Talk:United States casualties of war

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] Afghanistan

Afghanistan numbers come from:

Kingturtle

[edit] Lebanon

Shouldn't 'Reagan's War on Terrorism' be 'Beirut Intervention' or 'Lebanon Deployment'? The term Reagan's War on Terrorism seems somewhat NPOV, as would 'Lyndon B. Johnson's Vietnam War'. I'm sure the intent is not to make a POV comparison with the current War on Terrorism but it could be construed that way.Ark30inf 02:15, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Combat deaths and total deaths

Gulf War numbers are from [1]. Does this page include those killed in "nonhostile" actions? I assume that means friendly fire and the like. If so, then there are 121 more deaths for the Gulf War. -- Minesweeper 08:57, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

Correct. this article includes nonhostile actions WITHIN the totals. Kingturtle 23:23, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This page is a combination of combat deaths and total deaths. American Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Korean War, Invasion of Panama (Operation Just Cause), Persian Gulf War use combat deaths only

Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, Vietnam War, Operation Enduring Freedom War use total deaths.

American Civil War uses an unknown figure somewhere in between combat deaths and total deaths. [2]

Not sure on these: Philippine-American War, Beirut Deployment, Persian Gulf Escorts, Invasion of Grenada (Operation Urgent Fury), Rmhermen 19:46, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

I do not want question marks where we have exact numbers. Let's talk about it in TALK for a while and iron out some things first. I don't know if total death numbers exist for some of these wars. Kingturtle 05:24, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Then you shouldn't falsely claim that they are totals. I would rather have ? than false information. I and Minesweeper have already told you that they are not totals in all cases. Look at the link I provided, look in several of the articles on Wikipedia itself. Since good total don't exist for some wars isn't it better to list combat deaths? Rmhermen 13:36, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
My totals are not false. When I get home, I will locate my sources. Kingturtle 22:43, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
They are incorrect. As Minesweeper told you above back in Oct. there are 121 more death in the Gulf War total then you showed and if I check American Revolutionary War the article says 4,400 combat deaths (your total) and an estimated 20,000 due to non-combat causes. If I check the link I provided I find Civil War deaths 184,594 combat, 558,052 total - not your total 364,511. I have no explanation for the differnce on that one though. Similar problems with other totals. Rmhermen 22:58, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

How about adding an extra column so we can display both combat and total casualties? Rmhermen 14:03, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

That is a terrific idea. Will it be easy to compile the totals? Kingturtle 23:10, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I added a third column. My concern now is that there are two or three dozen minor actions not listed with death tolls highly than say the Beirut deployment or Persian Gulf escorts. What is our criteria for inclusion? Major action? Declared war? The Barbary War was both declared and had a higher death toll than Grenada. So did Somalia which isn't listed and is recent. The Indian Wars count over a thousand dead. Rmhermen 14:58, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
When I created the list, I included only the actions I had numbers for. But I think we should include every action that resulted in a casualty. If you have numbers for other actions, please include them. Kingturtle 18:04, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Two more columns, one with total population at the time and the other with casualties as a percentage of total population might be handy. Jhobson1 12:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cambodia

Are the Cambodia casualties of the early 1970s included in the Vietnam War totals, or do we need to make a new entry for Cambodia? Kingturtle 03:25, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you look at [3], you'll see that the estimates of the number of Americans killed in Vietnam vary by about 2000 one way or the other, whereas the estimated number killed in Cambodia is only about 500, so whether you include the losses in Cambodia (or Laos too, for that matter) or not, it's really within the margin of error. However, the number we have on this page presumably came from somewhere (it would be great if this page had sources for all the bald info it includes), and if we knew where, we could find out what was included. Neow 06:00, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Casualty numbers for the major wars came from a Deptartment of Veteran's Affairs page (I can't find it right now- only off-site copies. It also listed last living veteran and number of living veterans.) Rmhermen 13:43, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)
I found a good page at the VA and linked to it. Only some of the numbers in our table match what the VA page says. I wonder where the other numbers came from? Neow 18:36, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Total casualties

We need to add another column for each war's total casualties. Kingturtle 00:27, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Since we already have a total dead column, I presume you mean a total (dead+wounded) column. The difficulty arises through with what to call it, as that is sometimes called casualties while sometimes casualties is used to refer to deaths only. Besides all you need do is add the last two columns. (Or do you want to add civilian deaths?) Rmhermen 13:34, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
In a chart that is useful, one does not have to do math on his own. Total dead does not equate total casualties. Therefore, another column needs to be added. I'd do it, but I don't know the syntax for this kind of chart. Kingturtle 22:44, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
My issue is not the utility of that column but its naming. The word casualty is often and confusingly used when refering only to deaths, not deaths and wounded (or death and wounded and missing). Rmhermen 20:09, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
In the four definitions of the word casualty, none of them refer only to deaths...
1. An accident, especially one involving serious injury or loss of life.
2. One injured or killed in an accident: a train wreck with many casualties.
3. One injured, killed, captured, or missing in action through engagement with an enemy. Often used in the plural: Battlefield casualties were high.
4. One that is harmed or eliminated as a result of an action or a circumstance: The corner grocery was a casualty of the expanding supermarkets.
So I don't know where the confusion is. This article is meant to list casualty totals, and a column should be added. Kingturtle 22:27, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
I easily found many websites using "casualty" but only listing deaths before I wrote my previous comments. Besides we don't have a column yet for "missing in action" (remember that there are still 8,000 missing from Korea 50 years ago!) Without that the totals will be off. Rmhermen 20:52, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, a MIA column would be great too. Where can we get MIA data? Kingturtle 21:48, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

potential source for more info: http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm - Kingturtle 00:52, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I was first going to suggest using footnotes or a separate table for MIA's since very few wars have any. However the more I look the less sure I am that they are not already being counted in the "total dead" figure. Even from the First Gulf War of 17 missing, 16 are considered "presumed dead". Does that mean that they are part of the "total dead"? The numbers I found were:
  • WWII 78,000
  • Korea 8,200
  • Vietnam 1859
  • Cold War 123
  • Gulf War I 1
  • Enduring Freedom 1?

Rmhermen 14:13, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Philippine American War casualties

The most common number is a over 4,000 killed, yet this has the total at 3,000. I believe this is incorrect. It should also list the number of Philippine Constabulary casualties which numbers 2,000 dead and wounded, which nearly all of these are American.

[edit] Spanish American War

I also believe that these casualties are incorrect. In the Battles of San Juan Hill and El Caney the number of KIA exceed 500, yet this list the casualties at only 350. If you add up all the casualties killed in all the battles listed in the "Battles of the Spanish American War" you will easily come up with more than 600.

These numbers are taken from the Department of Veteran Affairs website. Rmhermen 18:22, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] War on Terrorism

Operation Enduring Freedom could be a subcategory of the War on Terrorism, since Rmhermen says it is Afghanistan & the Philippines only. What do you think? Copperchair 19:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't need to take my word for it - read the article. Are there any other WoT military casualties? Rmhermen 21:53, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
I have reverted this again as Copperchair has failed to show that any of the casualties mentioned outside of Afghanistan and the Philippines or from any other program than Operation Enduring Freedom. Defining this by ambiguous political terms is not the best choice. Rmhermen 02:18, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq War: Incorrect Info?

The death of Sgt. George Alexander was the 2000th American combat fatality, there are something like 2124 total. Assuming combat fatality and KIA mean the same thing, the numbers are out of sync. Sherurcij 04:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

No, we was the 2,000th American fatality. As of November 5th, there have been 1601 combat fatalities. I think you may have been looking at total coalition fatalities. See www.icasualties.com for more details. czolgolz

I'm new to this page, but I'm unclear about the number of wounded indicated for the Iraq war. Over 40,000 is indicated, but when I read the reference page iCasualities, I see just under 30,000. Am I missing something, or is this incorrect? Pacohi (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American casaulties in the Civil War

I assume this means just the Union side.However it can be misleading and could mean every American who died or was wounded.It clarify it myself but im not even sure myself what it meansDermo69

[edit] Current events?

Posted By Deftdrummer 8/13/06 Is there a reason that this article is not stamped with the "this article represents current events" as many others have? I only say this because the death toll for our current war gets higher seemingly every day.

[edit] MILHIST assessment

Rated as NA because this should be a list.--Looper5920 06:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future plans

Eventually this page should include more information than just the table. World War II casualties is an example of what can be done. Civilian deaths need to be addressed. (The title of this article does not exclude them.) People should be able to tell at a glance which wars were the deadliest in raw numbers, and which were deadliest in terms of percentage of people killed. A chart like the following, which is a first draft, should be included--go ahead and fill it out more if you have the data, and then we'll move it to the article. —Kevin 17:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wars ranked by percentage of population killed

War or conflict Military deaths Civilian deaths Total deaths Population at
outset of conflict		 Percentage of
population killed		 Sources
Civil War 625,000 ~50,000 675,000 31,000,000 2.18%
Revolutionary War 25,000  ?  ? 2,256,000 1.11%
World War II 407,300 11,200 418,500 132,000,000 0.32% World War II casualties

[edit] Indian Wars

Speaking of the Indian Wars, I am guessing that a death toll of less than 1000 doesn't include the First Nations casulties, which might be deemed somewhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000 (in terms of casulties of combat plus democide). Are we only counting US citizens, or soldiers/civilans who inhabited the continent? (unsigned)

The first words of the article are "Military casualties suffered by the United States of America", and there's nothing in this article about "soldiers/civilians who inhabited the continent", so this is clearly a list of casualties of US soldiers. —Kevin 17:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Russian Expedition 1918-1919

Why isn't this conflict listed? We lost almost 200 soldiers. One of them is buried in my local cemetery. Czolgolz 18:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] War in Bosnia 1992-1995

The US never took part in the war in Bosnia, which ended with the signing of the General Framework Agreement for Peace (more commonly known as the Dayton Peace Agreement) in Paris on December 14, 1995. In early 1996 the USA deployed troops in Bosnia and Hercegovina, i.e. after the cessation of hostilities. Pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1031 these peace-keeping troops were part of, and operated under the command of NATO. The multi-national force went by the names of IFOR (Implementation FORce) and Operation Joint Endeavour; it was operational from 20 Dec. 1995 - 20 Dec. 1996, when its UN mandate ran out. Pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1088, the operation was continued as SFOR (Stabilisation FORce); it was gradually scaled down to its present 7,000 soldiers, who come from both NATO and non-NATO countries. While SFOR is operational until the present day, the USA withdrew its forces from the multinational force between 1998 and 2001.

Domovina 01:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)domovina

[edit] Total deaths as a percentage of the U.S. population

How about a table ranking the wars by the percentage of the U.S. population killed in the war? I think I read somewhere that the Revolutionary War then becomes the bloodiest war in U.S. history. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is addressed in the table several sections above, which hasn't yet been completed or moved to the article. As a percentage of population, the Revolutionary War ranks second behind the Civil War, but was much deadlier than the world wars. —Kevin Myers 16:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There is something wrong with the deaths as a percentage of population calculations for the Vietnam and Korean Wars. They are off by a factor of 10 or so. I didn't bother to look up the actual 1970 US population, but let's estimate it at 220 million. 58,151/220,000,000 gives me a death rate of 0.026% of the population. I don't feel confident enough to make changes on a Wiki page anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.60.222 (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New references

An IP user has added a lot of lesser known conflicts, such as cold war deployments. Great info, however the reference seems to only include Naval and Marine personel. Could someone clean this up a little? Czolgolz (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additional US War Casualites

  • North Korea {Cold War} 1959:1968-1969;1976;1984 killed 41; Wounded 5; 82 captured/released.[1]
  • USS Liberty incident 1967 killed 34; Wounded 173
  • Vietnam War prior to 1964-US Casualites were Laos-2 killed in 1954 see [2]; Vietnam-195 killed {70 killed + 125 non hostile actions} from 1956-1963. See [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.100 (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the dates for the Vietnam War should be changed on the table, as there were US casualties before 1964. Czolgolz (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the start date of the Vietnam War to 1957, to concide with the first dates on the War memorial. I'd appreciate feedback. http://www.virtualwall.org/iPanels.htm Czolgolz (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Correct Errors

"Dead as % of population" figures for Vietnam & Korea are wrong ... too low by about a factor of 10 ???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.119.168 (talk) 03:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of presidents and their parties

I really dont' think this is necessary, especially the party. Also, President Bush is not technically a 'junior' since he does not have the same name as his father. I really think such a major change needs to be discussed. Czolgolz (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)