Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Combat Deaths/Wounded  
User currently offlineTAZA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 38 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 8 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1212 times:

According to the US Department of Defense the US has incurred the following combat deaths/wounded during the wars in which the US was involved (not including Iraq):

Revolutionary War..............................................4,435
War of 1812.......................................................2,260
Mexican War.....................................................1,733
Civil War (Union only).........................................140,414
Spanish American War.......................................385
WW I................................................................53,402
WW II...............................................................291,557
Korean War (I know, a Police Action)...................33,652
Vietnam War.....................................................47,378
Desert Storm/Shield (I know, not a war)...............148

In addition, all war wounded................................1,431,290

Now, given the current state of the world, and, in particular, the current state of the social and political climate ot the US considering the rampant partisanship of the Democrats and Republicans; the greed of the corporate world; the drug scene; the judicial bench's almost daily individual rewriting of the Constitution; the previous administrations utter lack of basic ethics; the current administrations total disregard of it's Constitutional duties and primary long held American ideals; the ongoing abdication of our sovereignty to the UN and their plans to subjugate America; the American elite's plans to reduce this country to a third world status by eliminating our borders and our currency; the absence of any statesmanship by any of our politicians since their only thoughts concern themselves with getting reelected without regard to the welfare of the nation as a whole............you can add the rest. I am having a great deal of trouble trying to determine what all those folks died and sacrificed for because I don't believe it was for what we have now.

Regards.


It takes less energy to love than to hate
11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineConfuscius From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 3879 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1183 times:

Spanish American War.......................................385

Was the USS Maine included?

Korean War (I know, a Police Action)...................33,652

There aren't any official war after WWII.

And I don't think Congress declared war against terror either. In fact, I can't find a country named Terror, the closest are Thailand and Timor-Leste.  Confused



Ain't I a stinker?
User currently offlineTAZA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 38 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1177 times:

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 1):
Was the USS Maine included?

Don't know.

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 1):
There aren't any official war after WWII.

I'm aware of that......that's why I stated a "police action"

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 1):
And I don't think Congress declared war against terror either. In fact, I can't find a country named Terror, the closest are Thailand and Timor-Leste.

So what's your point?



It takes less energy to love than to hate
User currently offlineConfuscius From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 3879 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1169 times:

So what's your point?

nuthin'

 Big grin



Ain't I a stinker?
User currently offlineFlyUSCG From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1144 times:

Where in the hell did you get your numbers?

Quoting TAZA (Thread starter):
Vietnam War.....................................................47,378

58,209 dead, 153,303 wounded

Quoting TAZA (Thread starter):
Korean War (I know, a Police Action)...................33,652

36,940 dead, 103,000 wounded

Quoting TAZA (Thread starter):
WW II...............................................................291,557

407,300 dead, 689,746 wounded

Quoting TAZA (Thread starter):
WW I................................................................53,402

116,708 dead, 205,690 wounded

Quoting TAZA (Thread starter):
Spanish American War.......................................385

3,289 dead (432 from combat)

Quoting TAZA (Thread starter):
Civil War (Union only).........................................140,414

360,000 dead (110,000 in action), 275,200 wounded (Union only)

Quoting TAZA (Thread starter):
Mexican War.....................................................1,733

13,271 killed (1,733 in action), 4,152 wounded

Quoting TAZA (Thread starter):
War of 1812.......................................................2,260

2,260 killed in action, 17,205 killed by disease/other, 4,505 wounded

You say you got these from the DoD but thats hard to believe. The biggest redflag in those numbers is Vietnam which I knew for a fact was over 58,000 DEAD. So thats why I decided to check all the numbers. You also said those are dead/wounded numbers which makes them even MORE wrong. I got all these numbers from Wikipedia which I know is not the best source. But at the same time, I'm pretty sure people aren't going to lie about the number of dead/wounded in our previous conflicts.



Go Trojans! Fight On!
User currently offlineUnknownUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1099 times:

Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 4):
Where in the hell did you get your numbers?

Quoting TAZA (Thread starter):
Vietnam War.....................................................47,378

58,209 dead, 153,303 wounded

Hmmm... Wiki is wrong too. It is actually 58253.

http://thewall-usa.com/summary.asp


User currently offlineNWOrientDC10 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1404 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1088 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 4):
Where in the hell did you get your numbers?

Whoa! The number of combat fatalities listed originally sounds about right. Here's the key phrase - combat deaths. The military classifies combat fatalities and non combat fatalities seperately.

Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 4):
The biggest redflag in those numbers is Vietnam which I knew for a fact was over 58,000 DEAD.

True. However, about 10,000 or so were non combat fatalities (accidental fatalities such as drowning, run over by vehicle, etc ...). Being killed in action is a combat death, drowning while on a three day pass isn't.

Russell



Things aren't always as they seem
User currently offlineTAZA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 38 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1081 times:

Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 4):
Where in the hell did you get your numbers?

I got them from the source I stated in my post.

Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 4):
The biggest redflag in those numbers is Vietnam which I knew for a fact was over 58,000 DEAD.

Interesting, since according to your profile you weren't even around during the Vietnam war.



It takes less energy to love than to hate
User currently offlineFlyUSCG From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1073 times:

Quoting UnknownUser (Reply 5):
Hmmm... Wiki is wrong too. It is actually 58253.

Fair enough, but only being 44 off vs.10,000 is a lot better. And I believe that number changes relatively more constantly than our other casualties.

Quoting NWOrientDC10 (Reply 6):
The military classifies combat fatalities and non combat fatalities seperately.

That may be the way the official bean counters who have no particular interest in the conflict list the numbers, but go to any Vietnam veteran and tell them only 47,000 of their buddies were killed and be prepared to defend yourself. Do you think the families of those not killed in combat got letters saying their sons were killed in a car accident or drowning on a 3-day pass? I look at it as none of these guys would be dead if the conflict didn't happen. Therefore, their deaths are a direct result of the conflict.



Go Trojans! Fight On!
User currently offlineNWOrientDC10 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1404 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1053 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 8):
That may be the way the official bean counters who have no particular interest in the conflict list the numbers, but go to any Vietnam veteran and tell them only 47,000 of their buddies were killed and be prepared to defend yourself.

It depends on who you talk to, all military veterans are not the same. To start with, I'm not going to tell a 'Nam Vet "By the way, only 47,000 guys died there.". Certainly 58,000 died there, most as combat fatalities. Some were killed as a result of "non hostile" action. Military veterans have the intelligence to differentiate between a combat fatality and a non combat fatality. Here's an example. Gen. Patton was killed in December 1945 in a traffic accident. Granted, the war was over but if it were not, his death would not have been classified as a combat fatality; he was not killed in action.

Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 8):
Do you think the families of those not killed in combat got letters saying their sons were killed in a car accident or drowning on a 3-day pass?

They may well have. Most probably the families of any military person who dies would want to know the circumstances surrounding the fatality of their loved one. Pat Tillman's death is an example of this. I'm not sure how his death would be classified but apparently he was not killed by "enemy forces". Sadly he was killed by guys in his own unit by mistake.

Wounded personnel are also not classified under one category. A soldier wounded by enemy gun fire will receive a purple heart, someone injured as a result of an accident in a "non hostile environment" will not.

I'm not taking away from the sacrifice of those injured and/or killed as a result of non hostile action. The point is this: casualties are classified differently. Maybe I'm engaging in semantics but after all, this topic is titled "US Combat Deaths/Wounded".


Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 8):
I look at it as none of these guys would be dead if the conflict didn't happen.



Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 8):
Therefore, their deaths are a direct result of the conflict.

This could be debated in a philosophical type topic. I personally believe that when a persons time is up, their time is up.

Russell



Things aren't always as they seem
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1022 times:

It's almost impossible to get firm figures for past wars - there are so many different ways of counting them. For example, the Civil War figures usually quote only the official 'death count' immediately after a battle, ignoring the fact that at least one-third of those counted as 'wounded' died within a week.

Incidentally, Iraq (combat deaths recorded only) is climbing the list:-

KIA - US forces 3,334 (other Coalition 270).

Wounded (US only) - 24,314.

Non-hostile injuries/sick (US only) - 26,188.

http://icasualties.org/oif/



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineFlyUSCG From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1002 times:

Quoting NWOrientDC10 (Reply 9):
this topic is titled "US Combat Deaths/Wounded".

True enough, but then the original poster should differentiate between dead and wounded. I guess I'm engaging in semantics too but he was basically counting only combat dead and NOT wounded (even though he said he was counting wounded).

Quoting NWOrientDC10 (Reply 9):
This could be debated in a philosophical type topic. I personally believe that when a persons time is up, their time is up.

Agree to disagree on this one.



Go Trojans! Fight On!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
US Pilot Disappears Off Kauai posted Sat Apr 21 2007 01:15:11 by Ua2162
US Coast Guard Admits That They Can't Design Ships posted Thu Apr 19 2007 06:27:23 by L-188
TATU's "All About Us" Uncensored-- Huge Hooters! posted Tue Apr 17 2007 17:04:08 by ConcordeBoy
US Constitution: The Presidency posted Tue Apr 17 2007 13:48:39 by Dsa
US And EU: Fundamentally Different? posted Tue Apr 17 2007 08:14:37 by Waterpolodan
US Generals Urge Climate Action posted Mon Apr 16 2007 00:48:46 by OzGlobal
Revealed: A Secret Plan To Save The US By Guiliani posted Sun Apr 15 2007 10:45:52 by Jetjack74
US DoD Extends All Tours In Iraq And Afghanistan posted Fri Apr 13 2007 15:09:20 by UH60FtRucker
Sheriff Joe Arpaio Really That Famous In The US? posted Fri Apr 6 2007 20:22:56 by RootsAir
Eye Protection For Those Of Us With Glasses posted Fri Apr 6 2007 15:43:48 by CaptOveur