The American Civil War is the conflict with the largest number of American military fatalities in history. In fact, the Civil War's death toll is comparable to all other major wars combined, the deadliest of which were the World Wars, which have a combined death toll of more than 520,000 American fatalities. The ongoing series of conflicts and interventions in the Middle East and North Africa, collectively referred to as the War on Terror in the west, has a combined death toll of more than 7,000 for the U.S. military since 2001. Other records In terms of the number of deaths per day, the American Civil War is still at the top, with an average of 425 deaths per day, while the First and Second World Wars have averages of roughly 100 and 200 fatalities per day respectively. Technically, the costliest battle in U.S. military history was the Battle of Elsenborn Ridge, which was a part of the Battle of the Bulge in the Second World War, and saw upwards of 5,000 deaths over 10 days. However, the Battle of Gettysburg had more military fatalities of American soldiers, with almost 3,200 Union deaths and over 3,900 Confederate deaths, giving a combined total of more than 7,000. The Battle of Antietam is viewed as the bloodiest day in American military history, with over 3,600 combined fatalities and almost 23,000 total casualties on September 17, 1862. Revised Civil War figures For more than a century, the total death toll of the American Civil War was generally accepted to be around 620,000, a number which was first proposed by Union historians William F. Fox and Thomas L. Livermore in 1888. This number was calculated by using enlistment figures, battle reports, and census data, however many prominent historians since then have thought the number should be higher. In 2011, historian J. David Hacker conducted further investigations and claimed that the number was closer to 750,000 (and possibly as high as 850,000). While many Civil War historians agree that this is possible, and even likely, obtaining consistently accurate figures has proven to be impossible until now; both sides were poor at keeping detailed records throughout the war, and much of the Confederacy's records were lost by the war's end. Many Confederate widows also did not register their husbands death with the authorities, as they would have then been ineligible for benefits.

The United States military entered the Korean War in July 1950 and fought on the side of South Korea against the communist forces of North Korea and the People's Republic of China until August 1953. In total, the United States military would suffer almost 37,000 deaths through hostilities. Of these, servicemembers in the Army made up the vast majority of deaths (82.19 percent), with most of these being the result of soldiers being killed in action. A smaller number of marines and navy servicemembers were killed in Korea, with the majority also having been killed in action for these groups. For the United States Air Force, the composition of total deaths is quite different, as the majority of pilots killed during the conflict were declared dead after going missing in action. This likely reflects the fact that when an airplane was shot from the sky in battle, the remains of the pilots are not recoverable.

The Korean War was an international military conflict which lasted from June 1950 until July 1953, which pitted the communist forces of North Korea, the Soviet Union, and the People's Republic of China against South Korea and a U.S.-led UN force comprised of troops from over 20 additional countries. The war was the United States' first major military engagement of the Cold War, the period of rivalry and heightened tension between the world's two superpowers, the U.S. and Soviet Union. While the war was one of the deadliest in the Cold War and the 20th century in general, it resulted in a stalemate between the North and South, with the boundary between the two countries remaining to this day at the 38th parallel line. The two countries remain technically at war to the present day, as the South's dictator, Syngman Rhee, refused to sign the peace agreement which in practice ended the fighting in the war.

U.S. military deaths in Korea

The majority of U.S. military fatalities during the Korean War were battle deaths (63 percent), with a smaller number of deaths while missing (12 percent), deaths while captured (eight percent), or deaths from battle wounds (seven percent). In addition, around three percent of deaths were from airplane crashes which were not caused by hostile forces, with another seven percent dying of other causes unrelated to battle. In total around 36,000 U.S. military servicemembers were killed in Korea, out of a total of around 40,000 deaths for the UN forces combined. The war was the United States' second deadliest conflict of the Cold War, as well as its fifth deadliest ever, after the Vietnam War, World War I, World War II, and the Civil War.

Estimates for the total death count of the Second World War generally range somewhere between 70 and 85 million people. The Soviet Union suffered the highest number of fatalities of any single nation, with estimates mostly falling between 22 and 27 million deaths. China then suffered the second greatest, at around 20 million, although these figures are less certain and often overlap with the Chinese Civil War. Over 80 percent of all deaths were of those from Allied countries, and the majority of these were civilians. In contrast, 15 to 20 percent were among the Axis powers, and the majority of these were military deaths, as shown in the death ratios of Germany and Japan. Civilian deaths and atrocities It is believed that 60 to 67 percent of all deaths were civilian fatalities, largely resulting from war-related famine or disease, and war crimes or atrocities. Systematic genocide, extermination campaigns, and forced labor, particularly by the Germans, Japanese, and Soviets, led to the deaths of millions. In this regard, Nazi activities alone resulted in 17 million deaths, including six million Jews in what is now known as The Holocaust. Not only was the scale of the conflict larger than any that had come before, but the nature of and reasoning behind this loss make the Second World War stand out as one of the most devastating and cruelest conflicts in history. Problems with these statistics Although the war is considered by many to be the defining event of the 20th century, exact figures for death tolls have proven impossible to determine, for a variety of reasons. Countries such as the U.S. have fairly consistent estimates due to preserved military records and comparatively few civilian casualties, although figures still vary by source. For most of Europe, records are less accurate. Border fluctuations and the upheaval of the interwar period mean that pre-war records were already poor or non-existent for many regions. The rapid and chaotic nature of the war then meant that deaths could not be accurately recorded at the time, and mass displacement or forced relocation resulted in the deaths of many civilians outside of their homeland, which makes country-specific figures more difficult to find. Early estimates of the war’s fatalities were also taken at face value and formed the basis of many historical works; these were often very inaccurate, but the validity of the source means that the figures continue to be cited today, despite contrary evidence.

In comparison to Europe, estimate ranges are often greater across Asia, where populations were larger but pre-war data was in short supply. Many of the Asian countries with high death tolls were European colonies, and the actions of authorities in the metropoles, such as the diversion of resources from Asia to Europe, led to millions of deaths through famine and disease. Additionally, over one million African soldiers were drafted into Europe’s armies during the war, yet individual statistics are unavailable for most of these colonies or successor states (notably Algeria and Libya). Thousands of Asian and African military deaths went unrecorded or are included with European or Japanese figures, and there are no reliable figures for deaths of millions from countries across North Africa or East Asia. Additionally, many concentration camp records were destroyed, and such records in Africa and Asia were even sparser than in Europe. While the Second World War is one of the most studied academic topics of the past century, it is unlikely that we will ever have a clear number for the lives lost in the conflict.

Between 2003 and 2024, the annual number of civilian deaths due to the Iraq war has fluctuated significantly. As of July, there were 210 deaths in 2024. Civilian Deaths in the Iraq WarCivilian casualties are the deaths of non-military individuals as a result of military operations. The number of documented civilian deaths in the Iraq war peaked in 2006 at 29,526 casualties. Since then, the number had fallen to 4,162 casualties documented in the year 2011, and the number of casualties has been decreasing again since 2014. Due to the nature of the Iraq war and of war reporting, data cannot be considered exact. Many civilian deaths that occurred during the war in Iraq may remain unaccounted for. The Iraq war was launched in March 2003 upon the invasion of Iraq by U.S. forces. Eight years later, in December 2011, the U.S. formally declared an end to the Iraq war. From the start of the war in 2003 until September 30, 2015, it is estimated that the United States spent a total of over 819 billion US dollars on war costs in Iraq. This number includes funding requested by the President and appropriated by Congress, and accounts for both military and non-military spending. Spending was highest in 2008, that year over 142 billion US dollars were spent in Iraq by the United States government. As of 2022, around 6,561 U.S. active-duty military personnel were deployed in North Africa, the Near East, and South Asia. The number of US American soldiers killed in Iraq peaked in 2007 with just over nine hundred causalities. In the same year, there were over 25,000 civilian deaths in Iraq.

This special topic poll, conducted April 3, 2003, was undertaken to assess public opinion on the war against Iraq. Respondents were asked whether they approved of the way President George W. Bush was handling the presidency, whether they supported or opposed the war, how the war was going, how long the war would last, the chances that the United States would become bogged down in a drawn-out war in Iraq, and whether Bush, his advisors, and military leaders underestimated the difficulty of the war. Views were sought on whether the number of United States military casualties had been acceptable, whether additional military casualties were anticipated, whether the Iraqi resistance had been tougher or weaker than expected, whether efforts to avoid civilian casualties had been adequate, and whether the battle for control of Baghdad would be difficult or easy. Those polled were asked whether weapons of mass destruction must be found for the war to be justified. A series of questions addressed the illness known as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Topics covered whether respondents were concerned that they or someone in their family might catch SARS and whether they were more concerned that they or someone in their family might catch SARS or be a victim of a terrorist attack. Background information on respondents includes gender, and political party.

Throughout the period in which the United States was in an armed conflict with the Communist-led government and insurgency in Vietnam (referred to as the "Vietnam War" in the U.S. and the "Resistance War against the United States" in Vietnam), around 40 percent of the 8.7 million U.S. military service personnel were stationed in South-East Asia. Of these personnel in the theatre of war, around two percent were killed during the conflict.

This war was part of the wider Cold War of the second half of the 20th century, where the rivalry between the superpowers of the United States and Soviet Union dominated the post-World War II era. During this period the U.S. stationed much of its remaining five million service personnel outside of active conflict zones, especially in strategically important countries such as (West) Germany, South Korea, and Japan, in addition to those stationed at home.

Dramatic improvements in US military medicine have produced an equally dramatic shift in the kinds of battle casualties the US military has sustained in its most recent wars. Specifically, there has been a notable increase in the ratio of nonfatal to fatal casualties. Most studies of casualty aversion in the United States, however, have focused on fatal casualties. Using a series of survey experiments, I investigate whether respondents are equally sensitive to fatal and nonfatal casualties, differences between populations with and without close military ties, and whether views on casualties are conditioned by respondents’ level of knowledge about casualties or the individual costs of war they expect to incur. I find that, while the general public is generally insensitive to different types of casualties, respondents with close ties to the military are better able to distinguish among kinds of casualties. This advantage, however, is not due to respondents with close military ties being better informed about war casualties. Instead, those who bear the costs of war directly appear better able to distinguish among those costs.

Of the ten deadliest battles of the American Civil War, the Battle of Gettysburg in early July, 1863, was by far the most devastating battle of the war, claiming over 51 thousand casualties, of which 7 thousand were battle deaths. The Battles of Shiloh, Bull Run (Second), Antietam, Stones River and Chancellorsville all have very similar casualty counts, between 22.5 and 24 thousand casualties each, although it should be noted that the Battle of Antietam took place in a single day, and with 22,717 casualties it is the bloodiest day in U.S. history. The Battles of Chickamauga, the Wilderness and Spotsylvania, all had approximately 30 to 35 thousand casualties each, whereas the Siege of Vicksburg is the only entry on this list with less than 20 thousand casualties.

The United States military has a long history of ethnic minorities serving in its ranks, with black Americans having served as far back as the Revolutionary War. The Vietnam War took place during a period of changing race relations in the United States, with the Civil Rights Movement reaching its peak in the mid-1960s, and this too was reflected in the military. The Vietnam War was the first major conflict in which black and white troops were not formally segregated, however, discrimination did still occur with black soldiers reporting being subject to overt racism, being unjustly punished, and having fewer promotion opportunities than their white counterparts.

In the early phases of the war, black casualty rates were much higher than for other races and ethnicities, with some reports showing that black soldiers accounted for 25 percent of the casualties recorded in 1965. This declined substantially as the war progressed, however, the proportion of black service personnel among those fallen during the war was still disproportionately high, as black personnel comprised only 11 percent of the military during this era. A smaller number of other ethnic minorities were killed during the war, comprising two percent of the total.

This poll, conducted April 2-3, 2003, is part of a continuing series of monthly polls that solicit public opinion on political and social issues. Respondents were asked to give their opinions on President George W. Bush and his overall job performance, his handling of military action against Iraq, his administration's expectations of the outcome of military action against Iraq, and whether he was the primary decision- and policymaker concerning military action in Iraq. Respondents were also asked whether they thought Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was alive or dead, whether they thought the benefits of removing Saddam Hussein outweighed the economic and human costs, and whether he was involved in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, DC. Questions were asked about the likelihood of another terrorist attack in the United States, whether military action against Iraq was part of the war on terrorism, and whether the chances of another terrorist attack had been affected by military action in Iraq. Respondents were asked whether they approved of military action against Iraq, whether they were following the news coverage concerning Iraq, how they viewed media coverage of military action in Iraq, what their personal expectations of the outcome of military action were, how long they thought United States military personnel would be in Iraq, whether an appropriate amount of force was being used, what the probability of military and civilian casualties in Iraq was, how military action against Iraq would affect current and future relations with other Arab countries, and whether they or an immediate family member was a member of the United States military. Background variables include age, sex, ethnicity, political orientation, marital status, religious preference, and household income.

This poll, conducted October 25-28, 2001, is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the presidency and on a range of other political and social issues. Respondents were asked to give their opinions of President George W. Bush and his handling of the presidency, foreign policy, the economy, the war on terrorism, the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and the anthrax outbreaks, as well as their views on Congress and its handling of the anthrax outbreaks. Respondents were asked for their opinions on the direction the nation was headed, the state of the economy, the size of the federal government, whether the government wasted money, and whether they felt they could trust the federal government. A series of questions addressed the ongoing war on terrorism. Topics covered the goal of the war, whether the Bush administration had adequately explained the United States mission, and what the main goal should be, as well as whether respondents approved of the military attacks on Afghanistan. Those queried were asked whether they were confident that the United States government could capture/kill Osama bin Laden while maintaining the international alliance currently supporting their military efforts, how long they expected the attacks to last, whether this war was worth losing several thousand American troops, whether the United States should provide food and humanitarian aid to the people of Afghanistan, whether the military action would become more widespread, and whether those who opposed the operation should be permitted to hold protest marches and rallies. Respondent views were also sought on the political situation in the Middle East. Opinions were elicited on Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the reasons for the United States' problems in the region, whether respondents supported the establishment of a Palestinian homeland, whether their sympathies lay with Israel or the Arab nations, whether the United States had explained the war on terrorism to the Arab world, and whether Saudi Arabia was considered an ally of the United States. Regarding the anthrax attacks, respondents were asked how closely they had followed the news about the anthrax outbreaks, whether the government would be able to catch the people responsible, whether the government was sharing the right amount of information with the public, whether public health officials were right to discourage doctors from prescribing the drug Cipro unnecessarily, whether respondents were concerned about a biological/chemical attack where they lived, and whether they were confident in the government's ability to protect its citizens from such attacks. Respondents also described their reactions to the recent terrorist attacks, including whether they had experienced nervousness and/or sleeplessness, lost a substantial portion of their income and/or their job, canceled any scheduled trips, and whether they were now spending more time with family and friends. Additional questions addressed the topic of airline safety. Survey items focused on whether the federal government and the airline industry had done enough to improve airline safety and exactly who should be responsible for airport security personnel. In addition, respondents indicated whether they were rooting for the New York Yankees or the Arizona Diamondbacks to win the World Series. Background information on respondents includes age, gender, marital status, political party, religion, employment status, children in household, education, race, Hispanic descent, and household income.

As of March 2021, 11 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq in 2020. This is a decrease from a peak of 904 casualties in 2007.

Additional information on fatalities in the Iraq War

The invasion of Iraq by the United States and coalition forces in March 2003 saw the beginning of the Iraq War, a conflict that would continue beyond the end of the decade. Fatalities of American forces were highest in the first five years of conflict as soldiers grappled with the Al Qaeda as well as civil war between those groups seeking to fill the power vacuum left by the removal of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Casualties progressively decreased from 2008, in part due to attempts by Barack Obama who made the removal of troops from Iraq a central promise of this successful campaign to succeed George W. Bush. In 2013, the majority of Americans considered sending troops to fight in Iraq to be a mistake.

While the number of civilian deaths in the Iraq War was much higher, the trend of numbers decreasing from 2008 onward was in line with the trend for American solider losses. However, civilian deaths rose again from 2013 onward as Iraq returned to heavy conflict with Islamic State.

The high number of American fatalities in the first five years of the Iraq War could be seen as influencing the reluctance of the United States to commit ground troop support in the battle against Islamic State when the issue was discussed in 2015. Not only is the loss of life a tragedy in itself, but the political discourse in the United States surrounding the involvement of their troops in Middle Eastern conflicts has made further involvement unattractive to elected officials. However calls for further ground support are likely to continue as Iraq remained in the top five countries with the most terrorist attacks as of 2019.

The First World War saw the mobilization of more than 65 million soldiers, and the deaths of almost 15 million soldiers and civilians combined. Approximately 8.8 million of these deaths were of military personnel, while six million civilians died as a direct result of the war; mostly through hunger, disease and genocide. The German army suffered the highest number of military losses, totaling at more than two million men. Turkey had the highest civilian death count, largely due to the mass extermination of Armenians, as well as Greeks and Assyrians. Varying estimates suggest that Russia may have suffered the highest number of military and total fatalities in the First World War. However, this is complicated by the subsequent Russian Civil War and Russia's total specific to the First World War remains unclear to this day.

Proportional deaths In 1914, Central and Eastern Europe was largely divided between the empires of Austria-Hungary, Germany and Russia, while the smaller Balkan states had only emerged in prior decades with the decline of the Ottoman Empire. For these reasons, the major powers in the east were able to mobilize millions of men from across their territories, as Britain and France did with their own overseas colonies, and were able to utilize their superior manpower to rotate and replace soldiers, whereas smaller nations did not have this luxury. For example, total military losses for Romania and Serbia are around 12 percent of Germany's total military losses; however, as a share of their total mobilized forces these countries lost roughly 33 percent of their armies, compared to Germany's 15 percent mortality rate. The average mortality rate of all deployed soldiers in the war was around 14 percent.

Unclarity in the totals Despite ending over a century ago, the total number of deaths resulting from the First World War remains unclear. The impact of the Influenza pandemic of 1918, as well as various classifications of when or why fatalities occurred, has resulted in varying totals with differences ranging in the millions. Parallel conflicts, particularly the Russian Civil War, have also made it extremely difficult to define which conflicts the fatalities should be attributed to. Since 2012, the totals given by Hirschfeld et al in Brill's Encyclopedia of the First World War have been viewed by many in the historical community as the most reliable figures on the subject.

This interactive map commemorates Canada’s participation in armed conflicts at home and abroad by highlighting a sample of the many geographical features and places named for those that served our country. These commemorative geographical names help us remember war casualties, soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen, military leaders, and civilians recognized or decorated for outstanding acts of bravery and sacrifice in battle. These names also commemorate notable battles in which Canada participated, and Canadian military units, regiments, squadrons, and ships in which Canadians served. Federal, provincial and territorial members of the Geographical Names Board of Canada provided these commemorative names for the development of the map. Many more commemorative place names exist in Canada, and will be added in future releases of this evergreen interactive map. If you would like to contribute names to this project, please contact the Geographical Names Board of Canada Secretariat at Natural Resources Canada.

How does the design of military institutions affect who bears the costs of war? We answer this question by studying the transformative shift from segregated to integrated US military units during the Korean War. Combining new micro-level data on combat fatalities with archival data on the deployment and racial composition of military battalions, we show that Black and white soldiers died at similar rates under segregation. Qualitative and quantitative evidence provides one potential explanation for this counter-intuitive null finding: acute battlefield concerns necessitated deploying military units wherever soldiers were needed, regardless of their race. We next argue that the mid-war racial integration of units, which tied the fates of soldiers more closely together, should not alter the relative fatality rates. The evidence is consistent with this expectation. We finally demonstrate that, while aggregate fatality rates were equal across races, segregation enabled short-term casualty discrepancies. Under segregation there were high casualty periods for white units followed by high casualty periods for Black units. Integration eliminated this variability. The research note highlights how enshrining segregationist policies within militaries creates permissive conditions for either commander’s choices, or the dictates and variability of conflict, to shape who bears war’s costs.

What informs ordinary citizens' attitudes towards the use of force? Previous research identifies several key concerns in public opinion towards war, but does not directly evaluate the relative importance of these considerations. We articulate three distinct logics of war support—moral, legal and instrumental—and use an experimental survey with 3,000 U.S. respondents to test how ordinary citizens make trade-offs among multiple competing imperatives relevant for decision-making in war. Our design is the first to isolate to what extent substantive legal demands, instrumental military imperatives, and specific moral principles are reflected in respondents' preferences. Although all logics have some resonance, we find that respondents' preferences are remarkably consistent with several core demands of international law even though respondents are not told that the legality of the use of force is at stake. Only the imperative to minimize U.S. military casualties overwhelms both legal and moral demands.

The 20th century marked a new trend in the recording of war fatalities, where more attention was given to the impact of conflicts on civilian populations, and not just the military. During the Second World War, the extent of the atrocities committed, the large-scale bombing campaigns, and the various famines resulting from the war meant that the scope of the civilian death toll took place was unprecedented - the likes of which had never been seen before, or since. Almost two thirds of all deaths due to the Second World War were of civilians, yet the ratio of military to civilian deaths varied greatly by country. Many British dominions and the United States suffered little to no civilian deaths as they were not located in an active theater of war - civilian fatalities largely came from naval or aerial attacks (such as at Pearl Harbor). In contrast, there were several European colonies in the Asia-Pacific region where all, or at least 95 percent, of total fatalities were among civilians - some of these regions suffered millions of deaths due to famine and atrocities.

It is estimated that the Second World War was responsible for the deaths of approximately 3.76 percent of the world's population between 1939 and 1945. In 2022, where the world's population reached eight billion, this would be equal to the death of around 300 million people.

The region that experienced the largest loss of life relative to its population was the South Seas Mandate - these were former-German territories given to the Empire of Japan through the Treaty of Versailles following WWI, and they make up much of the present-day countries of the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, the Northern Mariana Islands (U.S. territory), and Palau. Due to the location and strategic importance of these islands, they were used by the Japanese as launching pads for their attacks on Pearl Harbor and in the South Pacific, while they were also taken as part of the Allies' island-hopping strategy in their counteroffensive against Japan. This came at a heavy cost for the local populations, a large share of whom were Japanese settlers who had moved there in the 1920s and 1930s. Exact figures for both pre-war populations and wartime losses fluctuate by source, however civilian losses in these islands were extremely high as the Japanese defenses resorted to more extreme measures in the war's final phase.

This poll is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the presidency and on a range of other political and social issues. Respondents were asked to give their opinions of President George W. Bush and his handling of the presidency, foreign policy, the economy, and the campaign against terrorism. Respondents were also asked for their views on whether the economy and jobs or terrorism and national security should be a higher priority, how the national economy was doing, and whether Congress was handling its job well. Opinions were elicited on how the United Nations was handling its job, whether the United States had too much, too little, or just the right amount of influence on the U.N., whether the United States should take the leading role in solving international conflicts or crises, whether it was okay to criticize the president's decisions on military issues and proposals on economic or other domestic issues, whether the United States should attack another country before it was attacked, if the United States had the right to attack if it was believed that another country might attack first, and if the United States should attack Iraq before waiting to be attacked or if an attack might occur. Respondents were asked how much they had heard about the possibility of military action against Iraq, whether the Bush administration clearly explained the United States position regarding this possibility, whether the respondent approved of military action against Iraq, whether military action should take place soon or if the United States should wait for the U.N., whether the United States should wait for support of its allies, and whether the United States should follow U.N. recommendations. Respondents were asked if they believed that the U.N. would be able to prevent Saddam Hussein from building or keeping weapons of mass destruction, and if the situation in Iraq would be resolved without fighting. In regard to Congress, respondents were asked whether President Bush should receive Congressional approval before taking military action, when Congress should vote on authorizing military action, and whether Congress had asked too many questions about President Bush's policy toward Iraq. Respondents were asked if the removal of Saddam Hussein from power was worth the potential loss of American lives, whether military action should take place if it meant substantial military casualties, whether respondents would favor military action if the war would last for several months or years, and whether military action in Iraq would increase or decrease the threat of terrorism. Other questions focused on whether respondents believed Iraq currently possessed weapons of mass destruction, whether they believed Iraq would use these weapons against the United States, whether they believed Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda members were responsible for the September 11 attacks, how successful military action in Iraq would be, what the likelihood of another terrorist attack in the next few months was, how confident they were in the ability of the United States to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, and whether the United States could claim victory over terrorism if bin Laden were not captured or killed. Respondents were asked for their opinions on how well the war in Afghanistan was going, whether the United States should concentrate on bin Laden and al Qaeda or on Iraq, whether bin Laden or Saddam Hussein was a greater threat, and what they thought about fighting wars both in Afghanistan and Iraq. Finally, respondents were asked about their political party preference, whether they had investments, whether they had voted and for whom in the presidential election of 2000, and what their political views were. Background information on respondents includes marital status, religious preference, education, age, Hispanic descent,ethnicity, income, and whether or not other phone lines were in the home.