) indicates deaths as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
You may initially feel confused when you look at these figures - especially when you see that in 1980, during the term of President Jimmy Carter,there were 2,392 US military fatalities. What this clearly indicates is that our media and our liberal politicians pick and choose and tend to present only those facts that support their agenda driven reporting.
Another fact our left media and politicians like to slant is that these brave men and women losing their lives are minorities.
Wrong again.
The latest census shows the following:
European descent (white).........69.12%
Hispanic.........................12.5%
African American.................12.3%
Asian.............................3.7%
Native American...................1.0%
Other.............................2.6%
The fatalities over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom are:
European descent (white)........ 74.31%
Hispanic.........................10.74%
African American..................9.67%
Asian.............................1.81%
Native American...................1.09%
Other.............................2.33%
Source:
These statistics are published by DOD and may be viewed at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
Pass this on,Semper Fi
LOL! Good one!
Like I need to factor in the GDP and employer assets when examining my past tax returns. ;p
Are you saying that fewer soldiers die from accidents, illness and other non-combat causes when troops are at war?
We already know how many troops died in combat. For 2006, there were around 750, according to the chart. The other 1,100 were deaths that theoretically would have happened even had we not been at war in Iraq. I just don’t see how this provides any information. The 1,100 or so non-combat related deaths, seem to be around the same as the number of non-combat deaths in other years.
Thanks. My friend was stationed in Germany. He dropped out of college, and signed up for one of those 2 year Army enlistments (back when they were offering them) and returned with GI benefits. Though he loved Germany (and wanted to go back to Europe), he really disliked Army life and that was one of the stories he told. He was an honest guy and the story always sounded plausible to me, though I’ve never been a grunt.
“Are you saying that fewer soldiers die from accidents, illness and other non-combat causes when troops are at war?”
No, I’m pretty much saying this:
“The 1,100 or so non-combat related deaths, seem to be around the same as the number of non-combat deaths in other years.”
In WESTPac we had: A-6s commonly crashing in the Philippine volcanoes (12 KIA). C-1a CODs with rudder assist reversals in Atsugi and Clark (24 KIA). A-4s killed another Bruce and many more. The training command was just as deadly. I had T-39 pals go down. Texas midair killed my pal Kirk plus two crews. F-14 crash killed my squadron mate Rusty C.
Lousy training, aircraft and attitude. It was a dangerous time to be in the military. While most of our contemporaries at home lived in the fantasy world of peace love and happiness.
Let's not forget the guys who were blown off ships, thrown off ships, stabbed, shot or murdered in Olongapo, Manila, Kadena, Osaka, etc. Car and motorcycle wrecks killed an equal number to all of the above.
How many times we sang, “Eternal Father strong to save, whose Hand doth soothe the restless wave.....” Every time I hear the words their names and faces scroll through my memory. Innocents then and Saints now. God Bless them and forgive the rest of us.
“Another leading cause of death is helicopter crashes while engaged in training exercises or routine flights in non-combat areas.”
When I was a Marine, I always had feeling of relief when the chopper touched down. A few of us thought that a man only had a finite number of helo flights on his “slate”, and then it was time to buy the farm.
Semper Fi,
You seem awfully defensive for some reason. No problem. Not everyone understands that quoting military deaths over time without regard for the base is not an accurate comparison. That’s like quoting gasoline prices over time without factoring in inflation. Or quoting stock price rises and falls without factoring in the base and computing a percentage up or down which is the relevant point.
The fact you choose to get so emotional and hostile over such a silly thing is bizarre but not unheard of on this forum. Have a wonderful day.
Your condescension not withstanding, anyone who is as "college educated" and smart at math and statistics and all that should understand that you compare numbers when they are comparable. A different question requires different data, and there are valid numbers for comparison other than "rates."
So let me explain it to you. Since you are so well educated, you should pick right up on this. The MSM has been reporting deaths during the war. Not rates. Not averages. Nothing Poisson or binomial that you even have to calculate. Deaths.
The author of this piece points out that those absolute numbers are similar to numbers in the past, including during peacetime. It would be silly for the author to be reporting rates for this comparison when the MSM is reporting absolutes. That is the scope of this discussion. I'm not sure what your point would be. Maybe that death rates are down? Or up? Whatever, it is a different question than the one the author posed. The size of the military may be a factor, and likely is. But it does not take away from the significance of the data as reported.
It is valid, useful data, properly evaluated for the question at hand.
And I'll put my stat creds up against yours anytime.
Calling ABC News - CBS - NBC... and FOX News.
Ouch ...That HADDA leave a mark! :-)
Surely you will admit that comparing the price of gasoline now vs 1950 is irelevant unless inflation is factored in. Or the death rate due to cancer now vs 50 years ago must account for the base of people it is based on in order to arrive at a fair comparison. Surely you understand this don’t you?
“Clinton lied and no one died”. Well, except for those 8033 service members.”
You are misunderstanding the numbers. Clinton was not responsible for these deaths. (I really hate to defend him)
These are soldiers that died from accidental death, illnesses, such as cancer and heart attacks, and suicides. In a normal group of 1.6 million people, there will be 1,000 or so that die of various causes each year. The military is no different. Soldiers die, no matter whether there is war or not.
Surely you will admit that the number of times a convenient store gets robbed doesn’t have to be evaluated based on the number of people who live in the town. Surely you will admit that the number of car bombings in Iraq doesn’t need to be evaluated in terms of how many cars there are in Bagdhad.
It often makes sense to look at data as a fraction. It often doesn’t. The purpose of the article is to evaluate the data that the MSM is reporting in a broader context. Since the MSM reports absolute numbers, the critique is based on absolute numbers. There is no single best way to evaluate all data, and the person who did this evaluation did it appropriately for the debate in which he was engaged. It certainly isn’t so far off the mark that it deserves the insults and abuse that you and a few others have heaped on the author.
If we were comparing numbers of robberies over time then we would want to know the base of stores in order to make a fair comparison. 3 robberies on 10 stores takes on a much different meaning than 3 robberies on a base of 1000 stores. That's also why there are murder rates
The article showed numbers of military deaths over time. So it is indeed relevant to consider the size of the military over time and compute the percentage of people who were killed. This provides an apples/apples comparison and indicates whether the death rate is going up or not.
I'm sorry you are so defensive and mad over this.
I’m neither mad, nor defensive. I’ve made my point. You just don’t understand it. You also don’t understand the point of the original post. Yet, you managed to talk down to the poster for being ignorant about statistics, when it is you who doesn’t understand the analysis. That is what irritated me. If you want, I can come up with 15 different “denominators” for the data that are different than the ones you proposed. You suggest that yours is the only right way to analyze the data, and that simply isn’t the case. It never is.
I’ll be as simple as I can, one more time. You are looking a different analysis that the original poster. Not better, not worse, just different. If you can’t see that, you have no business commenting on or even using statistics. Applying statistics is more than just doing the math, you know.
What if you measure 3 robberies against all stores, or better yet those military lives lost against the entire population of the United States during that time?
but we can’t do that can we? It must be done in such a way as to make the numbers produce a certain negative result, that result being that the loss of these servicemen and women was avoidable, unnecessary and unwarranted.
and these deaths were, just as the previous losses were.
If no one served in the military there would be no deaths in the service, that is a fairly simple equation, but here is an even simpler if they weren’t trying to kill us we wouldn’t be there at all.
Try to remember for once that the people were are fighting against promised us that they would not stop until the streets of our cities were awash in our blood and they killed us all.
Well don't then. From the statistics, it seems clear that non combat deaths have been reduced - likely due to better equipment, better training, better morale, more money provided for maintenance and safety, perhaps higher quality of service member. Comments from service members during the Clinton years reveal that Clinton's "I despise the military!" had an effect on morale and attention to duty. So Clinton and his attitude may have been instrumental in many military deaths.
“From the statistics, it seems clear that non combat deaths have been reduced”
Check the statistics again. The average accidental non-combat deaths under Clinton were 494/year. Under Bush it was 521/year. You theory sounds good, but the numbers clearly don’t support it. The overall non-combat deaths under Clinton were slightly higher, but that was probably due to the larger military. (around 200,000 more)
Even so, this is not a statistic that should be used to evaluate presidents. Neither Clinton or Bush can prevent soldiers from getting cancer, having heart attacks, or dying in car accidents. These numbers are all included in the tables, and are a reflection of the same factors that affect the rest of the population. Some of us are going to die young. Not many, but some. There isn’t a president in the world that can change that fact.
Actually if you gather a group of people together a certain percentrage of them will die from accidents. The larger the number of people, the larger the “natural” deaths that are unrelated to actual fighting. Then if you have them engage in military training exercises the death rate will be even greater.
The real information in this thread is included in Post #39 which shows that the military death rate is essentially the same right now with this Iraq war going on (0.12%) than it was in 1980 when there was no major war going on (that I can recall). I’ll defer to you who would know. Interesting. MSM wouldn’t want to expose that would they?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.