The vast majority of people who play sports have fun and don’t receive a dime for it. A majority of people who get something of monetary value out of playing sports get a college degree and nothing else.
I don’t have good numbers, but it’s likely less dangerous than you think it is. The vast majority of what an infantryman does falls into two categories—training, and waiting. And that’s a boots on ground, rifle in hand category—there’s a bunch of rear-echelon ratings as well.
I’m guessing that it’s likely within an order of magnitude of danger as commuting to work. Likely safer than delivering pizzas. There’s probably a lot of variance between specific job descriptions—a drone operator based in the continental US is going to have a lot less occupational risk than the guy doing explosive ordnance disposal.
From what I’ve read, a couple of the issues for drone pilots is that they’ve been killing people who they’ve been watching for a while, and that they feel personal responsibility if they fail to protect American soldiers.
In the year 1940, working as an enlisted member of the army supply chain was probably safer than not being in the army whatsoever—regular Joes got drafted.
Besides which, the geographical situation of the US means that a symmetrical war is largely going to be an air/sea sort of deal. Canada’s effectively part of the US in economic and mutual-defense terms, and Mexico isn’t much help either. Mexico doesn’t have the geographical and industrial resources to go toe-to-toe with the US on their own, the border is a bunch of hostile desert, and getting supplies into Mexico past the US navy and air force is problematic.
Yes, and in particular it’ll involve enemy drones. Drone operators are likely to be specifically targeted.
That makes them safer, ironically. If your command knows that you’re likely to be targeted and your contributions are important to the war effort, they’ll take efforts to protect you. Stuff you down a really deep hole and pipe in data and logistical support. They probably won’t let you leave, either, which means you can’t get unlucky and eat a drone strike while you’re enjoying a day in the park.
You’re at elevated risk of being caught in nuclear or orbital kinetic bombardment, though… but if the war gets to that stage your goose is cooked regardless of what job you have.
Another bonus of enlisting: basic skills will be drilled into so thoroughly they will be fully into your System I allowing you extra executive function (thereby causing you to punch above your weight in terms of intelligence). Although, there is some ethical risk involved.
Another bonus of enlisting: basic skills will be drilled into so thoroughly they will be fully into your System I allowing you extra executive function.
But are physically OK, play sports and/or enlist (US-centric).
The vast majority of people who play sports have fun and don’t receive a dime for it. A majority of people who get something of monetary value out of playing sports get a college degree and nothing else.
I agree with the US army part though.
I think the US army is very physically dangerous, and furthermore might be considered a negative to world-welfare, depending on your politics.
I don’t have good numbers, but it’s likely less dangerous than you think it is. The vast majority of what an infantryman does falls into two categories—training, and waiting. And that’s a boots on ground, rifle in hand category—there’s a bunch of rear-echelon ratings as well.
I’m guessing that it’s likely within an order of magnitude of danger as commuting to work. Likely safer than delivering pizzas. There’s probably a lot of variance between specific job descriptions—a drone operator based in the continental US is going to have a lot less occupational risk than the guy doing explosive ordnance disposal.
How many people I’d be calmly killing every day? I’d have massive PTSD if I were a drone operator.
From what I’ve read, a couple of the issues for drone pilots is that they’ve been killing people who they’ve been watching for a while, and that they feel personal responsibility if they fail to protect American soldiers.
By a strange coincidence (unless you saw it and thus had it on your mind) today’s SMBC is about exactly this.
Well, I don’t have statistics about that, but accounts from WWII bomber crews suggest otherwise.
Maybe they were just really good at screening out applicants who would have been likely to get PTSD.
AFAIK, people only started understanding PTSD after Vietnam and it wasn’t even called that until the 1980s, so possibly not.
Up until the US gets involved in something resembling a symmetrical war. Of course in that case it’s possible no job will be safe.
In the year 1940, working as an enlisted member of the army supply chain was probably safer than not being in the army whatsoever—regular Joes got drafted.
Besides which, the geographical situation of the US means that a symmetrical war is largely going to be an air/sea sort of deal. Canada’s effectively part of the US in economic and mutual-defense terms, and Mexico isn’t much help either. Mexico doesn’t have the geographical and industrial resources to go toe-to-toe with the US on their own, the border is a bunch of hostile desert, and getting supplies into Mexico past the US navy and air force is problematic.
Yes, and in particular it’ll involve enemy drones. Drone operators are likely to be specifically targeted.
That makes them safer, ironically. If your command knows that you’re likely to be targeted and your contributions are important to the war effort, they’ll take efforts to protect you. Stuff you down a really deep hole and pipe in data and logistical support. They probably won’t let you leave, either, which means you can’t get unlucky and eat a drone strike while you’re enjoying a day in the park.
You’re at elevated risk of being caught in nuclear or orbital kinetic bombardment, though… but if the war gets to that stage your goose is cooked regardless of what job you have.
Another bonus of enlisting: basic skills will be drilled into so thoroughly they will be fully into your System I allowing you extra executive function (thereby causing you to punch above your weight in terms of intelligence). Although, there is some ethical risk involved.
Evidence?