Skip to comments.VERY Surprising Military Death Statistics, 1980 - 2007
Posted on 11/03/2007 9:08:48 AM PDT by InfantryMarine
Military Death Numbers compiled by a friend from DOD reports.
Below is some very interesting data reference deaths in the military. I guarantee you will not read this in your local newspaper nor will you see it on the daily news broadcast. I pray this will help you to enlighten folks around you to the brave and courageous young people serving in our military.
Deaths in the Military
1980 .......... 2,392
1981 .......... 2,380
1982 ......... 2,318
1983 .......... 2,465
1984 .......... 1,999
1985 .......... 2,252
1986 .......... 1,984
1987 .......... 1,983
1988 ......... 1,819
1989 .......... 1,636
1990 .......... 1,508
1991 .......... 1,787
1992 .......... 1,293
1993 .......... 1,213
1994 ......... 1,075
1995 .......... 1,040
1996 .......... 974
1997 .......... 817
1998 .......... 826
1999 .......... 795
2000 ......... 774
2001 .......... 890
2002 .......... 1,007
2003 .......... 1,410 [534*]
2004 .......... 1,887 [900*]
2005 .......... [919*]
2006 .......... [920*]
Figures so noted with an asterisk (*) indicates deaths as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
You may initially feel confused when you look at these figures - especially when you see that in 1980, during the term of President Jimmy Carter,there were 2,392 US military fatalities. What this clearly indicates is that our media and our liberal politicians pick and choose and tend to present only those facts that support their agenda driven reporting.
Another fact our left media and politicians like to slant is that these brave men and women losing their lives are minorities.
The latest census shows the following:
European descent (white).........69.12%
The fatalities over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom are:
European descent (white)........ 74.31%
These statistics are published by DOD and may be viewed at:
Pass this on,Semper Fi
Very interesting. Were these men and women killed in combat or do these numbers also include routine every day accidents?
what is amazing is that under clinton, there were 8,033 military deaths, under bush, counting the casualties of war, there were 7,803...can anyone (libs) explain that? I can because I served under carter...gutting the military results in lost lives, period..
Listening to CNNABCNBCCBSMSN, one would assume hundreds of thousands of poor uneducated blacks were being killed on the front lines for the sole purposed of amusing Bush.
Finally, we have the statistics.
Even the ABS media is noticing.
Their readers are demanding bad news from Iraq,
and well, there isn’t much.
The casualty rate is now at or below the peacetime
Interesting trend in the peacetime rate.
Any correlation between it and the
hummer replacing the jeep?
Or just a result of troop level reductions?
ABS - Agenda Bias Spin
(even the left has to admit it:
Why are there no deaths in 2005 and 2006 not related to Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom?
Pardon me if my question is ignorant. I went to the link and it says active duty deaths. Does that include guard units?
Your numbers while quite interesting are meaningless statistics without knowing the Denominator for each of the posted numbers.
In other words do we know the total number of people in the military in 1986 and the total number of people in the military in 2006?
With knowing both the Numerator and Denominator we would know exactly what percentage of military personal died each year.
A lot of deaths in the military are due to training accidents. When you have a less educated, lower quality force (as we did prior to the 1980s), these deaths are going to be higher due to...acts of stupidity. For example, a friend of mine (who was a clerk typist in the Army in the early 80s) used to tell me that the most common death letter involved people who went out into the field on manuevers, fell asleep in the high grass, and got run over by tanks. Not very smart. I am sure that the more lethal (and hopefully less essential) training practices have been phased out over the years as well.
Semper fidelis BUMP!
Deaths are denoted as integers. They are not in percentages. So numerator and denominator do not apply.
The percentages, as used here to denote ethnicity, do not require knowledge of total combatants.
These data are anything but meaningless.
“Your numbers while quite interesting are meaningless statistics without knowing the Denominator for each of the posted numbers.”
It is only meaningful if you are selling insurance.
The fact is: Service men in harms way are doing a better job and are not having to pay the ultimate price as often. This is all good news.
“...involved people who went out into the field on maneuvers, fell asleep in the high grass, and got run over by tanks. Not very smart.”
Tell your friend his is either an idiot or full of crap!
It makes sense. People die every day. And in Iraq the MSM counts everyone no matter how they died as a casualty of war. With the majority of the Army in Iraq, then all those dieing people get attributed to Iraq and dumped on President Bush’s head by the MSM. Darn we should have figured this out sooner.
The size of the military and the relative frequency of the various types of casualties vary over time, the meaningful numbers are casualties in each category per person or man-year. The only chart I could find quickly does not cover post 2005 casualties, but it's easy to extraplate out to the present as we know the casualty numbers.
One thing that really jumps out when you look at the numbers that way is the success of the US Military in holding down accidental deaths in the last 5 years, something that requires a very serious ongoing commitment to improving operational methods and then training and leading troops to take advantage of them under wartime conditions.
They are not meaningless at all. The media reports raw numbers, not % killed relative to overall numbers. This reporting merely keeps it apples to apples. To use a different format would only confuse the issue
One of the leading causes of death among military personnel, and it is a matter of much concern among base commanders and of the DoD in general, is off-duty automobile crashes in the U.S.A. and its territories. Even young men (and women) with high IQs and college degrees can act stupidly while driving an auto, especially with the aid of a few beers or margaritas.
Another leading cause of death is helicopter crashes while engaged in training exercises or routine flights in non-combat areas (i.e., stateside).
I’ve seen data showing that even in Iraq about 25 percent of the milpers killed lost their lives in non-combat accidents. My number may be off a bit, but the percentage is not insignificant.
The numbers cited here may be total military fatalities, both combat related and not.
RE: 1992-2000 figures
Want to reduce deaths in the US Military?
Just shrink it!
(aka “The Clinton Military Doctrine”)
No. The numbers are meaningless unless you know the number of people in the military each year.
For example if in the year 1986 the military had 1,000,000 members and there were 1,984 deaths that would equate to a .001984% death rate.
And if in the year 2002 the military had 750,000 members and there were 1,007 deaths that would equate to a .00134267 death rate.
It is just simple math and with out knowing the total number of deaths and the population the numbers are meaningless.
Now suppose you compared them to a similar population of the most dangerous mid-sized cities in the United States, it would be interesting to see how the combat deaths in the field compare to the civilian deaths due to homicide and accidents?
and look at the way clinton destrpyed the military....almost 1.8 million active duty when he got in and 1.37 when he left...
Your point would, of course, be valid, if we were having a discussion on the safety of the military or something similar. But we aren't. The left in this country is using dead soldiers as a prop to bash Bush and the war. We are supposed to believe that they somehow value the lives of each and every member of the military, yet these numbers prove otherwise. Men and women have been dying in similar numbers for decades, yet it never stopped the Democrats from pushing for defense cuts.
No, they've set the standard for using these numbers, this article only throws them back in their faces.
In any event, given the incredibly low numbers of casualties suffered in actions to liberate and pacify two entire countries in the space of six years, I really don't think the left would want to start looking at "Denominators".
It seems to me they are heroes doing their job for all of us and there is no reason to diminish their losses.
Two of my sons have had training incidents occur. One took a fall wearings nods and the other had parachute failure.
IMO, higher alert status, increased training and higher morale reduces accidental deaths in the military.
Go here for details.
Don't confuse motivation with "quality".
When I was going through flight school at Pensacola we were told of a study that followed Navy-Marine Corps pilots for 20 years. Aviation is inherently dangerous, military aviation moreso and naval aviation the most dangerous. Yet the leading cause of death for pilots in this 20 year survey, which included war years, was auto accidents.
The posted article is ambiguous for 2005-2006. Go to page 10 of the link provided to see the actual numbers—nothing higher than previous years in Iraq.
If the numbers for 2005 and 2006 are claiming that there were no deaths other than for the operations in Asia, I’d say the numbers were wrong.
Full Time Equivalent (FTE) forces / casualties = % of troops
as abridged from the sourced link
1980..... 2,159,630 / 2,392 = .11%
1985..... 2,323,185 / 2,252 = .10%
1990..... 2,258,324 / 1,507 = .07%
1995..... 1,661,928 / 1,040 = .06%
2000..... 1,530,430 / .. 758 = .05%
2005..... 1,664,014 / 1,942 = .12%
General Patton was killed in an accident.
As you point out, in the military they are not uncommon.
“No. The numbers are meaningless unless you know the number of people in the military each year.”
Each number represents the lives of American service-people. Hardly “meaningless”.
This thread is not about percentages, ratios, or denominators. It’s about the NUMBER of American service-members lost each year.
Even you should be able to grasp that but you seem to have a hard time grasping anything that conflicts with your preconceived notions.
Here is a chart that tells the actual death rate in the years that you list.
Great catch. Really puts things in perspective. MSM would never report on this — violates their storyline of soliders as victims instead of heroes.
Well let’s see. In 1980 .11% of the people in the military died.
And in 2000 .05% of the people in the military died.
By ignoring the population, you have no idea of the “death rate.”
A major factor (perhaps THE major factor) is the dramatic improvement in trauma care over the last decade. We are saving many that previously would have been lost.
Noted! Thank you
And you know this how?
He was the guy who typed the letters for the officers to sign. He saw just about everything that went on in his unit. So if he was an idiot he misunderstood what he was seeing. Unlikely. If he was full of crap, then he was intentionally lying. Not sure why he would make that kind of stuff up.
Many of the fatalities are accidental deaths - vehicle rollovers, falling coke machines, training-related deaths, etc. The NCO who died at Ft. Hood during a LandNav course this summer is a classic example of deaths that occur, as is the Colonel I worked for who died of a heart attack during his morning PT run.
TRADOC (training and doctrine command) was making a full-court press effort at reducing accidental and training deaths the last few years of my service - '90-'96. That should serve to explain part of the drop in numbers in the list above during those years.
It may be interesting to note that many of the OEF/OIF deaths are accidental rather than being combat related.
Just a sidebar...the fellow I mentioned has been nicely memorialized:
Library to be dedicated to fort soldier killed in Iraq