9 ms·

Suicide has surpassed war as the leading cause of US military deaths

237 points by remotorboater 12y ago

jmnicolas 12y ago
Meaningless statistics : are there more suicides or are combat deaths declining ?
- 001sky 12y ago
  http://www.afhsc.mil/documents/pubs/msmrs/2014/v21_n10.pdf#Page=14 http://www.afhsc.mil/documents/pubs/msmrs/2014/v21_n10.pdf#P... see para #1, page 2
- teraflop 12y ago
  It's meaningful regardless of whether one number is increasing or the other is decreasing. If, as I suspect, the military spends vastly more time and money trying to prevent combat deaths than trying to help suicidal soldiers and veterans, then this statistic suggests that their priorities are out of whack.
  - pmalynin 12y ago
    How is it out-of-whack? For the sake of the argument if they have $1 billion to spend and if spending it on combat deaths prevention saves say 1000 people, while spending it on suicide reduction gets you 10 then it seems very reasonable to spend money on decreasing combat deaths.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  Both. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/feb/01/us-military-suicides-trend-charts http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/feb/01/us-mili...
AnkhMorporkian 12y ago
Despite how bad this seems, it's a good thing that barely anyone is dying from war. Even adding up the highest possible estimates, we're doing a hell of a lot better than the 20th century was.
- philwelch 12y ago
  The 20th century didn't even start racking up real casualties until...right about now, actually.
  - nroets 12y ago
    Maybe where you live. Here in South Africa, the 20th century started with significant casualties as the British Empire expanded.
    - CmonDev 12y ago
      Significant casualties probably started even earlier - with the arrival of the Dutch slavers.
      - icebraining 12y ago
        I'm pretty sure those arrived before the 20th century.
      - nroets 12y ago
        Casualties/war/violence did not start with the arrival of the Dutch as you are implying. Casualties/war/violence is part of human nature. For example there is clear evidence that the Bantus violently drove the Khoisan out of much of South Africa some 4000 years ago. The long term trend is however that South Africa (and the rest of the world) is become less violent and more humane. For example slavery was abolished here in 1834.
  - atlantic 12y ago
    Now we're in the 21st century. The 20th included two major world wars, as well as numerous smaller conflicts, including all the wars of colonial independence.
    - philh 12y ago
      Pretty sure that "right about now" meant "about as far through the 20th century as we are currently through the 21st", i.e. December 1914, about 5 months into WW1.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
petercooper 12y ago
I'm currently listening to an audiobook about the Falklands War. 649 Argentinians died in a horrific but short (2 months) conflict, but they claim since then more than 649 of the surviving soldiers have committed suicide, and PTSD remains a huge issue with both Argentine and British veterans.
- cmdkeen 12y ago
  I've listened to presentations by Combat Stress, a UK charity that works with veterans with mental health issues. Surprisingly it is veterans of Northern Ireland that have the greatest number of mental health issues, not those involved in what we might think of as more active wars. I can see parallels with what many Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are suffering, the constant threat of attack and a local populace you are supposed to be protecting. Yet in NI the populace was British, the cognitive disconnect must have been tremendous.
  - dmix 12y ago
    And the Irish were losing friends, family, and people they knew from the neighbourhood growing up. Whereas in the military it was guys you went to basic with. Which is similar to family but not as deep rooted.
gadders 12y ago
Given previous discussions on Hacker News, isn't suicide one of the leading causes of deaths for young men anyway? What would be significant is if the proportion of soldier suicides is greater than that of the similar group of age and sex in the general population.
- toolz 12y ago
  Not only are suicides more likely to happen with military and veterans, but it is only recently that suicides in the military went from below general population, to higher than general population. That suggests to me that the structure of the military would generally have significant effects of reducing depression, or maybe just the type of person joining the military is/was less likely to be depressed, but now it seems reasonable that maybe the nature of our military services today causes potentially more stable men and women to be more likely than ordinary to commit suicide. http://www.nih.gov/news/health/mar2014/nimh-03.htm http://www.nih.gov/news/health/mar2014/nimh-03.htm "Although historically, the suicide death rates in the U.S. Army have been below the civilian rate, the suicide rate in the U.S. Army began climbing in the early 2000s, and by 2008, it exceeded the demographically matched civilian rate (20.2 suicide deaths per 100,000 vs. 19.2). Concerns about this increase led to a partnership between the Army and the NIMH to identify risks."
  - sysk 12y ago
    I know it's a bit far fetched but another hypothesis would be that previous wars were deadlier for US soldiers and it was easier for a depressed soldier to get killed during combat (by being reckless for example). I know if I was both suicidal and a soldier, I'd probably just stick my head out of the trench a bit longer than my comrades or volunteer for the dangerous missions. Probably not the most likely explanation though.
    - VLM 12y ago
      Perhaps conditions make it more difficult and/or less socially acceptable to cover it up, out of pity for the family which might have been the priority decades ago. So he caught a bullet and the guy who fired it is definitely dead, telling the family more isn't necessarily going to make them any happier. On the theory that not covering it up might reduce overall suffering long term, which is Probably true, or at least we'd like to think so. Also need to follow the gravy train. Once someone starts getting a paycheck for a problem, that problem is never going away and on paper will always expand. Seventy years ago an infantryman who dived on a live grenade to save his whole squad of buddies was simply a dead hero. Today, if the dude is a white upper middle class straight guy from a stable family with no addiction problems and a decent credit score and stable romantic relationships, then, aside from being almost a unicorn, he would still be a (dead) hero in that grenade situation, but any demographic discrepancy could indicate to someone with a counseling / research paycheck depending on finding a problem, that racism in the .mil might have driven that poor downtrodden soldier to suicide, etc. This is probably a very small effect, but if you don't follow the money you're not doing due diligence.
jfmercer 12y ago
I have seen many tragic headlines of late, and, for me, this is one of the most tragic.
- Arnt 12y ago
  You might want to read Better Angels by Steven Pinker, which argues quite convincingly that things are getting better overall. "The news you recently read sticks in the mind, the worse news from long ago doesn't" etc. You may or may not be persuaded about all he says, but the book definitely helps build resistance to tragic headlines.
JeffDClark 12y ago
I just finished the book Acid Test (http://www.amazon.com/Acid-Test-Ecstasy-Power-Heal/dp/0399162798 http://www.amazon.com/Acid-Test-Ecstasy-Power-Heal/dp/039916...). The stories about the progress that the lucky individuals, who have been part of MDMA therapy studies for PTSD, have made; combined with government's refusal to fund research as well as their stonewalling during permitting (DEA primarily) is heartbreaking and infuriating. The author quotes some numbers about how much the US Dept of Defense and Veterans Affairs Administration spend (and are projected to spend) "treating" PTSD in veterans over the coming decades. They are shockingly large and unfortunately the US keeps sending more meat into the grinder.
sdf09jk2df 12y ago
Nobody wants to admit the leading cause of suicide in the military, probably in society in general, because it is politically sensitive. There is fear that announcing the leading demographic outright might make matters worse before it gets better. I have been a soldier in the US Army for 17 years, and the FBI has likely identified the cause of this trend using statistics. The leading cause for suicide in the US military is that society is generally becoming increasingly incompatible with military service. The demographic least likely to commit suicide of any age range are black females. The demographic most likely to commit suicide are white males under the age of 25. It should be known that suicides occur among all races, genders, and ages. The problem, however, is not that suicide occurs but the quantity and trends with which it occurs. The cultural generation born between the mid 1990-2005 are referred to as Millennials. This group is the first born into a world where the internet has always existed and divorce among their parents stands at record highs. This group is less willing to make social commitments, expects constant social feedback, and delays making life changing decisions longer than previous generations. Of particular concern is that this group tends to be nurtured more directly and longer than previous generations even while relationships of their elders disintegrate more rapidly. In previous generations people learn some hard life lessons early in life. Not everybody gets to be a winner. Time is short. If you screw-up there is a punishment. Quitting is not acceptable when people depend upon you. Life isn't fair. Many Millennials are shielded from these harsh lessons by over protective guardians. This profound change in social development has numerous consequences. Withdrawal from society and intimacy are perhaps the most common consequence for society generally. In the military you cannot hide from society, so simply withdrawing is not an option. The military is also a highly confrontational environment. Positive confrontations are often regarded as a necessary quality in successful corporate environments, but not everybody is well prepared for communication that is so direct. Typically the confrontations in the corporate world are soft or rare for entry level positions, where the opposite is true in the military. Historically military training has attempted to prepare people for this. Basic training is extremely confrontational and not in a positive way, but basic training is also a safe environment. In earlier times basic training was less safe thereby increasing stress for attendees. If a person is not sufficiently stressed during their entry level training they are ill-prepared to manage such stresses when their career becomes at risk. Related: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/12/04/The-Sexodus-Part-1-The-Men-Giving-Up-On-Women-And-Checking-Out-Of-Society http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/12/04/The-Sex...
onethrowaway 12y ago
I made a throwaway to comment on this... I think the biggest reason why soldiers are killing themselves is that the Army throws drugs at the problem and then doesn't monitor the soldiers. Everyone I know in the Army was on "psycho" drugs at one time or another. While serving in the Army, I found myself having symptoms of PTSD. Before this, I thought PTSD was for Vietnam or WWII vets. Anyway, the docs gave me handfuls of various meds (lithium, Haldol, Prozac, Risperdol, Seroquel, Clonopin, etc.) and did minimal monitoring. I would fall asleep in the parking lot of Landstuhl and barely remember what I was doing there. I became violent and beat my wife. I would become another person while I was on the meds. I was arrested for domestic violence and ordered to go to anger mngt, which was a joke. Everybody in my platoon was already there so it was just a way to get out of work and screw around. I trusted the docs to know what they were doing until I was at the edge of suicide/murder. Eventually, I stopped the meds (really tough aftereffect) and started dealing with the wreck my life had become. Most soldiers don't need meds, they need sleep and some one to talk to. The Army needs less psychiatrists and more psychologists.
- Xeoncross 12y ago
  It's hard and takes time to fix root emotional problems. Attempting to suppress your mind with drugs is easier and cheaper. Consequently, when someone is found to be on (illegal) drugs, locking them up in prison for a few decades is also easier than fixing the problem. In fact, according to the prisons themselves, banning books is thought to help apparently. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8704401 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8704401
  - andy_ppp 12y ago
    Er... not sure that locking people up is cheaper. What it is is more profitable for lobbyists and prison companies, to the tune of $37 billion + per year! Nice one lobbyists!
    - mlrtime 12y ago
      He said easier, not cheaper.
pinaceae 12y ago
a bit hard to understand the figures in the real paper. while the numbers have crossed, what about the absolutes? there are less deaths in combat now due to massive improvements in field treatment and armor. the total number of suicides in the armed forces is now higher than combat deaths and in civilian life, but it still could be lower overall than 20 years ago. armchair analysis would be still, that if more service members survive injuries that would otherwise killed them before, there are more survivors now that try to live with massive traumas, amputations, mental disorders. if you come back from stan with no legs, massive PTSD and a missing jaw, well, you kill yourself afterwards. young people joining in frontline roles tend to be more athletic, more body conscious. your high school sweetheart will still marry you out of peer pressure, but 2 years in she won't like changing your diapers anymore.
- krschultz 12y ago
  Agree. Motorcycle accidents (another major cause of death for members of the armed forces) are likely completely unrelated from war. I find it implausible that suicides are not correlated with the wars. To say that suicides have topped violent deaths in war is a way of saying that method of causality has changed, but it doesn't mean that the cost of war has faded.
- logfromblammo 12y ago
  (I am not a veteran. I merely know a few. All of the following is based on anecdotes.) There is a small, but not insignificant, number of people who aggressively pursue naive young people in the military for monetary advantage. These range from predatory lenders to semi-professional spouses. The military employee becomes their golden ticket to enjoying the benefits of the military without taking on any of the risks. If you can stay married for 20 years to a military person on active duty, you can retain a lot of the MWR and federal benefits that you were able to enjoy during that entire 20 years, even if you get divorced. If the military person dies, you and your children get survivor benefits. You might also be able to use their GI bill benefit while they are busy working. So some people will marry someone in the military, then cheat on that person at every available opportunity, and spend as much of their reliable paycheck as possible, while enjoying military family benefits. For that sort of person, a war-zone deployment is like a vacation, with the added possibility of winning the widow(er) lottery. If their young sucker of a spouse returns with PTSD or a brain injury, that has the potential to screw up their lifestyle, particularly if a discharge seems likely. The best play would likely be emotional abuse to encourage suicide. I have known enough people with military backgrounds to know that many of them had unfaithful or benefits-mercenary spouses. One even remarried to a non-American and intentionally kept her away from the on-base culture, because he could no longer trust anyone who was too familiar with the system. More than one explicitly mentioned that they intentionally avoided marriage for at least the first five years of their service, to weed out anyone trying to become a 20/20/20 spouse. So even if that high school sweetheart doesn't last, at least they might have loved their partner for a while before they came home changed and wore down their endurance. A benefits-mercenary spouse may actually be angry that their partner survived their injuries. I am not certain exactly how prevalent this behavior is, as there may be some selection bias in play. Maybe ex-military folks just particularly like to brood over their failed marriages, calculate illusory motives, and then complain about their evil exes to anyone who will listen.
richardwigley 12y ago
A major problem for the military is the availability of guns (and people who are effective at firing them). In the UK we used to kill ourselves with gas from the stove (it had carbon monoxide in it) - when gas stopped having carbon monoxide people thought - 'well people will find another way of killing themselves' but they didn't - availability of way of killing yourself was a factor in suicide. There's no obvious solution for the military, since they need guns. However, we can say that as a group they are more likely to kill themselves as they have an effective means to commit suicide when they are depressed. In the way an office worker does not. Wikipedia article on this subject: ------------------------------------------------ Lethal means reduction [edit] Means reduction, reducing the odds that a suicide attempter will use highly lethal means, is an important component of suicide prevention.[17] For years, researchers and health policy planners have theorized and demonstrated that restricting lethal means can help reduce suicide rates, as delaying action until depression passes.[18] There is strong evidence that restricted access at so-called suicide hotspots, such as bridges and cliffs, reduces suicides, whereas other interventions such as placing signs or increasing surveillance at these sites appears less effective.[19] One of the most famous historical examples, of means reduction, is that of coal gas in the United Kingdom. Until the 1950s, the most common means of suicide in the UK was poisoning by gas inhalation. In 1958, natural gas (virtually free of carbon monoxide) was introduced, and over the next decade, comprised over 50% of gas used. As carbon monoxide in gas decreased, suicides also decreased. The decrease was driven entirely by dramatic decreases in the number of suicides by carbon monoxide poisoning.[20][21] A photo illustration produced by the Defense Media Agency on suicide prevention In the United States, numerous studies have concluded that firearm access is associated with increased suicide completion.[22] "About 85% of attempts with a firearm are fatal: that’s a much higher case fatality rate than for nearly every other method. Many of the most widely used suicide attempt methods have case fatality rates below 5%.".[23][24] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_prevention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_prevention
- commandar 12y ago
  >A major problem for the military is the availability of guns (and people who are effective at firing them). I think this is a bit misplaced in the context of the US military. Firearms are very tightly controlled on bases. The only people with guns at any given time are people that have an active reason for having them, e.g., guard duty, MP, training, etc. It's not like there are M16s just piled up in the barracks. It's one of the reasons the shootings at Ft. Hood were so deadly; despite taking place in the middle of a major military base, there wasn't anyone nearby with a firearm to respond like many people imagine to be the case. You are correct about availability of firearms in general being associated with suicide rates, but I'm just pointing out that, in the US, military doesn't equate to easier access than the general population.
Zigurd 12y ago
Not all problems have solutions. The military has been applied to an unreasonable and impossible task. They may be no way to "get better" at doing that.
danohuiginn 12y ago
I can't find a decent link ATM, but I've also seen smoking claimed as a major cause of death among the military. Soldiers and veterans tend to smoke much more than civilians, which doesn't do wonders for their life expectancy.
daveloyall 12y ago
When I joined the military in 2004, it was because I was near suicidal and felt that I needed to change something or I might die. ...I was young and stupid. I'm probably still stupid. :) See, I was poor. I had done very well on standardized tests and received a full-ride scholarship with a stipend, but then I failed out of college, probably due to depression... So there I was without a lot of prospects in front of me, and I chose that moment to start drinking, for the first time. 2003 went by in a blur. I woke up one day and realized that here I was in a small town in Arkansas, working in some approximation of a box factory which paid just enough for rent and nothing more, never anything more. I knew that I must alter my path dramatically. So, I walked in to the only place in the world where I knew I'd get hired on the spot. To their credit, they did make a man of me. That was what I wanted. To be changed. You know, discipline and all that. (It wore off after a little while, and I can't say honestly that I don't miss it.) Back to my point: young white American men that enlist in the military aren't a random selection of young white American men. A strong majority of the members of that demographic in my Flight who I spoke with about why they joined had similar stories: the military is widely known as an option, and for many, it's the second to last option.
- thearn4 12y ago
  Your story very much mirrors my own, at the time it was the best option for someone with no money and a GED. The experience was something that I needed. But I did become jaded very quickly by what I saw around me. My time in uniform was a net positive, yet I really don't find myself identifying very closely with other vets or the post-military "remember those good old crazy times?" culture at large. Some things about it all just depress me.
  - angrybits 12y ago
    Maybe I've just been out for long enough now, but just this morning I found myself missing that life. I would have retired with 20 years in 2016 had I stayed in. Now for sure I don't miss power-drinking in the dorms or on TDY, but the work was fun and the people were awesome. I still keep in touch with alot of them. In contrast, I haven't spoken with anyone I went to high school in years.
ryanmarsh 12y ago
Allow me to paint a picture for you purely from my experience in the Army. It appears from the article that these were active duty deaths. Alcoholism is rampant in the Army. Alcohol is a downer. PTSD is rampant in the Army which means you're surrounded by people who might have anger issues or might be emotionally withdrawn (hah! understatement). Those same people might be your superiors. So you have a sadistic emotionally detached superior who controls your life. Maybe not, maybe you have great leaders, maybe you're the person struggling with alcoholism, depression, survivor guilt, nightmares, hyper awareness. Also, the Army's answer to psychological issues is pills, some of which can make things worse. There is a stigma associated with needing a hug. Also, "kids these days" (see the other comment about millennials, it is a thing). There was a book I read (forgot the title) that was veteran studies published after WWII. One of the ones that stood out to me the most showed that vets who came from stable homes faired better (emotionally) after war. If you are in the Army you didn't likely grow up in a stable emotional environment. Every system is perfectly designed to produce the results that it produces. By system I mean all the inputs. I don't know, when you look at this picture, what would you expect to happen? Also, there's no easy fix.
yequalsx 12y ago
More than anything this statistic speaks to the overwhelming military superiority of the U.S. military. The number of deaths for the U.S. military is quite small in relation to the numbers involved and the length of time of the occupation. A very large majority of deaths have been the native populace. Such a disparity of casualties leads to a situation where war does not seem as bad as it really is by the American public. We're supposed to be aghast that suicide is a greater cause of death than the 'enemy'.
bob917 12y ago
Congress needs to act NOW to save lives by passing a law that makes suicide illegal.
jpmcglone 12y ago
There's no denying that death is a common consequence of war.

237 points by remotorboater 12y ago

jmnicolas 12y ago

Meaningless statistics : are there more suicides or are combat deaths declining ?

001sky 12y ago
http://www.afhsc.mil/documents/pubs/msmrs/2014/v21_n10.pdf#Page=14 http://www.afhsc.mil/documents/pubs/msmrs/2014/v21_n10.pdf#P... see para #1, page 2
teraflop 12y ago
It's meaningful regardless of whether one number is increasing or the other is decreasing. If, as I suspect, the military spends vastly more time and money trying to prevent combat deaths than trying to help suicidal soldiers and veterans, then this statistic suggests that their priorities are out of whack.
- pmalynin 12y ago
  How is it out-of-whack? For the sake of the argument if they have $1 billion to spend and if spending it on combat deaths prevention saves say 1000 people, while spending it on suicide reduction gets you 10 then it seems very reasonable to spend money on decreasing combat deaths.
lotsofmangos 12y ago
Both. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/feb/01/us-military-suicides-trend-charts http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/feb/01/us-mili...

AnkhMorporkian 12y ago

Despite how bad this seems, it's a good thing that barely anyone is dying from war. Even adding up the highest possible estimates, we're doing a hell of a lot better than the 20th century was.

philwelch 12y ago
The 20th century didn't even start racking up real casualties until...right about now, actually.
- nroets 12y ago
  Maybe where you live. Here in South Africa, the 20th century started with significant casualties as the British Empire expanded.
  - CmonDev 12y ago
    Significant casualties probably started even earlier - with the arrival of the Dutch slavers.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      I'm pretty sure those arrived before the 20th century.
    - nroets 12y ago
      Casualties/war/violence did not start with the arrival of the Dutch as you are implying. Casualties/war/violence is part of human nature. For example there is clear evidence that the Bantus violently drove the Khoisan out of much of South Africa some 4000 years ago. The long term trend is however that South Africa (and the rest of the world) is become less violent and more humane. For example slavery was abolished here in 1834.
- atlantic 12y ago
  Now we're in the 21st century. The 20th included two major world wars, as well as numerous smaller conflicts, including all the wars of colonial independence.
  - philh 12y ago
    Pretty sure that "right about now" meant "about as far through the 20th century as we are currently through the 21st", i.e. December 1914, about 5 months into WW1.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

petercooper 12y ago

I'm currently listening to an audiobook about the Falklands War. 649 Argentinians died in a horrific but short (2 months) conflict, but they claim since then more than 649 of the surviving soldiers have committed suicide, and PTSD remains a huge issue with both Argentine and British veterans.

cmdkeen 12y ago
I've listened to presentations by Combat Stress, a UK charity that works with veterans with mental health issues. Surprisingly it is veterans of Northern Ireland that have the greatest number of mental health issues, not those involved in what we might think of as more active wars. I can see parallels with what many Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are suffering, the constant threat of attack and a local populace you are supposed to be protecting. Yet in NI the populace was British, the cognitive disconnect must have been tremendous.
- dmix 12y ago
  And the Irish were losing friends, family, and people they knew from the neighbourhood growing up. Whereas in the military it was guys you went to basic with. Which is similar to family but not as deep rooted.

gadders 12y ago

Given previous discussions on Hacker News, isn't suicide one of the leading causes of deaths for young men anyway? What would be significant is if the proportion of soldier suicides is greater than that of the similar group of age and sex in the general population.

toolz 12y ago
Not only are suicides more likely to happen with military and veterans, but it is only recently that suicides in the military went from below general population, to higher than general population. That suggests to me that the structure of the military would generally have significant effects of reducing depression, or maybe just the type of person joining the military is/was less likely to be depressed, but now it seems reasonable that maybe the nature of our military services today causes potentially more stable men and women to be more likely than ordinary to commit suicide. http://www.nih.gov/news/health/mar2014/nimh-03.htm http://www.nih.gov/news/health/mar2014/nimh-03.htm "Although historically, the suicide death rates in the U.S. Army have been below the civilian rate, the suicide rate in the U.S. Army began climbing in the early 2000s, and by 2008, it exceeded the demographically matched civilian rate (20.2 suicide deaths per 100,000 vs. 19.2). Concerns about this increase led to a partnership between the Army and the NIMH to identify risks."
- sysk 12y ago
  I know it's a bit far fetched but another hypothesis would be that previous wars were deadlier for US soldiers and it was easier for a depressed soldier to get killed during combat (by being reckless for example). I know if I was both suicidal and a soldier, I'd probably just stick my head out of the trench a bit longer than my comrades or volunteer for the dangerous missions. Probably not the most likely explanation though.
  - VLM 12y ago
    Perhaps conditions make it more difficult and/or less socially acceptable to cover it up, out of pity for the family which might have been the priority decades ago. So he caught a bullet and the guy who fired it is definitely dead, telling the family more isn't necessarily going to make them any happier. On the theory that not covering it up might reduce overall suffering long term, which is Probably true, or at least we'd like to think so. Also need to follow the gravy train. Once someone starts getting a paycheck for a problem, that problem is never going away and on paper will always expand. Seventy years ago an infantryman who dived on a live grenade to save his whole squad of buddies was simply a dead hero. Today, if the dude is a white upper middle class straight guy from a stable family with no addiction problems and a decent credit score and stable romantic relationships, then, aside from being almost a unicorn, he would still be a (dead) hero in that grenade situation, but any demographic discrepancy could indicate to someone with a counseling / research paycheck depending on finding a problem, that racism in the .mil might have driven that poor downtrodden soldier to suicide, etc. This is probably a very small effect, but if you don't follow the money you're not doing due diligence.

jfmercer 12y ago

I have seen many tragic headlines of late, and, for me, this is one of the most tragic.

Arnt 12y ago
You might want to read Better Angels by Steven Pinker, which argues quite convincingly that things are getting better overall. "The news you recently read sticks in the mind, the worse news from long ago doesn't" etc. You may or may not be persuaded about all he says, but the book definitely helps build resistance to tragic headlines.

JeffDClark 12y ago

I just finished the book Acid Test (http://www.amazon.com/Acid-Test-Ecstasy-Power-Heal/dp/0399162798 http://www.amazon.com/Acid-Test-Ecstasy-Power-Heal/dp/039916...). The stories about the progress that the lucky individuals, who have been part of MDMA therapy studies for PTSD, have made; combined with government's refusal to fund research as well as their stonewalling during permitting (DEA primarily) is heartbreaking and infuriating. The author quotes some numbers about how much the US Dept of Defense and Veterans Affairs Administration spend (and are projected to spend) "treating" PTSD in veterans over the coming decades. They are shockingly large and unfortunately the US keeps sending more meat into the grinder.

sdf09jk2df 12y ago

Nobody wants to admit the leading cause of suicide in the military, probably in society in general, because it is politically sensitive. There is fear that announcing the leading demographic outright might make matters worse before it gets better. I have been a soldier in the US Army for 17 years, and the FBI has likely identified the cause of this trend using statistics. The leading cause for suicide in the US military is that society is generally becoming increasingly incompatible with military service. The demographic least likely to commit suicide of any age range are black females. The demographic most likely to commit suicide are white males under the age of 25. It should be known that suicides occur among all races, genders, and ages. The problem, however, is not that suicide occurs but the quantity and trends with which it occurs. The cultural generation born between the mid 1990-2005 are referred to as Millennials. This group is the first born into a world where the internet has always existed and divorce among their parents stands at record highs. This group is less willing to make social commitments, expects constant social feedback, and delays making life changing decisions longer than previous generations. Of particular concern is that this group tends to be nurtured more directly and longer than previous generations even while relationships of their elders disintegrate more rapidly. In previous generations people learn some hard life lessons early in life. Not everybody gets to be a winner. Time is short. If you screw-up there is a punishment. Quitting is not acceptable when people depend upon you. Life isn't fair. Many Millennials are shielded from these harsh lessons by over protective guardians. This profound change in social development has numerous consequences. Withdrawal from society and intimacy are perhaps the most common consequence for society generally. In the military you cannot hide from society, so simply withdrawing is not an option. The military is also a highly confrontational environment. Positive confrontations are often regarded as a necessary quality in successful corporate environments, but not everybody is well prepared for communication that is so direct. Typically the confrontations in the corporate world are soft or rare for entry level positions, where the opposite is true in the military. Historically military training has attempted to prepare people for this. Basic training is extremely confrontational and not in a positive way, but basic training is also a safe environment. In earlier times basic training was less safe thereby increasing stress for attendees. If a person is not sufficiently stressed during their entry level training they are ill-prepared to manage such stresses when their career becomes at risk. Related: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/12/04/The-Sexodus-Part-1-The-Men-Giving-Up-On-Women-And-Checking-Out-Of-Society http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/12/04/The-Sex...

onethrowaway 12y ago

I made a throwaway to comment on this... I think the biggest reason why soldiers are killing themselves is that the Army throws drugs at the problem and then doesn't monitor the soldiers. Everyone I know in the Army was on "psycho" drugs at one time or another. While serving in the Army, I found myself having symptoms of PTSD. Before this, I thought PTSD was for Vietnam or WWII vets. Anyway, the docs gave me handfuls of various meds (lithium, Haldol, Prozac, Risperdol, Seroquel, Clonopin, etc.) and did minimal monitoring. I would fall asleep in the parking lot of Landstuhl and barely remember what I was doing there. I became violent and beat my wife. I would become another person while I was on the meds. I was arrested for domestic violence and ordered to go to anger mngt, which was a joke. Everybody in my platoon was already there so it was just a way to get out of work and screw around. I trusted the docs to know what they were doing until I was at the edge of suicide/murder. Eventually, I stopped the meds (really tough aftereffect) and started dealing with the wreck my life had become. Most soldiers don't need meds, they need sleep and some one to talk to. The Army needs less psychiatrists and more psychologists.

Xeoncross 12y ago
It's hard and takes time to fix root emotional problems. Attempting to suppress your mind with drugs is easier and cheaper. Consequently, when someone is found to be on (illegal) drugs, locking them up in prison for a few decades is also easier than fixing the problem. In fact, according to the prisons themselves, banning books is thought to help apparently. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8704401 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8704401
- andy_ppp 12y ago
  Er... not sure that locking people up is cheaper. What it is is more profitable for lobbyists and prison companies, to the tune of $37 billion + per year! Nice one lobbyists!
  - mlrtime 12y ago
    He said easier, not cheaper.

pinaceae 12y ago

a bit hard to understand the figures in the real paper. while the numbers have crossed, what about the absolutes? there are less deaths in combat now due to massive improvements in field treatment and armor. the total number of suicides in the armed forces is now higher than combat deaths and in civilian life, but it still could be lower overall than 20 years ago. armchair analysis would be still, that if more service members survive injuries that would otherwise killed them before, there are more survivors now that try to live with massive traumas, amputations, mental disorders. if you come back from stan with no legs, massive PTSD and a missing jaw, well, you kill yourself afterwards. young people joining in frontline roles tend to be more athletic, more body conscious. your high school sweetheart will still marry you out of peer pressure, but 2 years in she won't like changing your diapers anymore.

krschultz 12y ago
Agree. Motorcycle accidents (another major cause of death for members of the armed forces) are likely completely unrelated from war. I find it implausible that suicides are not correlated with the wars. To say that suicides have topped violent deaths in war is a way of saying that method of causality has changed, but it doesn't mean that the cost of war has faded.
logfromblammo 12y ago
(I am not a veteran. I merely know a few. All of the following is based on anecdotes.) There is a small, but not insignificant, number of people who aggressively pursue naive young people in the military for monetary advantage. These range from predatory lenders to semi-professional spouses. The military employee becomes their golden ticket to enjoying the benefits of the military without taking on any of the risks. If you can stay married for 20 years to a military person on active duty, you can retain a lot of the MWR and federal benefits that you were able to enjoy during that entire 20 years, even if you get divorced. If the military person dies, you and your children get survivor benefits. You might also be able to use their GI bill benefit while they are busy working. So some people will marry someone in the military, then cheat on that person at every available opportunity, and spend as much of their reliable paycheck as possible, while enjoying military family benefits. For that sort of person, a war-zone deployment is like a vacation, with the added possibility of winning the widow(er) lottery. If their young sucker of a spouse returns with PTSD or a brain injury, that has the potential to screw up their lifestyle, particularly if a discharge seems likely. The best play would likely be emotional abuse to encourage suicide. I have known enough people with military backgrounds to know that many of them had unfaithful or benefits-mercenary spouses. One even remarried to a non-American and intentionally kept her away from the on-base culture, because he could no longer trust anyone who was too familiar with the system. More than one explicitly mentioned that they intentionally avoided marriage for at least the first five years of their service, to weed out anyone trying to become a 20/20/20 spouse. So even if that high school sweetheart doesn't last, at least they might have loved their partner for a while before they came home changed and wore down their endurance. A benefits-mercenary spouse may actually be angry that their partner survived their injuries. I am not certain exactly how prevalent this behavior is, as there may be some selection bias in play. Maybe ex-military folks just particularly like to brood over their failed marriages, calculate illusory motives, and then complain about their evil exes to anyone who will listen.

richardwigley 12y ago

A major problem for the military is the availability of guns (and people who are effective at firing them). In the UK we used to kill ourselves with gas from the stove (it had carbon monoxide in it) - when gas stopped having carbon monoxide people thought - 'well people will find another way of killing themselves' but they didn't - availability of way of killing yourself was a factor in suicide. There's no obvious solution for the military, since they need guns. However, we can say that as a group they are more likely to kill themselves as they have an effective means to commit suicide when they are depressed. In the way an office worker does not. Wikipedia article on this subject: ------------------------------------------------ Lethal means reduction [edit] Means reduction, reducing the odds that a suicide attempter will use highly lethal means, is an important component of suicide prevention.[17] For years, researchers and health policy planners have theorized and demonstrated that restricting lethal means can help reduce suicide rates, as delaying action until depression passes.[18] There is strong evidence that restricted access at so-called suicide hotspots, such as bridges and cliffs, reduces suicides, whereas other interventions such as placing signs or increasing surveillance at these sites appears less effective.[19] One of the most famous historical examples, of means reduction, is that of coal gas in the United Kingdom. Until the 1950s, the most common means of suicide in the UK was poisoning by gas inhalation. In 1958, natural gas (virtually free of carbon monoxide) was introduced, and over the next decade, comprised over 50% of gas used. As carbon monoxide in gas decreased, suicides also decreased. The decrease was driven entirely by dramatic decreases in the number of suicides by carbon monoxide poisoning.[20][21] A photo illustration produced by the Defense Media Agency on suicide prevention In the United States, numerous studies have concluded that firearm access is associated with increased suicide completion.[22] "About 85% of attempts with a firearm are fatal: that’s a much higher case fatality rate than for nearly every other method. Many of the most widely used suicide attempt methods have case fatality rates below 5%.".[23][24] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_prevention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_prevention

commandar 12y ago
>A major problem for the military is the availability of guns (and people who are effective at firing them). I think this is a bit misplaced in the context of the US military. Firearms are very tightly controlled on bases. The only people with guns at any given time are people that have an active reason for having them, e.g., guard duty, MP, training, etc. It's not like there are M16s just piled up in the barracks. It's one of the reasons the shootings at Ft. Hood were so deadly; despite taking place in the middle of a major military base, there wasn't anyone nearby with a firearm to respond like many people imagine to be the case. You are correct about availability of firearms in general being associated with suicide rates, but I'm just pointing out that, in the US, military doesn't equate to easier access than the general population.

Zigurd 12y ago

Not all problems have solutions. The military has been applied to an unreasonable and impossible task. They may be no way to "get better" at doing that.

danohuiginn 12y ago

I can't find a decent link ATM, but I've also seen smoking claimed as a major cause of death among the military. Soldiers and veterans tend to smoke much more than civilians, which doesn't do wonders for their life expectancy.

daveloyall 12y ago

When I joined the military in 2004, it was because I was near suicidal and felt that I needed to change something or I might die. ...I was young and stupid. I'm probably still stupid. :) See, I was poor. I had done very well on standardized tests and received a full-ride scholarship with a stipend, but then I failed out of college, probably due to depression... So there I was without a lot of prospects in front of me, and I chose that moment to start drinking, for the first time. 2003 went by in a blur. I woke up one day and realized that here I was in a small town in Arkansas, working in some approximation of a box factory which paid just enough for rent and nothing more, never anything more. I knew that I must alter my path dramatically. So, I walked in to the only place in the world where I knew I'd get hired on the spot. To their credit, they did make a man of me. That was what I wanted. To be changed. You know, discipline and all that. (It wore off after a little while, and I can't say honestly that I don't miss it.) Back to my point: young white American men that enlist in the military aren't a random selection of young white American men. A strong majority of the members of that demographic in my Flight who I spoke with about why they joined had similar stories: the military is widely known as an option, and for many, it's the second to last option.

thearn4 12y ago
Your story very much mirrors my own, at the time it was the best option for someone with no money and a GED. The experience was something that I needed. But I did become jaded very quickly by what I saw around me. My time in uniform was a net positive, yet I really don't find myself identifying very closely with other vets or the post-military "remember those good old crazy times?" culture at large. Some things about it all just depress me.
- angrybits 12y ago
  Maybe I've just been out for long enough now, but just this morning I found myself missing that life. I would have retired with 20 years in 2016 had I stayed in. Now for sure I don't miss power-drinking in the dorms or on TDY, but the work was fun and the people were awesome. I still keep in touch with alot of them. In contrast, I haven't spoken with anyone I went to high school in years.

ryanmarsh 12y ago

Allow me to paint a picture for you purely from my experience in the Army. It appears from the article that these were active duty deaths. Alcoholism is rampant in the Army. Alcohol is a downer. PTSD is rampant in the Army which means you're surrounded by people who might have anger issues or might be emotionally withdrawn (hah! understatement). Those same people might be your superiors. So you have a sadistic emotionally detached superior who controls your life. Maybe not, maybe you have great leaders, maybe you're the person struggling with alcoholism, depression, survivor guilt, nightmares, hyper awareness. Also, the Army's answer to psychological issues is pills, some of which can make things worse. There is a stigma associated with needing a hug. Also, "kids these days" (see the other comment about millennials, it is a thing). There was a book I read (forgot the title) that was veteran studies published after WWII. One of the ones that stood out to me the most showed that vets who came from stable homes faired better (emotionally) after war. If you are in the Army you didn't likely grow up in a stable emotional environment. Every system is perfectly designed to produce the results that it produces. By system I mean all the inputs. I don't know, when you look at this picture, what would you expect to happen? Also, there's no easy fix.

yequalsx 12y ago

More than anything this statistic speaks to the overwhelming military superiority of the U.S. military. The number of deaths for the U.S. military is quite small in relation to the numbers involved and the length of time of the occupation. A very large majority of deaths have been the native populace. Such a disparity of casualties leads to a situation where war does not seem as bad as it really is by the American public. We're supposed to be aghast that suicide is a greater cause of death than the 'enemy'.

bob917 12y ago

Congress needs to act NOW to save lives by passing a law that makes suicide illegal.

jpmcglone 12y ago

There's no denying that death is a common consequence of war.