Saving private Three

[Skybird]

http://www.itv.com/News/Articles/Saving-Jason-Hubbard.html

Many ways in which to look at this.

[Tchocky]

That's very, very depressing.

[CCIP]

Quite the stuff this family's made of. Notice how the two brothers went in after the first one was killed. I mean it in a good way to say "they were asking for it". Real heroes, sad ending.

[bigboywooly]

Wow


Under the US military "sole survivor" policy, the last remaining sibling in a war zone can ask to return home when his brothers or sisters have been killed.

The regulations are designed to spare parents losing all their children to war.

The US War Department introduced the policy after five siblings, the Sullivan brothers, died when their light cruiser the USS Juneau was sunk in the Second World War.

[bradclark1]

That's very, very depressing. Why? They all volunteered. They knew the risks.

[Letum]

That's very, very depressing. Why? They all volunteered. They knew the risks.


You know the risks of crossing the road.
That does not mean it is not a tradgedy if you get run over.

[Tchocky]

That's very, very depressing.Why? They all volunteered. They knew the risks.I'm trying to put myself in his shoes. I can't do this with much success, as I've only one brother to imagine blown up or dead under a helicopter.

Most days I read about soldiers dying or being wounded and it goes in one ear and out the other. Not so here.

[JALU3]

Allow him to continue to serve . . . there are sufficient stateside billets for him to fill.

[bradclark1]

You know the risks of crossing the road.
That does not mean it is not a tradgedy if you get run over.
If I knew the cars would be aiming for me and I still decided to cross I accepted the risk. That isn't tragedy, it's a calculated risk.

I'm trying to put myself in his shoes. I can't do this with much success, as I've only one brother to imagine blown up or dead under a helicopter.

I'm not being callous. I can understand why the brothers joined up but they understood the risks, especially if they were combat arms. There is nothing to feel depressed about. They volunteered. Have a drink to celebrate their life not mourn their loss. They died doing what they wanted to do.

[Safe-Keeper]

If I knew the cars would be aiming for me and I still decided to cross I accepted the risk.Right. And of course crossing the road is not risky if the cars don't aim for you.

Losing a loved one is tragic, losing a family member is worse, and losing two long before they're meant to die must be fairly Hellish. No matter how much they 'knew the risks'.

The US War Department introduced the policy after five siblings, the Sullivan brothers, died when their light cruiser the USS Juneau was sunk in the Second World War.Did the Navy also realize it might not be such a good idea to put all the siblings of a family on the same ship:nope:?

[bradclark1]

Right. And of course crossing the road is not risky if the cars don't aim for you.
There is more risk when they are aiming to hit you.

No matter how much they 'knew the risks'.
They went to war. War is killing. They didn't join the Boy Scouts and go to a Jamboree and have a tragic accident. They joined an army and went to a war. Tragedy would be if they didn't have a choice, if they didn't want to join the army and they didn't want to be in Iraq.

Did the Navy also realize it might not be such a good idea to put all the siblings of a family on the same ship:nope:?
If you researched the Sullivan's you would find they wanted to be on the same ship. You would also find that they were encouraged to split but they made the decision to stick together.
These brothers were not in the same unit and they didn't die at the same time.

[fatty]

Right. And of course crossing the road is not risky if the cars don't aim for you.
There is more risk when they are aiming to hit you.


But on the other hand, there's a very small risk that both brothers, out of the entire coalition occupation forces, would be the ones to die. It's been a while since I've taken stats, but I think that risk is 1/168,000 multiplied by 1/168,000. It's pretty darned unlucky and pretty darned sad.

[bookworm_020]

The US War Department introduced the policy after five siblings, the Sullivan brothers, died when their light cruiser the USS Juneau was sunk in the Second World War.


They named a destroyer after them. It was also mentioned in the movie Svaing Private Ryan.

Tough on the the family to lose the two sons. Will the survivor be given a state side posting (A.K.A. desk job) or will he be given a discharge??

[The Avon Lady]

My cousin Frankie (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longislandlife/ny-lfcov26,0,3632390.story).

I had to wipe away the tears.

[JALU3]

Right. And of course crossing the road is not risky if the cars don't aim for you.
There is more risk when they are aiming to hit you.


But on the other hand, there's a very small risk that both brothers, out of the entire coalition occupation forces, would be the ones to die. It's been a while since I've taken stats, but I think that risk is 1/168,000 multiplied by 1/168,000. It's pretty darned unlucky and pretty darned sad.

I once wrote a thread, somewhere, I forget, on another board, that looked at the statistical chances of death while a servicemember in the US Armed Forces . . . The statistical risk of death per 100,000 (staticians average) was higher then national rate of homicide but lower then say dying in an auto collision.

And depending on the occupation there are other, and some more hazardous, jobs outside of the military with the same fatality rate.

I need to look this up, as I wrote it up a year ago, and can't find it . . . give me time.

[fatty]

Right. And of course crossing the road is not risky if the cars don't aim for you.
There is more risk when they are aiming to hit you.


But on the other hand, there's a very small risk that both brothers, out of the entire coalition occupation forces, would be the ones to die. It's been a while since I've taken stats, but I think that risk is 1/168,000 multiplied by 1/168,000. It's pretty darned unlucky and pretty darned sad.

I once wrote a thread, somewhere, I forget, on another board, that looked at the statistical chances of death while a servicemember in the US Armed Forces . . . The statistical risk of death per 100,000 (staticians average) was higher then national rate of homicide but lower then say dying in an auto collision.

And depending on the occupation there are other, and some more hazardous, jobs outside of the military with the same fatality rate.

I need to look this up, as I wrote it up a year ago, and can't find it . . . give me time.

That would be interesting to know, but I just wanted to make clear that I was assuming that the deaths of any two coalition soldiers were already given, as if God came down and said "okay, I'm going to choose two random soldiers to take up to heaven." If we have 168,000 coalition servicemen/women (source: wiki) and assume that one must die. Out of brother X and Y, each brother has a 1 in 168,000 chance of being the one to die. If brother X dies and another death becomes inevitable, then brother Y has another 1 in 168,000 chance of dying. But because brother X already died, you encounter compound probability and must multiply the odds like I said, since it relies on the first condition of brother X's death to be fulfilled. So the chances of two men from the same family dying is about 1 in 28,224,000,000. On the other hand, the chances of a third brother dying is a further 1 in 168,000 - bringing you to a pretty slim 1 in 4,741,632,000,000,000.

It's also possible I don't know anything.

[Iceman]

You know the risks of crossing the road.
That does not mean it is not a tradgedy if you get run over.
If I knew the cars would be aiming for me and I still decided to cross I accepted the risk. That isn't tragedy, it's a calculated risk.

I'm trying to put myself in his shoes. I can't do this with much success, as I've only one brother to imagine blown up or dead under a helicopter.

I'm not being callous. I can understand why the brothers joined up but they understood the risks, especially if they were combat arms. There is nothing to feel depressed about. They volunteered. Have a drink to celebrate their life not mourn their loss. They died doing what they wanted to do.
Amen

[Wim Libaers]

That would be interesting to know, but I just wanted to make clear that I was assuming that the deaths of any two coalition soldiers were already given, as if God came down and said "okay, I'm going to choose two random soldiers to take up to heaven." If we have 168,000 coalition servicemen/women (source: wiki) and assume that one must die. Out of brother X and Y, each brother has a 1 in 168,000 chance of being the one to die. If brother X dies and another death becomes inevitable, then brother Y has another 1 in 168,000 chance of dying. But because brother X already died, you encounter compound probability and must multiply the odds like I said, since it relies on the first condition of brother X's death to be fulfilled. So the chances of two men from the same family dying is about 1 in 28,224,000,000. On the other hand, the chances of a third brother dying is a further 1 in 168,000 - bringing you to a pretty slim 1 in 4,741,632,000,000,000.

It's also possible I don't know anything.

Yes, but that doesn't mean the other guy would be safe now. His chance of dying is still 168,000, which is also the chance that all three brothers die if you know that 2 of the three are already dead.

[Heibges]

This kind of thing has happened many times in the history of the United States Army.

Remember, before the rise of the Regular Army after WWII, most of our fighting in big wars was done by National Guardsman. Those units were filled with fathers, sons, brothers, and cousins etc. National Guard units continue to have family members in them. This is especially true of those Guard units in more rural areas. And since many Guard units evolved from local militia units, this has been true for a long time.

I was in the same Guard unit, that my father was in during WWII. And during the Civil War, this same unit was one of the most feared in the Union Army. The Georgia Legislature voted to dig a trench around Vermont and let if float out to sea.

[JALU3]

Right. And of course crossing the road is not risky if the cars don't aim for you.
There is more risk when they are aiming to hit you.


But on the other hand, there's a very small risk that both brothers, out of the entire coalition occupation forces, would be the ones to die. It's been a while since I've taken stats, but I think that risk is 1/168,000 multiplied by 1/168,000. It's pretty darned unlucky and pretty darned sad.

I once wrote a thread, somewhere, I forget, on another board, that looked at the statistical chances of death while a servicemember in the US Armed Forces . . . The statistical risk of death per 100,000 (staticians average) was higher then national rate of homicide but lower then say dying in an auto collision.

And depending on the occupation there are other, and some more hazardous, jobs outside of the military with the same fatality rate.

I need to look this up, as I wrote it up a year ago, and can't find it . . . give me time.

OK, Found some interesting articles and links:

Here are the results (as of AUG2006):

3.92 per 1000, is the Mortality/Fatality Rate for Servicemembers serving within the Nation-State of Iraq.
8.42 per 1000, is the Mortality/Fatality Rate for the general population
29.2 per 100000, is the Mortality/Fatality Rate for Farming/Fishing/Forestry workers
4.7 per 100000, is the Mortality/Fatality Rate for Servicemembers.Here are the links which I found this information at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/25/AR2006082500940.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922494.html
http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0005.pdf

And slighty off topic . . . here is an article in support of quikclot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuikClot):
http://www.engineering.ucsb.edu/articles/life_saving_sand
This and other things have reduced the (http://www.usaisr.amedd.army.mil/gwot/Combat%20Casualty%20Care%20Statistics.pdf) fatality rate of injured soldiers compared to in past conflicts (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49566-2004Dec8.html).