Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Wetaskiwin AB, Canada
Posts: 1438

In the US war against Afghanistan, only 4 US soldiers have died. And 3 of them by the US.

The US has been fighting for what, 2 months? Only 4 deaths in 2 months.

How many were killed in the first 2 months of WWII, I wonder?

If the number killed in WWII is much greater, than does that mean fighting is getting more precise? Less dead = better tactics?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: Van Diemen's Land.
Posts: 3607

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Anth3m-
If the number killed in WWII is much greater, than does that mean fighting is getting more precise? Less dead = better tactics?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Wetaskiwin AB, Canada
Posts: 1438

I thought of it, but realistically, there's no point. No one really knows how many we're talking about, I just thought I'd keep it simple, and go for the #'s we can prove.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 7113

Your question is weighted, and it's a lousy one at that.

Take the death totals on both sides (pro-taliban forces/opposed forces)
Break that down into nationality (afghani, uk, us, etc)

Look at the risk each of those nationalities is taking.
Look how most of the fighting was done.

Bask.

Less dead = better tactics?
I don't think you can measure victory by the size of the mass graves. Friendly thought, though.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16671

I think you can certainly put value on the effort that has gone into making more precise weapons.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2001
Location:
Posts: 17889

The better question might be to see how quickly we mobilized and brought war to the homeland of the enemy. Today makes 3 months since the attack on NYC, and the US has brought about the destruction of a government that was harboring and supporting a good portion of the people who planned and executed the attack. That sort of movement wasn't possible 60 years ago - Doolittle's raid was a mere shadow of the present effort. Using proxy fighters already on the ground and familiar with the players certainly helped on that score. But the nature of the conflict is much different anyway. There's not a really good way to make a comparison.

It's also important to remember how many months went by between Pearl Harbor and the next major engagement in the Pacific. Things moved much more slowly back then for one thing, and the speed of mass communication was much different as well. We have immediate access to battlefields now, and that would have been unthinkable at that point. People may have had a stronger stomach for war back then, or maybe they just didn't see it's cost every night on TV or on internet broadcasts that show every gory detail. The folks who live under regimes where it's commonplace to witness executions, and who live under fear of authority in a way we can only imagine, are not as sensitive to the brutality inherent in battle. We have lost our stomach for the blood that is the price of our affluence and comfort. As long as we are the world's superpower, there will be people around the globe who will want us dead. We should either act like we have a will, or give the job to someone else. And we'd better hope that they're as nice as we are.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16671

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mugtoe
[Bsnip[/B]

---

there are no "youre so smart" points so Ill just have to give you a culture point.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: California
Posts: 4252

People are'nt ready to hear about American deaths over there. Bush is afraid he would lose support and we would return before the job was done.

Deaths in the military in peacetime are routine. You don't push people that hard without deaths.

In three months we had more than three deaths just sitting at the base. If you really believe we have only lost three troops you are kidding yourself.

Probably closer to 100 would be my guess which is pretty conservative.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16671

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dog Breath
snip

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: St.louis MO.
Posts: 245

Deaths due to training excercises in the military are unfortunately inevitable. It is dangerous training.....and shit happens.
I saw two of my plattoon members die in training. One was due to a mistake by a tank driver and the other one was simply caused by a broken rope while rappeling down a cliff .

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 7113

quote:

---

Originally posted by euphorbia



People die in the bathtub.
People die eating.
People die.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16671

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caffeine

People die due to overly strenuous and dangerous military training.

---

Bet more die riding their bike.


edited-so Im not redundant

Last edited by euphorbia on 12-12-2001 at 02:42 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged