I apologize for this short diary. I did the calculations and could think of no way to make a meaningful diary as so many here are able to do.
I got all the figures for the three wars from wikipedia.
I decided to use the combined figures of KIA+MIA+Wounded to represent the total casualties of each. The Korean War was the shortest and bloodiest of the three, taking 1125 days to produce 131 casualties per day. Nam was the longest and second bloodiest, taking 3375 days and producing 63 casualties per day. For all the thunder and lightning on KOS about supporting the troops, Afghanistan and Iraq are currently 2220 days and has a mere 15 casualties per day.
Now I did a combat tour in Korea and I am sure as hell not casting slurs at any of the troops. I am sure that the individual soldier has had the same heroic valor, fear and longing for home in all three.
The figures tell me, I hope I am wrong, that there seems not to have been enough time currently to produce the rebelliousness we saw in NAM. Additionally not enough neighborhoods are seeing casualties often enough to keep their ire up. They get a poll telephone call and tell the pollster they are against the war then return to the tv, satisfied they have fulfilled their civic duty.
As further evidence of this theory, Korea was by far the bloodiest, but in my local paper I don't think it ever made the front page. One factor which may be on our side is the cost of the war. Korea cost a mere 59 billion in three yrs and one month. Even inflation cannot account for the differential. Maybe year end 401 statements will produce action
note: before anyone gets out of their seat, I took the liberty of assuming Nam took 3 times Korea in length. It is hard to find a start.