Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Death tolls in old wars usually are less than in more recent ones, if only because it is easier to kill a lot more people with one weapon today. Though this is changing in some conflicts (not even wars) such as the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan (though it could be considered a war on the Iraqi/islamofascist side—they’re losing a lot of people, though not in the hundreds of thousands).


16 posted on 07/31/2007 4:46:09 PM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Jedi Master Pikachu
Death tolls in old wars usually are less than in more recent ones, if only because it is easier to kill a lot more people with one weapon today.

That depends. A lot of people starved or died of plagues spread by armies. Direct battle deaths didn't actually exceed "other causes" until armies instituted regular supply systems & stopped living off the land. Also, innoculations & antibiotics helped limit "camp deaths".

The Allied Expeditionary Force probably lost more men to the Spanish Influenza of 1919 than it did in combat in 1918. The US Army in Cuba (1898-9) was decimated by Malaria.

49 posted on 08/01/2007 1:28:16 PM PDT by Tallguy (Climate is what you plan for, weather is what you get.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson