200 points•wslh•12 days ago•139 comments•

139 comments

bitcurious12 days ago
> The newspaper also reported, citing another unidentified official, that not all of the undisclosed deaths were directly tied to the months-long conflict but involved US personnel who were in the Middle East amid ongoing hostilities.

If someone dies near a war, but not due to the war, is it really fair to count them as a war fatality?

lukan12 days ago
If they are killed by houthi drones and not iranian drones, I would think so.

If someone on a military base with no attacks going on, got a heart attack by watching the news, probably not a war fatality.

But we don't know, so any concrete speculation is probably not very helpful.

AnotherGoodName12 days ago
To get more specific this often means 'suicide' which absolutely is a casualty of war given the strain of war conditions, especially given the logistics concerns and duration of tours that they are forcing right now.
throw0101a12 days ago
> If someone on a military base with no attacks going on, got a heart attack by watching the news, probably not a war fatality.

Were they at that base as a (say) mechanic servicing aircraft engines for flights over the Persian Gulf? Are the only reasons why the planes (and thus him) are there is because of the hostilities with Iran, as otherwise they would be States-side?

runako12 days ago
"With Covid, not of Covid," but for military casualties. One does see something new every day.
Retric12 days ago
There’s often more ambiguity than that. “Died of a COVID linked complication with COVID and other issue that is also linked to that complication.” You can’t spend endless resources deciding if something is or isn’t responsible.

Systems use arbitrary buckets like if someone commits suicide in less than six months from coming home after a war might count it, while excluding every case after six months. That’s going to misclassify cases in both directions but means you don’t need to track millions of people for decades or look through mental health details.

Obviously people with more data to work with can make a convincing case you’re wrong, but higher levels accuracy get expensive. In the end we know more than 1 million Americans died of COVID for example, how many more isn’t precisely known but ~1 million is plenty useful for decision making around the next pandemic.

lokar12 days ago
It's routinely written and recounted that for most wars in history more people died from disease than combat. But we still count them all as war deaths.
iugtmkbdfil83412 days ago
I will admit that after today's CNN report and subsequent CNN ban, I wondered why he is so annoyed. And now it makes more sense.
lukan12 days ago
Might be also that AI slob screw up, that allmost lead to armed confrontation with china: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/09/18/politics/us-military-ai-f...
mandeepj12 days ago
If Congress can get its act together, it can clearly tell this lunatic to fall in line and start performing according to his Job description, otherwise boot him out. But there's no chance they are going to do it.

They politicized fallen heroes from the Afghanisation withdrawal for their campaign time during RNC 2024. Current events clearly show they don't give a F about anything but themselves.

senectus112 days ago
who cares?

no seriously.. who cares?

the administration sure doesnt, such cavlier attitudes to their own constituents is astounding.

shadowtree12 days ago
Zero service members died in our just announced de facto annexation of Greenland.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/18/us/politics/trump-greenla...

ceejayoz12 days ago
They probably just re-extended the existing treaty so he could call it a win.

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/04-806-Denm...

shadowtree12 days ago
"Among the agreed provisions is one stating the deal would not expire even if Greenland became an independent country in the future.

The official added that under the deal, the US has unilateral power to build additional military structures with no approval needed from Greenland or Denmark. It includes "permanent access, basing and overflights rights," the official said.

It also bans non-Nato countries from building bases in Greenland, and "bans adversaries from making investments in Greenland that could threaten the United States".

The official added that under the current status quo, adversaries have been allowed to invest in Greenland's "sensitive sectors without investment screening".

The official specifically referenced Russia and China, saying it blocks them from deploying troops or making investments in "sensitive sectors".

Without the official text being released, it is unclear how exactly the deal differs from a 1951 agreement with Denmark, under which the US can send as many troops as it wants to Greenland."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c63d7lexyym1o

krferriter12 days ago
Reading that it sounds like nothing is changing in terms of US military access to Greenland, and they’re essentially just reaffirming the existing agreement which provided broad and permanent US and NATO access to Greenland.

I think interacting with Trump is like interacting with a dementia patient who also is a malignant narcissistic and pathological liar, so I imagine Danish and US staffers had to find a way to frame the agreement to him that made it sound like he had gained something major, in order to get him to shut up about the issue and stop obsessing over his conquest ideas.

Read the full thread on Hacker News →

Related stories