US soldiers safer than the rest of us?

[sunnyside]

As part of my job I'm starting to get into determining acceptable levels of risk for different industrial things.

Anyway the basic premise is that we are not Q who are immortal unless killed by some bizarre Q weaponry. We are, sadly, fairly fragile bags of red goo.

The basis for assessing what risk is considered acceptable is based off of the average chance of a 35 year old man to die that year, which for the US/UK is about 2 in a 1000. That drops to 1 in a 1000 if they started the year without any existing medical conditions.

The "tolerance" for risk in the populace seems to be about at that level. I.e. the riskier jobs like being a logger or deep sea fisherman run at about 1 death on the job per 1000 workers per year. When risk gets much higher than that, people seem to make different choices in work or hobbies.

So I decided to run the numbers for the US armed forces in Iraq. Taking the troop levels over the different years and total casualties, I get that risk for someone deployed is about 4.4 per 1000. So that's higher risk than people would like.

However except for maybe some elite troops much of the military rotates in and out, or gets lucky and spends the whole time on a destroyer or in Germany. Spreading the numbers for Afghanistan and Iraq over the whole armed forces, plus a little rounding up to account for odd deaths here and there, gives an occupational risk during wartime at or under .33 deaths per 1000 per year, which is less than a number of professions.

The bit where I say they might be "safer" is that those death totals likely include things like helicopter crashes and whatnot, whereas usual occupational safety numbers don't include getting hit by someone talking on their cell phone while driving to work. Additionally most of the extra 1 in 1000 risk of dying from existing medical conditions are due to life choices like living a sedentary lifestyle, substance abuse, poor diet, etc etc etc. So what I'm saying is that having to go on runs and whatnot on a regular basis may outweigh the chance of getting deployed and killed, such that the average US service member is, even now, more likely to make it through the year than someone not in the armed forces.

[Aaron]

So what are the figures for the actual Army and Marines, rather then the lump sum of the four. The Navy and the Air Force have it far safer.

[sunnyside]

So what are the figures for the actual Army and Marines, rather then the lump sum of the four. The Navy and the Air Force have it far safer.

I dunno. If you can find the numbers I could run 'em for you.

Though I'm betting the highest risk groups are volunteer. As in they deliberatly choose to join units or special forces so that they'd have a better chance of spending more time up to their eyeballs in the poop. Arguably that applies to the entire Marine Corp. I don't know if they even get paid more. They just get to shoot at more insurgents/Talban/Al Queda/etc.

That's another thing about risk. People on average won't tolerate all that much increased risk from "work", but than there is a subset of the population that'll go rock climbing, driving around in a little sporty car, do some X, or all sorts of stuff like that if that's what they want to do.

[Sionnach Glic]

I'd not be surprised that the Air Force an Navy has a low rate. They're, for the most part, not getting in harm's way. The guys on the ground, however, are going to have a high rate.

[Tsukiyumi]

I'd not be surprised that the Air Force an Navy has a low rate. They're, for the most part, not getting in harm's way. The guys on the ground, however, are going to have a high rate.

Marines probably account for a substantial percentage.

I'd like to see the figures for that, actually, but I have no idea where to look.

[sunnyside]

Marines probably account for a substantial percentage.

I'd like to see the figures for that, actually, but I have no idea where to look.

Fine. I poked around the web to find casualties by branch in Iraq, extrapolated for Afganistan plus some extra, and than divided the risk per year per servies. Note again that these numbers include more than on the job risk numbers. Basically if you're deployed and you die they count you as a casualty even if it's suicide or appendicitus. So these numbers are closer to overall risk (which for the average 35 year old male in the US is 1.8 in 1000 per year to die). Though they aren't quite overal risk, for that I'd need to know how many servicemembers died back in the states of this that and the other.

Anyway Marines do come out worse than the others at 1 in 1000.

Army does a better with .66 per 1000

Navy and airforce almost lose more to accidents and illness type stuff than enemy action, coming in at .057 navy and .035 airforce per 1000 per year. I bet they're safer than the rest of us by a fair margin.

[Tsukiyumi]

...I bet they're safer than the rest of us by a fair margin.

Safer than the average person, I agree.

[Mikey]

I see a fundamental, though not especially large, flaw in this analysis. You are considering the average civilian to have a demonstrated increased risk of death if a preexisting serious medical condition exists - like diabetes, to use an example I know well. Now, my diabetes won't kill me this year directly; but, I could suffer a wound and die from gangrene; I could require resultant tisky medical procedures; I could suffer secondary nephritis or acidosis; I could have a hypoglycemic reaction while driving; etc., etc. Now, here's the rub; this qualifier - people who have this type of preexisting condition - is removed when you consider the military. You can't serve with that kind of condition.