5 ms·

Can anyone please explain why it is necessary to identify the precise remains of the dead, especially those that died so long ago? It seems like a waste of time

Can anyone please explain why it is necessary to identify the precise remains of the dead, especially those that died so long ago? It seems like a waste of time and resources, driven by a compulsive over-expression of sentiment. In the case of the article, the man died over fifty years ago, and they even have the luxury of knowing where and how he died, shouldn't that be closure enough? Should taxpayers really be funding a staff of 500 for this? I can think of many better allocations for $100,000,000.

nn3 13y ago
Agreed. Sounds like a big waste of tax dollars.
- 001sky 13y ago
  Like prosecuting murderers? That CSI don't come for free. There is a reason society makes un-economic promises to victims of crime and casualties of War. They are not too dis-dimilar when you think about it.
  - robryk 13y ago
    I don't see how these compare: prosecuting murderers is supposed to prevent them from murdering again and, more importantly, discourage other people from murder. What is the parallel effect of proper burial of war casualties?
    - 001sky 13y ago
      The families of the victims in both cases. The notion that justice (& dignity) outweigh the bean-counting. It is sort of parallel to insurance in that regards. The victims of crime and war are a small minority, and the rest of society makes small sacrafices on their behalf. If you look at the average cost of a gallon of gas delivered into Afghanistan, it is 100x markup, two orders of magnitude beyond "reasonable". http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204903804577080613427403928 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405297020490380...
hartror 13y ago
It is part of the promise your country makes to you and your family as part of you going to war. You know if you are deployed and subsequently killed you know that your country will make every reasonable effort to return your remains to your loved ones. Seems a minor cost compared to a life, or thousands of lives.
- aaron695 13y ago
  Actually I would imagine anyone who is not dumb or suicidally depressed would prefer their country spent that money on themselves not dying. So to me, letting soldiers/people die because resources are instead being spent on people who passed away 50 years ago is not a minor cost.
  - kiiski 13y ago
    US military budget is, what, ~$700 billion? I don't think a $100 million is going to improve anyones odds of survival if spent on equipment/research/something else, but it can have a big effect on morale if the soldiers know they wont be just abandoned and forgotten if things go badly.
moogleii 13y ago
Wow, really just throwing those words around, huh? Luxury, closure enough, compulsive over-expression. But if this isn't a troll comment, a simple first pass analysis would lead you to something similar to 001sky's conclusion.
chongli 13y ago
Proper burial is one of the oldest elements of our culture. We have evidence that it may even predate our species. That said, you are right that $100,000,000 is an absurd amount of resources for this.

nn3 13y ago

Agreed. Sounds like a big waste of tax dollars.

001sky 13y ago
Like prosecuting murderers? That CSI don't come for free. There is a reason society makes un-economic promises to victims of crime and casualties of War. They are not too dis-dimilar when you think about it.
- robryk 13y ago
  I don't see how these compare: prosecuting murderers is supposed to prevent them from murdering again and, more importantly, discourage other people from murder. What is the parallel effect of proper burial of war casualties?
  - 001sky 13y ago
    The families of the victims in both cases. The notion that justice (& dignity) outweigh the bean-counting. It is sort of parallel to insurance in that regards. The victims of crime and war are a small minority, and the rest of society makes small sacrafices on their behalf. If you look at the average cost of a gallon of gas delivered into Afghanistan, it is 100x markup, two orders of magnitude beyond "reasonable". http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204903804577080613427403928 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405297020490380...

hartror 13y ago

It is part of the promise your country makes to you and your family as part of you going to war. You know if you are deployed and subsequently killed you know that your country will make every reasonable effort to return your remains to your loved ones. Seems a minor cost compared to a life, or thousands of lives.

aaron695 13y ago
Actually I would imagine anyone who is not dumb or suicidally depressed would prefer their country spent that money on themselves not dying. So to me, letting soldiers/people die because resources are instead being spent on people who passed away 50 years ago is not a minor cost.
- kiiski 13y ago
  US military budget is, what, ~$700 billion? I don't think a $100 million is going to improve anyones odds of survival if spent on equipment/research/something else, but it can have a big effect on morale if the soldiers know they wont be just abandoned and forgotten if things go badly.

moogleii 13y ago

Wow, really just throwing those words around, huh? Luxury, closure enough, compulsive over-expression. But if this isn't a troll comment, a simple first pass analysis would lead you to something similar to 001sky's conclusion.

chongli 13y ago

Proper burial is one of the oldest elements of our culture. We have evidence that it may even predate our species. That said, you are right that $100,000,000 is an absurd amount of resources for this.