Well, not really definition, but I didn't know what other word to use. The Australian soldier thread made me think of this, but I didn't want to derail that thread. Not to reduce the value of a single life, but does anyone else find it amazing that we now measure casualties in the single digits in war? I mean, one soldier injured or dying is a huge story (as it should be, under the circumstances). This was also true in the Gulf War, although most of the deaths were friendly fire, I believe. It scares me to think how the public will react today if we were to get into a battle with hundreds or thousands of deaths. It's easy to go to war when its basically just the other side dying, and I wonder how much America has been conditioned to believe war is easy and/or relatively painless (which it has admittedly has been in the last couple of conflicts we've had).
While I understand where you are coming from I don't think you are taking into account the way we look at numbers. I'm sure you've heard of the quote: "one death is a tragedy, 100,000 deaths are a statistic". I think that is likely to be true in case of a war. In other words, while the public would obviously not be happy about 20,000 deaths I don't think it would be as much of a blow as you seem to think it might. You also have to take into account whether or not the war is perceived as just or necessary. 20,000 deaths in Vietnam is different than if 20,000 had died invading Afganistan (in my opinion).
