What are the chances of being killed in combat if you join the U.S. Army?

[Jara sang]

Or combat related exercises. Anybody know the exact numbers? Surely somebody has done the calculations.

[Buck Laser]

1. A whole lot more than if you DON'T join...

[newyawker99]

12. Hi Buck Laser!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[MichiganVote]

2. What combat? Most of these kids get blown up faster than a duck

at the carnival.

[stillcool]

3. I remember life expectancy calculations...

from Vietnam...but haven't heard any Iraq comparisons...

[acmejack]

4. Depends on what is going on.

Obviously in June, 1944 the figures were substantially different from those for June, 1979. How many troops are committed to combat out the total force and the intensity of that combat. Now the figures are different because of the advances in medical care many are saved that would have perished in the vietnam era where many were saved who would have perished in the Korean era where many were saved who would have...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

5. Obviously Not Very High, But I Don't Know Exact Numbers.

[Breeze54]

26. WTF?????????

:wtf:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

28. Care To Clarify You Shock And Amazement? My Statement Is Accurate.

We have what, 1.2 million or more troops (just army and NG)? How many have died? What percentage would that be? Gee, maybe about .2 - .4%? That would be 1 in 500? That's not very high in my book.

Even using strict Iraq number, 130,000 troops vs. 2400 killed is still only 1.8%, which though higher, I would still not consider to be high, would you? And that is by no means an accurate equation, to only use the chances of being killed in combat in the Army, while limiting the result set to only those in combat in iraq. But even then, like I said, 1.8%. That's a fact there buddy. So don't give me your WTF awe garbage. The OP asked a question, I provided a factual answer. Sorry it didn't line up with your hopes.

[onenote]

29. actually, your "strict Iraq" number is probably high

Your 1.8 percent figure is based on the approximate number killed divided by 130,000 troops. However, over the three year period of the war, more than 130,000 have served (i.e, the same 130,000 have not been in Iraq the whole time). That said, even one person dying over there is one too many for me.

onenote

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

30. I Agree.

One is too much, for an illegal war. But that wasn't my point. What I meant by strict (probably bad choice of wording) was just taking flat numbers without any additional consideration, meaning the result would be the highest one could come up with, and showing that even then the end result is not high. It was to show the point that the reply of WTF??? was just emotional and nonsensical, since the facts speak for themselves.

But having that said, each and every troop that dies in this unjust war is a tragedy.

[FloridaPat]

6. Extremely high. Take GW1 - at the end of the war, 250 troops had

died. Now, 25 years later it's around 11,000. The rest died from Gulf War Syndrome and other battle related illnesses. Out of 350,000 that served in those 6 weeks, around 200,000 are on disability and another 50,000 have applied. Your chances of surviving completely intact mentally and physically is not very good at all.

This was one of the reason I was against the latest Iraq invasion. I wrote my congress critters about this. As far as I am concerned - * and his gang are responsible for every dead, dying, and sick soldier for the rest of eternity over this mess.

[matt819]

7. Correction

GWI was 15 years ago.

[FloridaPat]

8. Yes - and you can expect the same thing to happen with the troops

in this war. Nothing has changed except the date. It's a death warrent for anyone serving there - either immediately with a bullet or long term with health problems.

[bigtree]

9. worse, of course, in this war

[jollyreaper2112]

10. link?

I've heard the huge post-war casualty figures before. Does anyone have documentation on that? I figure it'll be tough since the Pentagon would be doing everything they can to obfuscate. Maybe civilian veteran assocations are following this?

[bigtree]

11. National Gulf War Resource Center has the figures buried somewhere

http://www.ngwrc.org/

references:

http://www.axisoflogic.com/cgi-bin/exec/view.pl?archive=22&num=1924

http://www.garynull.com/Documents/Gulf%20War/gulfwarlegacy2.htm

http://nucnews.net/nucnews/2004nn/0402nn/040228nn.htm

[newyawker99]

13. Hi jollyreaper2112!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Jigarotta]

20. omg, those numbers...

what the Hell is going on?
Why isn't this TALKED ABOUT by our glorious reporters and journalists.

jeebus cripes!

[FloridaPat]

25. Why wasn't this talked about by congress when they were debating

the authorization? Why is congress still putting up with this deadly endeavor * started? The armed services have been sold out for oil and empires.

[xmas74]

32. I saw downthread that someone corrected the 25 years ago.

I was in high school during GW1. Please, I beg of you, do NOT make me any older than I already am!

[onenote]

33. actually, I think the number that served in GWI was around 500,000

Still, the number of combat related post-war illnesses and deaths is staggering and a real, and often overlooked, cost of the war.

[BlueAlert]

14. Not sure about the Army

...but in the Air Force you have a better chance of being killed in a car accident.

[Toots]

16. Probably true with all branches

The media does tend to sensationalize everything. Out of more than a million men in uniform only 2400 have died in Combat in four years..:shrug:

[tabasco]

31. Tens of thousands more maimed for life.

Yeah, it's just sensationalism



http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/wounded/

[Montagnard]

15. Not sure if this contains what you are looking for, but lots of data

http://icasualties.org/oif/


the question in my mind is dying for a legal and worthy cause

[The Wielding Truth]

19. Thanks for the site. Very informative.

[TahitiNut]

17. While there are too many variables to answer definitively,

... including branch and assignment, cause of death, level of hostilities, and so on, we can take some fairly well-known numbers and get a "wet finger" approximation.

In 1968, the number of military personnel in Viet Nam ("boots on the ground") averaged about 420,000. About one-sixth were in "combat arms" roles. Of approximately 100,000 casualties that year, about 15,000 were KIA. From this we can estimate that the probability of being killed during one year a combat zone is up to 3-4% (more than 1 in 30) and the probability of being seriously wounded is about 20% (1 in 5).

For Vietnam veterans like myself, who came back physically intact, this is something that's usually never very far from our consciousness. (That's a discussion for another time and place.)

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

18. I think if you were "weighing" factors on whether to join, you'd also want

to consider the odds of losing a limb or getting brain injured. Have I not read recently that 60-70 percent of the some 20,000 wounded American servicemen/women from Iraq have traumatic brain injuries (TBI)? While I'm sure many of those are probably less severe, it also includes many severely disabled people. Not sure how many amputees either.

Those kind of factors, not just death, would figure heavily into the calculus of likely outcomes for joining the service.

On edit: Obviously these kind of outcomes are more likely joining the service than not (unless you work some kind of incredibly dangerous nonmilitary job), but if you accepted these outcomes and just wanted to serve, then the odds would be irrelevant. I spent most of my career in the military and got out just after shrub came into office and I'm glad. I would not be happy to be part of this neocolonial mess.

[Breeze54]

21. simple division?

estimates...

160,000/2417 = ???

http://icasualties.org/oif/stats.aspx

Cause of Death-----Total--------Percentage
Hostile fire-------2069----------78.5%
Non-combat related--567----------21.5%
Total--------------------------------------2636

--------------------------

U.S. Deaths Confirmed By The DoD:----------2412
Reported U.S. Deaths Pending DoD Confirmation: 5
Total----------------------------------------2417
DoD Confirmation List
Latest Coalition Fatality: May 06, 2006

[Yupster]

22. I saw a chart in a book years ago

that wasn't what you're looking for but was interesting anyway.

It compared adult male populations to war deaths in each of our wars.

The result rarely got over 2 % and was mostly around 1 %.

The big exception was the Civil War. The Confederacy lost 25 % of tehir adult male population killed and another 25 % wounded in the war.

Number two on the list was the federals in the Civil War. Their numbers were close to half the percentages of the Confederacy, but still gigantically higher than any other war we've ever been in.

World War II was high, but even it was far below 10 % I think. Then all the rest were in the 1 % range.

[goclark]

23. Let's not forget the injuries that will last forever!

Every time I think that GW had the nerve to laugh and joke at some ball game last week right after visiting our sick and wounded VETS I want to throw up!

Did you hear about the soldier that had completed duty in Iraq and then was assigned another tour?

He was afraid to tell his mother because he didn't want to upset her.

She only found out when the ARMY left her a note to contact them immediately.

Of course, she was brokehearted and sick to learn that he was killed in Iraq last week.

[Squatch]

24. Killed in actual combat...very high.

2415 DoD deaths in Iraq since 3-2003. That's 900 per year. (~690 per 100,000)

By comparison, Washington DC's murder rate is around 300 per year. (45.9 per 100,000)

[Breeze54]

27. It's 2417 killed in Iraq and counting.....

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/21/iraq.main/index.html
Rocket attack on U.S. base kills more than 20

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4849154.stm
Many dead in US-Iraq base blast
Ambulance on way to blast site passes Iraqi soldiers in Humvee
The blast targeted a group of recruits, causing mass casualties
At least 40 people have been killed by a suicide bomb
inside a military base housing US and Iraqi forces
near the northern Iraqi city of Mosul.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1362625
Insurgents Attack U.S. Bases in Iraq
BAGHDAD, Iraq Dec 1, 2005 (AP)—
Insurgents attacked several U.S. bases and government offices with mortars...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My point is, and there are a large number of these stories,
that just BEING in Iraq is fucking dangerous!
No matter where you are???
You are NOT safe!!!

[Emit]

34. I don't know the answer to your question, but here's some stats to ponder

Seems medical advancements have improved the casualty rates, but, that leaves the severe disability rates higher. Also, as someone noted above, many deaths occur later and are not figured into the numbers of casualties being reported currently. Anyway, this is an interesting report:

U.S. casualties vs. wounded
RE: U.S. casualties


Ninety percent of U.S. wounded survive
In Iraq, firepower increases, deaths decrease
By William J. Cromie
Harvard News Office

Better, faster medical care has reduced deaths from the more than 10,000 war injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan to the lowest percentage of any war in American history. In World War II, 30 percent of U.S. soldiers died from wounds received in combat; in Vietnam, 24 percent of the wounded died. In Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the horrific increase in the destructibility of weapons, mortality has dropped to 10 percent.


Surgeon and writer Atul Gawande's investigation of wounds in Iraq and Afghanistan shows the lowest death rate of any war in U.S. history, but, he says, it has its price. (Staff file photo Rose Lincoln/Harvard News Office)

But that's not entirely good news for the survivors. Injuries from suicide bombs and land mines often leave lifetime disabilities. Surgeons report a depressingly high incidence of blindness. Amputations, seen almost weekly on television, raise distressing questions about how survivors and their families will adapt and function.

Both sides of the story are told in an article in the Dec. 9 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine written by Atul Gawande, an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School and a surgeon at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston who gathered data on casualties and talked with surgical teams that served near the front lines. He concludes that the "military medical system has made fundamental - and apparently effective - changes in the strategies and systems of battle care, even since the Persian Gulf War." In that 1990-91 conflict, 24 percent of the wounded died, or more than twice the rate in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001.

~snip~

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/12.16/11-wounds.html





And we're talking some with very serious injuries, such as TBI's, missing limbs, etc.

[blogslut]

35. 2422 as of today

As of today.

Now, let's talk averages

2422 divided by 39 months = approximately 62 deaths per month

62 divided by 30 = approximately 2 deaths per day

As mentioned, death is not the only danger. There's also brain injury. According to a recent article in the May 4, 2006 issue of Rolling Stone:

"The most prolific of those injuries - indeed, the signature wound of the war in Iraq - is traumatic brain injury, or TBI. By the government's tally, about sixty-five percent of the nearly 16,000 casualties have suffered this condition..."

The article also says that the death toll is possibly lower because of medical breakthroughs:

"Thanks to advances in training and armor and a series of breakthroughs in combat medicine, the military has saved thousands of Marines and soldiers who would have died of their wounds in previous wars..."