5 ms·
True, but the risk of getting injured in the Cold War was significantly lower than what we see today in warzones.
by jvdh 16y ago
True, but the risk of getting injured in the Cold War was significantly lower than what we see today in warzones.
- randallsquared 16y agoThat's not clear. US military deaths in the 1980s were higher than in the 2000s, in spite of the fact that the active military in the 2000s was considerably larger.
- jtbigwoo 16y agoThe active military was ~2.1 million in the 80's as opposed to ~1.4 million now. The death _rate_ in the early 1980's was slightly lower than the death rate today. Of course, the active military in the early 1980's had a ridiculously high accident rate. It would be a fairer comparison to look at the mid-to-late 90's. In the link below you can see that the death rate for active duty soldiers was about half of what it is today. DOD numbers: (http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/death_Rates.pdf http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/death_Rates.p...)
- yummyfajitas 16y agoIsn't the comparison supposed to be to his parent's generation? They would have been in the military in the 80's.
- arethuza 16y agoI'm probably having a bit of a downer on the subject as I watched Threads last night - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090163/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090163/ While quite possibly the least cheerful film ever made - it was based on a UK military planning exercise (Square Leg) that was actually pretty optimistic. In the optimistic version - only 90% of the population of the UK is killed, in the realistic ones it is much worse.