Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Hakei wrote:
Number of people in army / How many people are killed as a direct injury from combat < Number of people who drive / How many people are killed as a direct injury from a car accident.
Your proportions are backwards.
It doesn't matter which is the greater chance, because you add the chances together. It's the chance of a random accidental death + the chance of getting actively shot at by assholes trying to kill you, not to mention the increased risk of just working around heavy machinery.
Joining the armed forces, particularly during wartime, is dangerous business. Trying to play with statistics to make it seem like it isn't is idiotic.
My point wasn't to give a statistical viewpoint on the chances of dying in the armed forces. I was simply saying that people overhype the chances of getting killed in the army. People still drive vehicles EVERY day and don't really factor in the chances of dying. Hence you shouldn't factor it as a major concern when weighing up your options of your life. Wartime? Now I'll play with staticistics...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ … _jun09.htmhttp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ … urrent.htm33% of the deaths in Iraq in the last two months have been due to non combat actions, 14 deaths in the last two months from combat. Wiki states there are at leath one million people in the American Army. (Not including air/Navy) So in a war time situation 0.4% of the American army has died as a result of wartime conflict in the last 6 years. That's not daily, that's in six years.
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Hakei wrote:
Spending 20 years in the army and getting killed as a result of defending your country?
...or die in the first 6 months of combat action.
Hakei wrote:
That isn't stupid. That's living your life and at the end of it being able to turn around and say "I did something, I saved someone, I influenced this, I will be remembered"
This is of course assuming you did something memorable, you did something just and worthwhile, and you didn't die like a dog in the road.
I think willing to risk your life for others is something memorable and is actually 'doing something'. And I think those people around you would have a lot more respect and remember you more if you died fighting for a cause than dying aged 80 after 65 years of sandwhich making. Not that it was even my point - I was assuming he'd not die in combat and was retired or whatever.
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I have much respect for the armed forces; I don't have a lot of respect for the adolescent reasons many choose to join them. War is not to be glorified.
Who was glorifying war? Who even mentioned war? The Army isn't just about war, nor is it about running out and getting shot, there are many jobs other than infantryman that exist if you think there is a higher risk of dying in these areas.
What reasons do you class as being adolescent? What reasons would you class as being mature? I'm failing to see your point; joining the army to die and hope someone will write a news article on you has never been a reason anyone has used. People join for different reasons, joining to protect others, get money, support family, carry on tradition, gain experience, skills, self esteem and career opportunities are all valid reasons - I'm not seeing what an adolescent reason is.