How many will die in the coming great depression?

shutting down the world to save 500,000 boomers

I saw stats that said the last great depression caused 7 million deaths.

The USA is constantly trying to teach Russia the “lessons of the holodomor”.

All seriousscientists, including American scientists state that the “UkrainianHolodomor” was not genocide and its “many millions of victims” arenothing more than a falsification. There was a famine in Ukraine in1932, but it was not intended. Except for war time, this was the onlyfamine in the entire history of the USSR.

In American history there exists another crime committed by thegovernment against its own people. This crime is the Great AmericanHolodomor of 1932/33, which resulted in the deaths of millions of UScitizens.

These public works usually involvedthe construction of canals, bridges and roads, quite often inunpopulated, swampy and malaria-ridden areas. Overall, between1933 and 1939, 8.5 million citizens (this number doesn’t includecriminals, who also had to do public works) have passed through theAmerican GULAG.

This American GULAG – the Public Works Administration was headed by the“American Beria” – the minister of internal affairs Harold LeClairIckes (1874-1952), [who organized the deportation of ethnic Japanese living in America into concentration camps in 1941/1942 – editor].In 1932 it was Ickes who ordered 2 million youths to be deported intoyouth work camps, where they were forced to live and do public works.

"The Great Depression of the 1930s, with its unusually

high unemployment rates, might well have become a de-

mographic disaster with rising infant mortality and non-

infant death rates and declining fertility throughout the

decade. The national aggregates show, however, that the

infant mortality rate stopped falling only temporarily in the

mid-1930s before continuing on a downward trend. The

non-infant death rate stayed on trend through the early

1930s and then rose above trend in the late 1930s, while the

general fertility rate fell below trend in the early 1930s

before leveling out in the late 1930s. What can explain these

puzzling patterns?

A key factor in the explanation of all three patterns is the

sharp increase in relief spending during the 1930s when the

federal government stepped in to combat the problems of

the unemployed and the poor. In essence, federal relief

spending provided a safety net for the unemployed and the

poor that contributed to a continuation of the long-term

decline in mortality rates for infants under age one, the

population most vulnerable to the effects of economic

downturns. Increased relief spending had little effect on the

overall non-infant death rate but contributed to reductions in

suicides, deaths due to infectious and parasitic diseases,

deaths from diarrheal diseases, and possibly homicides. The

relief costs associated with saving a life were similar to

modern estimates of the value of life in labor markets and

the cost of saving lives through Medicaid.

The effect of fluctuations in economic activity during the

1930s mimicked a pattern found by Ruhm (2000) for the

modern U.S. economy. The overall non-infant death rate

and the fatality rates for homicide rates, infectious and

parasitic diseases, cancers, degenerative diseases, and motor

vehicles all displayed procyclical patterns, falling when the

economy plunged and rising during the recoveries. A key

exception during the 1930s and the modern era was the

suicide rate, which tended to be countercyclical. The differ-

ences in how most of the specific death rates responded to

increases in relief and in general activity are indicative of

the different channels through which relief and general

improvements in the economy influenced death rates. This

finding should not be surprising given that relief was tar-

geted at lower-income and unemployed households while

improvements in general economic activity had widespread

effects.

Why do retards think shutting down the world to save 500,000 boomers is worth 14 million people dying over?

I saw stats that said the last great depression caused 7 million deaths.

<br>

“Leave No Man Behind” is a creed and ethos often repeated and adhered to by various units and soldiers. The interpretation of the phrase is applied to the treatment and extraction of the seriously wounded, the recovery of the body of military members killed in action, and the attempts to rescue or trade for prisoners of war. Despite being widely known and repeated in the U.S. Military, “leave no man behind” is not represented in any official military doctrine or publication. It is a culture of the armed services, which carries significant risk.

A recent article reported the Air Force’s recommended upgrade of Tech. Sergeant John Chapman’s Air Force Cross to the Medal of Honor for his actions during Operation Anaconda, an attempt to rescue Neil Roberts, a SEAL who had fallen from a helicopter after being struck by enemy fire.
The article highlights the decision of a Navy SEAL Chief, serving as the leader of the team that Sergeant Chapman was supporting, to withdraw from the mountain top position while under heavy enemy fire. The Chief believed that Sergeant Chapman had been killed, and made the decision to withdraw his team, which already had multiple wounded members.

The basis for this upgrade is drone imagery, improved by new technology to show a clearer feed of the actions occurring on the ground. The Air Force reports that Sergeant Chapman, despite being left behind and seriously wounded, can be seen continuing to provide suppressive fires for a helicopter attempting to insert a quick reaction force of Rangers, as well as engaging in close quarters combat with Al Qaeda fighters before ultimately being killed in action.

In total, seven troops were killed in this engagement, now referred to as the Battle of Roberts Ridge. Much of the criticism of this decision revolves around the principle of “leave no man behind.” Should troops go to such lengths to rescue fallen comrades, pulling additional resources and risking additional casualties?

The X’s and O’s Perspective – Rescue Mission with Strategic Implications

“Leave No Man Behind” is not based on the tactical necessity to recover the wounded or missing. It is a dangerous task to those troops undertaking it, potentially exposing themselves to ambush from an enemy who understands our cultural necessity to recover a comrade. Once that soldier is wounded or missing, he is no longer an asset to accomplishing a mission. In fact, he or she is a significant hindrance that takes combat power away from mission. Even more so, the decision to conduct a rescue or recovery mission can change policy and the face of a conflict.

There are numerous examples of the dangers associated in following “Leave No Man Behind.”

The Battle of Mogadishu is a well-known engagement, in which a Task Force was directed to capture an associate of the warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid. The shoot down of a task force helicopter and ensuing recovery efforts led to the death of eighteen U.S. soldiers, seventy-three wounded, and the capture of Warrant Officer Michael Durant following the crash landing of his helicopter.  The loss of life led to a policy change by the Clinton administration and the ultimate withdrawal of U.S. forces in Somalia.

In 1972, Captain Roger Locher was shot down over North Vietnamese territory during a major aerial operation to slow the transport of North Vietnamese Army troops and supplies into the south. Captain Locher was able to escape and evade capture for twenty-three days despite being far behind enemy lines. All units under the command of General John Vogt were ordered to stop operations (to include major bombing campaigns of Hanoi,) and focus on the rescue effort. Captain Locher was successfully recovered, after approximately 150 U.S. aircraft were redirected to find and rescue him

From a foreign military perspective, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) once utilized the “Hannibal Directive” as a policy for units and commanders when IDF soldiers have been captured or abducted.  It consisted of a massive procedure to bomb all possible escape routes, assuming the risk of killing the abducted soldier. Reports of the use of “Hannibal Directive” are controversial due to the high probability of collateral damage and IDF assumption that a soldier should rather be killed than captured. The last use of the directive is reported during the 2014 Israeli-Gaza incursion, when Lieutenant Hadar Goldin was believed to be captured, pulled into a Hamas tunnel system in the Gaza Strip. The use of the directive was criticized by the Israeli public and international community, and was heavily publicized by media outlets.

The implications of these examples have been significant in foreign policy (Somalia), operational objectives (aborted Hanoi bombing strike), and media coverage (Hannibal Directive) leading to public criticism.  They all stem from the reallocation of combat forces to aid in the rescue or recovery of personnel, despite the costs, under the culture of no man left behind.

Why It Matters

It is important to note what “Leave No Man Behind” means to those in uniform.

While not captured in doctrine, there are few things more reassuring to a soldier about to enter combat that his brothers and sisters in arms would spare nothing in attempts to get him back. To the families of those fallen, the catharsis of being able to bury their own cannot be overstated or even understood by those who have not been in that sad and unfortunate position.

As found by a study by the U.S. Army War College,  “Combat Motivation in Today’s Soldiers,” the motivations have not changed in war over time. They fight for one another, built through the bond of shared misery, loyalty, and love. It is not surprising then that soldiers would go to such lengths to never leave a man behind, despite the risks and possible failure.

In the case of the Navy SEAL Chief who made the decision to withdraw after believing Sergeant Chapman had succumbed to his wounds, his decision should not be controversial or criticized. He made a decision in the heat of intense enemy fire, with the knowledge at hand.  Gaining a birds eye view from a drone feed can be a significant asset, but it is a shameful prospect to criticize when enabled through replayed footage taken from thousands of feet overhead, many years after.

Ultimately, the responsibility lies with the commander on what he is willing to risk to ensure no man is left behind. It is a heavy burden, and may not be worth the loss of others in terms of mission accomplishment. These are decisions made in seconds, and will not be perfect.  It is an unenviable position, and one he or she will undoubtedly debate for a lifetime. 

I saw stats that said the last great depression caused 7 million deaths. The numbers from the Coronavirus deaths if we did nothing at worst would have been 1 million though more likely just a few hundred thousand. However we have shut down the economy meaning we will definitely be causing the next great depression by doing this. Adjusted for the increased population size, this means we will kill 14 million people with this shut down. Here is my question. why do retards think shutting down the world to save 500,000 boomers is worth 14 million people dying over?

You first have to understand that which constitutes a recession and depression. Recessions and Depressions are sustained periods of declining economic activity (usually they spananywhere from several months to perhaps a few years.) The silver lining is that the declining activity due to this Corona Virus "Pandemic" has nothing to do with Economic factors (e.g. overproduction, deflating asset prices. etc.) The standstill is government induced. When the government relinquishes its authority over these demonstrably ineffective "lockdows," the aforementioned should immediately correct. We'll undoubtedly face a recession. But I do not believe it likely that we'd have another Depression.

You are probably a rich kid...

false & ad-hom.  Your argument is that death caused by economic depression will far outweigh death by coronavirus. Your argument depends on false precedent: 7 million dead in Great Depression is fake news -anti-American propaganda from a hostile totalitarian expansionist state, in fact. Now you have zero evidence supporting your assertion that death from economic depression  will outweigh coronavirus death.  You can try some different fake news, or just give up on the unwarranted conclusion.  Even if it gets as bad as the Great Depression, we won’t be starving.  Even if it gets as bad as the Great Depression, we have already lost more to coronavirus thus year than to starvation throughout the 1930s

Oromagi gave the citation on his first post in this thread

It is not false or ad hominem it is insight into why you could give a shit less if die.