There was a time when America could wage wars and sustain 50,000 or more casualties without severe domestic opposition. Not any more, as even 2000 hostile deaths in Iraq has caused many Americans to be demoralized from the seemingly immense body count. Our technological and economic progress has caused our society to rightly place a premium on human life, but in order to preserve our society, we still need to wage brutal wars. Thus, market forces demand innovations that reduce US troop deaths even further.
Accordingly, the Pentagon has provided $51 million for research towards the development of an ultrasound tourniquet that can stop the loss of blood from major wounds in as little as 30 seconds, and thus reduce troop deaths from guerilla/terrorist tactics (like those in Iraq) by over 50% by 2011 (Article : MIT Technology Review).
When the tourniquet is wrapped around a wounded limb or torso, it emits ultrasound beams that detect ruptured blood vessels and induce rapid clotting to seal them. This buys the wounded soldier enough time to be carried to an equipped medical facility, where previously he would often have died of blood loss before reaching the facility. Once at the emergeny room, his chances of survival continue to be higher than before from targetted sealing of severed arteries and veins. Thus, the damage from all but the most severe wounds can be greatly reduced.
The implications of this are immense. In Iraq, the majority of US troop deaths are from improvised explosive devices (IEDs), where shrapnel often inflicts fatal wounds. Additionally, for each troop killed, eight are wounded. This device could reduce such deaths by half or more, and even help the wounded return to action in a much shorter time. At the same time, none of our opponents would have such a technology, further widening the power gap between an elite US force and a terrorist cell. Eventually, this could become a medical device available in hospitals for civilian use, reducing the deaths from automobile accidents and gunshot wounds significantly, provided an ambulance arrives in time.
Such a tourniquet will not be available to the US military in an easily usable form for another 5 years, but when it is, US military effectiveness in the War on Terror will be increased dramatically, as will the willingness of the US public to engage in continued military activity. When our troops become harder to kill from mere IEDs and gunshot wounds, non-uniformed terrorists and insurgents will be blunted even further.
The willingness of a nation's people to sustain war deaths is directly related to importance they place on the conflict and the wisdom of the war's leadership. A war of no vital national interests being led by nitwits is simply not worth the investment a whole lot of patriotic blood.
Any technology that saves lives is positive, but I would also like us to choose our conflicts more wisely.
Posted by: KnightErrant | July 28, 2006 at 11:14 AM
In general, yes, almost everyone would agree.
For example, I don't think it is worth even one US life to intervene in Darfur, Rwanda, or Somalia. I also don't think North Korea is enough of a threat to justify a US invasion. The countries nearer to there have more skin in the game than we do.
However, things are trending in a way that may leave us no choice but a full-scale invasion of Iran. Many analysts say this would cost 4000 US casualties in 2 years, now that our military is much more experienced from our Iraq operations. If innovations such as this one reduce the 4000 to 2000, that makes the equation that much easier.
Posted by: GK | July 28, 2006 at 11:20 AM
Posted by: | June 26, 2007 at 04:47 AM