Just what are 'acceptable' casualties?

[Sothis]

Over at SB, a debate has opened up, on the topic of invading Iraq, and what acceptable casualties would be for Allied soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, and Iraqi civilians.

Now, most people are advocating low civilian casualties. Good. No one wants to see the blood of children flow down the street.

However, there is one person who considers 1.5 million civilian deaths to be acceptable.

http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/showt ... adid=35313

[Darth Wong]

Over at SB, a debate has opened up, on the topic of invading Iraq, and what acceptable casualties would be for Allied soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, and Iraqi civilians.

Now, most people are advocating low civilian casualties. Good. No one wants to see the blood of children flow down the street.

However, there is one person who considers 1.5 million civilian deaths to be acceptable.

http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/showt ... adid=35313

Probably Azeron posting under a different alias.

[GoneCrazy]

allied- 250,000
iraqi- 100,000
civilians- as high as u want it to be i don't care bout iraqi people. i don't even care bout american people.

[HemlockGrey]

Military rants. Good fun.

Acceptable casualities are the minimum it takes to get the job done. This is also known as Fantasy Land.

War kills people dead. That's a fact. Acceptable casualties should not, factor into a military operation. Things that should factor in are objectives.

Soldiers are meant to die. I refer you to the Civil War. Grant threw men against Lee and thousands of them died. He just kept hurling men against into the meatgrinder, to be slaughtered mercilessly like pigs by the abbatoir of fate.

We all know who won.

The point, as I said, of being a soldier is to die. It's not to 'make sure the other bastard dies for his country', it's to get killed and have your death help achieve the objective.

However, we have people who think that war should be executed sterirely and who think that if something involves people getting killed it shouldn't happen. If these people had been in charge sixty, a hundred forty, or a hundred seventy years ago, America might have stayed out of WWII, let the South win the Civil War, or never challenge Mexico, Spain, France, England, or the Indians for domination of the continent, because of a terrible, overwhelming fear that maybe, just maybe, people will die in war.

[Alyeska]

Over at SB, a debate has opened up, on the topic of invading Iraq, and what acceptable casualties would be for Allied soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, and Iraqi civilians.

Now, most people are advocating low civilian casualties. Good. No one wants to see the blood of children flow down the street.

However, there is one person who considers 1.5 million civilian deaths to be acceptable.

http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/showt ... adid=35313

Probably Azeron posting under a different alias.

Unlikely, this guy has been at SB sine 2000

[Sothis]

Over at SB, a debate has opened up, on the topic of invading Iraq, and what acceptable casualties would be for Allied soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, and Iraqi civilians.

Now, most people are advocating low civilian casualties. Good. No one wants to see the blood of children flow down the street.

However, there is one person who considers 1.5 million civilian deaths to be acceptable.

http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/showt ... adid=35313

Probably Azeron posting under a different alias.

Mmm.... a faint chance, though I find there is more thought in Dayton's posts that Azerons. This topic isn't one of his finer moments though.

[Sothis]

Military rants. Good fun.

Acceptable casualities are the minimum it takes to get the job done. This is also known as Fantasy Land.

War kills people dead. That's a fact. Acceptable casualties should not, factor into a military operation. Things that should factor in are objectives.

Soldiers are meant to die. I refer you to the Civil War. Grant threw men against Lee and thousands of them died. He just kept hurling men against into the meatgrinder, to be slaughtered mercilessly like pigs by the abbatoir of fate.

We all know who won.

The point, as I said, of being a soldier is to die. It's not to 'make sure the other bastard dies for his country', it's to get killed and have your death help achieve the objective.

However, we have people who think that war should be executed sterirely and who think that if something involves people getting killed it shouldn't happen. If these people had been in charge sixty, a hundred forty, or a hundred seventy years ago, America might have stayed out of WWII, let the South win the Civil War, or never challenge Mexico, Spain, France, England, or the Indians for domination of the continent, because of a terrible, overwhelming fear that maybe, just maybe, people will die in war.

Well, I have to disagree with the 'to get killed and help achieve the objective' bit, because I find that to be an oxymoron. You can't help to achieve anything if you're dead. A good soldiers does kill the enemy, rather than place himself in unnecessary risk.

Soldiers don't fight because they're meant to die. They fight to accomplish missions and win battles. Obviously that runs the risk of death, but you shouldn't go looking for it.

[HemlockGrey]

Ah. What I meant to say in a rather long winded way is that commanders should not be afraid of soldiers dying. That is, after all, what they're there for.

[GoneCrazy]

Soldiers don't fight because they're meant to die. They fight to accomplish missions and win battles. Obviously that runs the risk of death, but you shouldn't go looking for it.

a good soldier doesn't die for his country he makes the other poor dumb sucker die for his.

[HemlockGrey]

That would be a bit of bluster thought up by an imaginative general to improve morale. It is in no way related to real life.

[GoneCrazy]

[HemlockGrey]

Yeah, it does sound cool, doesn't it?

[weemadando]

Commanders are well aware of the fact that soldiers are there for fighting and dying. Unfortunately many of the Western nations publics have forgotten that fact. As such Iraq would only need to kill perhaps 400-1000 soldiers and stretch out the war for about 8 weeks and the American public would likely become a bit jittery about continuing.

[GoneCrazy]

as ive said befor im american and i wouldnt get jittery until acoupla hundred thousand guys died. the MEDIA'd get jittery not most of the public. and if a coupla hundred thousand guys died in the dumb war id say just nuke the place. (thats what i do when i get jittery )

[RayCav of ASVS]

Supposedly in a standard battle (mind you, this is a singular battle) ideal casuaties are to be kept at 10% or less before withdrawing. Of course, from what I know, that may be archaic.

[RayCav of ASVS]

allied- 250,000
iraqi- 100,000
civilians- as high as u want it to be i don't care bout iraqi people. i don't even care bout american people.

I'm an American.

Fuck You.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Over at SB, a debate has opened up, on the topic of invading Iraq, and what acceptable casualties would be for Allied soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, and Iraqi civilians.

Would 6 billion be considered high?

Personally, I don't see Saddam doing anything different now then he did when he was attacking Iran and was receiving military aid from the States. I hope no Iraqi civilians die, but I don't give a damn about 'Allied' loses.

[Master of Ossus]

For invading Iraq? I would hope that the American people are willing to lose between 5 and 10 thousand Americans, along with perhaps twenty thousand of our allies. Of course, the total for an invasion of Iraq would be no where NEAR that high, in either category, unless Hussein used his bio and chemical weapons. If that happened, then no casualty count would be too high. A country that uses WoMD against a force using only conventional weapons must be eliminated, no matter the cost.

[Jadeite]

allied- 250,000
iraqi- 100,000
civilians- as high as u want it to be i don't care bout iraqi people. i don't even care bout american people.

well screw you 2

[GoneCrazy]

allied- 250,000
iraqi- 100,000
civilians- as high as u want it to be i don't care bout iraqi people. i don't even care bout american people.

well screw you 2

i dont even know u why would i want to srew u?

[HemlockGrey]

Because you're a fool?

[Sea Skimmer]

Both in terms of percentage and overall numbers, it depends on what you're using and what you're attempting to accomplish. The acceptable lose rate for say, USAF heavy bombers, is going to be somewhat different that what is acceptable for infantry in the pre ruined Basra area.


Anyway, I expect less then 100 American and allied dead fighting in the field and from downed aircraft, and perhaps 500 if the Iraqi army stands and fights to the end with multiple divisions inside every Urban area and the US Army decides to force rather then starve them out. That’s not very likely though.

I don’t care about Iraqi military deaths until there weapons are on the ground and hands are in the air, until then they are fair game, and if they take to hiding guns or explosives like other American enemies have done, I don’t care period, and neither do the rules of war. Iraqi civilian deaths, even with heavy urban fighting are only likely to be in the low thousands, likely a lot less.


If Iraq uses NBC, then things become so much simpler, though Allied losses could be bumbed by anything from 100-15,000 depending on the weapon used.

But after that Every significant Iraqei troop concentration gets nuked, and every dam on every river gets breached. After that further fighting won't be an issue.

[Vendetta]

The point, as I said, of being a soldier is to die. It's not to 'make sure the other bastard dies for his country', it's to get killed and have your death help achieve the objective.

No, at a personal level, the job of a soldier is to stay alive as long as he possibly can.

If you die, that means the guys whose ass you'se supposed to be covering will probably die as well, and so on down the line until you're ALL fucked.

That's the point of modern squad formations, you all keep each other alive AND achieve your objectives.

[Knife]

Ah. What I meant to say in a rather long winded way is that commanders should not be afraid of soldiers dying. That is, after all, what they're there for.

Who is this guy, and thank the powers that be he is not a general. Troops are not there to die. They are expected to carry out the dangerous act of war and could die, but only a moron would throw his troops at an enemy just to die. A well trained force adaquetly armed and equipped will destroy a force just throwing themselves at you. I was not in the military just to die, I was there to kill someone else with the possibility of dying.
If and when we attack Iraq, expect civillian casualties to be small. The US will not target them, but the Iraqi military will probabley use them as a human shield. Allied kia's will be small, probably under 1000 while Iraqi kia's will be high. Also the amount of pow's will also be high on the Iraqi side. We tend to treat and feed them better as prisoners that their goverment does as soldiers. Casualties will increase significantly when we reach Bahgdad. MOUNT operations tend to be alot more messy than warfare in open terrain.

[Cpt_Frank]

Duh. Military losses are acceptable as long as the mission objective is accomplished.
Civilian casualties should be kept as low as possible.
Famous example: battle of jutland.
Though the german's High Seas Fleet sunk more warships than the british, the long-term effect was that after the battle the german fleet never left the home again during most of WWI.