A few raw statistics, to add fuel to whatever flames want it:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...oif-chart2.gifhttp://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../oif-chart.gif

Total number of US "named dead" (confirmed dead): 977

Total number reported dead, pending family notification: 35

Total number of wounded (combat and non-combat): 6937

Total number of non-combat injury evacuations: 4416

Total number of disease evacuations: 7347

Totalled up, these numbers represent aproximately 19,700 active duty soldiers removed from the theatre of operations in iraq over a span of 534 days... an average of just under 37 per day, with around 15/day from injuries sustained as a result of hostile/non-hostile fire.

By comparison, the average death rate across the vietnam campaign is 2/day now vs. 26/day in vietnam (1/13th fatality rate). However, it's good to point out that today's combattant has substantially improved armor which yeilds a much higher survival rate for injuries that, in the vietnam era, would most certainly have been fatal. It's therefore more useful to compare casualties vs casualties: 15/day vs. 94.5/day (Vietnam servicemen suffering 6.3x times the casualties of those in iraq).

The charts show a potential trend upwards in injuries. If, for instance, september yeilds similar numbers to august, casualties rates would increase to an average of over 16/day, bringing the differential in casualties up to about 1/5.8 that of vietnam. Obviously, such trends of violence escalation would quickly bring the rates of those serving in iraq into parity, due to the comparitive shortness of the Iraq conflict vs. that of Vietnam.

Sources:

Global Security's U.S. Casualties in Iraq statistics
Iraq Coalition Casualty Count
WHS OSD Vietnam Casualty Summary

thanks for that info

I heard about one on the news the other day that had a heart attack after he was called up and deployed.

Anyways, based on those numbers, it would appear that, if current losses are maintained, just under 15,000 new recuits per year would have to be trained and deployed to maintain current operational levels. There are no easily available statistics on recruitment levels, but I'm sure these numbers are in no small way affecting the increased intensity of on-campus recruitment and, of course, the infamous stop-loss and recall orders of honorably discharged servicepeople.

I'd say that a draft will depend on if, and if so how quickly, they can stem the flow of casualties and (surprisingly) disease amongst the in-country personell.

I'd also suggest that the cost of providing for the training of these replacements, and the cost for the care and provision of the evacuated wounded, will be substantial. There's an old addage in times of war: "Killing the enemy takes out one opponent. Wounding an enemy takes out one, plus two to carry him to the rear." Time will tell how well VA funding weathers the blessings of increased protection.

no

here'smy little twist on this.

while i don't have an opinion on whether there will be a draft, i believe there will be an unforseen problem if it is reinstated, namely the problem of female soldiers.

will they draft the girls too? will girls sue to be included in the draft? will the draft be considered sexually discriminatory?

Re-instating the draft would be political suicide - so, while a few lunatic leaders might support it, there won't be enough votes to make it happen. Hypothetically, even if it did, there wouldn't be enough prisons or guards to force consequences on all those who refused.

Besides, we'll never invade a country that has nukes. In the near future, that'll be prettymuch every potential enemy.

The only war with China will be a trade war, which we can't win. They will be the economic superpower of the next century.

Soon the Islamic states will join together collectively, under the umbrella of a nuclear arsenal, and the USA won't have shit to say about the price of oil anymore.
Also at that point, to avoid nuclear war, we'll have to step back from the Israel dispute and let 'em sort it out themsevles; whatever the consequences.

We're going to have to get used to not being "#1" anymore. We'll still be one of several strong nations, just not the only one. The USA will no longer have the luxury of ignoring the UN.

If we have pragmatic rational leaders who can practice effective diplomacy, then things really won't be that bad. Mutually Assured Destruction worked okay in the 80's. But if we end up with another 'Dubbya' . . . then maybe the world goes BOOM.

::shrug:: whatever, we're all dead sooner or later anyway, then none of this matters.

I think you're right on this one... there's still enough bad feeling about the last draft (at least, amongst the people not privilaged or connected enough to dodge it) that a draft this time would be considered a serious infraction on civil rights.

An ugly thought, but probably true... at least to a certain extent. I doubt many countries would develop a nuclear capability of substantial proportions enough to inflict damage anywhere in the world they wanted, but even short range balistics can cause a world when tipped with 20 megatonnes. Still, never say never. Remember that Nixon mulled the possibility of a limited nuclear exchange, and by today's standards he'd be farther left than Clinton!

China's weakness is its need for energy. If they can develop domestic energy production to the point where they're not dependant on OPEC or US hegemonic puppets, they will be very difficult to defeat economically. It's no great surprise that they've been building pebble-bed nuclear reactors all across the country, with an eye to produce as much as 75% of their energy needs by those means.

I can't see this happening unless some extraordinary circumstances, or an extraordinary person, brings them together.

There is a certain wistfulness amongst arabs that another "Saladin" rises up, a militant religous icon that unites all the followers of islam under his banner and brings them into a new golden age. A cult of personality like Osama bin Laden could pull it off if unification were his genuine goal, but so far noone has stepped up into the role and OBL only evokes that imagery in a cynical fashion.

However, an extreme act by a 'loose canon', say Israel deciding to bomb iran's nuclear development facilities, could be a trigger that would cause such an overwhelming tide of anger against zionism that it'd break the barriers of nationalism and sectism... at least long enough to ride roughshod all over israel. There'd be a lot of additional fallout as well; an event like this would surely trigger the popular uprising heralding end of the house of Saud.

Assuming the avoidance is desirable to whomever was in power at the time. See above about Nixon.

I don't think that the US will drop into medocrity easily. It'll slowly lose dominance in one area, then another, then another. Some things they'll never lose. This is all highly speculative, of course. I *would* suggest that the culture of mindless consumerism will have to come to a halt for all but the richest elite.

I don't think the black and white, good guy vs. bad guy pseudo-view of the world from the 50s would be applicable in this scenario. There's going to be several "power blocs", each with their own power bases and alliances. Nuke exchanges would probably fuck up the world fairly substantial, but it wouldn't be that total destruction thing like back in the day. Of course, as a result it'd make the situation much less stable.

One thing I'll be interested in finding out is how the US will deal with the end of oil. Considering all domestic agriculture and commerce is heavily dependant on petroleum, the potential for catastrophe is large.

If there's a draft, there could very well be a revolution in the US. If there's a systematic refusal to join the army, what could the Washington elite do about it? Authorize the use of force? The government would be overthrown by an angry mob.

50

Unless you've already been elected to your 2nd term and your VP never has intentions of running. Really there's nothing to stop him from doing anything other than possible damage to the GOP.