(no subject)

[technoir]

You know as I watch the death toll out of South asia climb it seems more and more surreal. The red cross is now calling for possible over a 100,000 dead.

to give you an idea Isreal which has been in a pretty much constant state of conflict since 1948 has a death toll due to that conflict of 65,000.(http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat4.htm)

You could roll a few of the us's armed conflicts together and still not reach that number.

Am I the only one having a hard time wraping his mind around this notion?

TechNoir

Comments

[lilisonna.livejournal.com]

In some ways, I have a hard time imagining it not being that large. Considering the area that it hit, it's almost surprising that so many people survived the disaster. 100,000 is a lot of people, but it's not a lot of people when you consider the populations of the countries involved and just how many of them live on the coast.

It's still a staggering number.

[twelveoaks.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the scale is unfathomable.

International Committee of the Red Cross / Red Crescent

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/section_helpicrc_personal_donation?OpenDocument

[gingererer.livejournal.com]

Of course, you could also lose that number in the casualty figures for just the first day of the Battle of the Somme, where Britain alone suffered 60,000 in one day. Ah, the horror that we call WWI.