And what does this have to do with China? The article does not make the connection.

&&04;nstead  to mess  with  the  proxy war  at  overseas , US should  pay  more  attention   neighbour on the continent.

Plus  China  huge  country  has  no problem  with  man  force  espaecialy  with  the  mentality .

Tactical war  with  China will cost  huge  humanitarian  price for  Chinese whic  Beijin doesnot care.

Better  to  support democratic  opponents in China.

Help   Taiwan  and  Phillipines be  ally each  other  againts  China.

Wrong way of evaluating 'effectiveness' of hegemonic power.

 

It's not 'how many that were killed' on our side, but on the other side.

 

It seems the more we killed, or as result of our mil.activity, (i.e. Iraqi and Afghan deaths), the less our 'credibility' as world's cop.

   

   You've got that right Vahi!  Thanks!  I only wish our own bone-headed greybeard strategists were as wise.  Instead of meeting them toe to toe with massed armies on the Asian mainland,  We should loudly denouce their horrific human rights policies.  Overtly and Covertly support democratic dissidents inside and outside of China, especially in their rebellious provinces such as Tibet and western, even muslim, ones, then forming a government-in-exile to take over when the China Commies do fall.   As you suggest, we should vigorously support a coalition of freedom-loving and willing allies  on the periphery, such a Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Philipines,  SouthVeitnam and even North Vietnam,who maintains historic deep-seated grudges against the Chinese, Australia, and others.

KIA from DNBI (Disease Non-Battle Injury) was higher in past conflicts. Also the techniques and equipment to treat wounds all changed over the course of those wars. Even an injury that would result in a KIA in 2003 was savable in 2007. We were able to save limbs more often later on and had surgery closer to the point of injury. Medevac time
improved too.

AF Medic

I think the article would have been more reflective of the situation in China if it had addressed the social consequences of a high casualty rates upon China's "one-child" society.   I have not seen this issue addressed anywhere else in analytical journals, or websites. 

 

Can the Chinese people really be expected to support a war (or at least not protest it) that costs them the lives of their only Male heir?    As it currently stands, the one-child policy merges two family lineages (that of the mother, and that of the father) into one.    So when a Chinese soldier dies, it represents the elimination of both of those family lines.   And those grieving parents will likely be too old to have another child.

 

When the brutal reality of losing thousands of Chinese sons (ie: historical family lineages) to some politically driven resource war over S. China Oil/NG hits home, it's hard to believe it would not undermine the political control of the power elite in Bejing.. 

 

It would be interesting to see Strategy Page's writers address this in a future article.. 

1. Learn physics and chemistry. Your description of how protective systems work is just STUPID.

 

2. Listen less to the voices in your head and use your senses more. Eyes and ears open, mouth shut. That's how you learn.

 

3. Superficial understanding (in this case not even superficial) is worse than total ignorance.

 

===============================================

 

Now to Reactive...

 

4. Best data you can take from this article is that of the million or so troops rotated over and over into region, some 57,090 have been hurt or killed, a large % MAIMED permanently.  That 5.71% casualties is NOT as low as some people think it is. It doesn't count the mentally ill as a result of combat. Nor the long term physical incapacity incurred by men and women running around too long with too much weight on their backs we will have to treat. That might push the casualty rate up a few points?

 

War is expensive in that most precious human capital, our bravest, our smartest, our best. 

 

I'd rather we didn't make war since it is so wasteful, but if we must make war? Think a different way.

 

I'm a bit of a Darwinist, Reactive. I would send the dumbest FIRST.

 

B.