Don't forget the unknown unknowns. There's always cost-benefit analysis (no matter how flawed) done by people who decide to enlist. But you can't account for leaders blatantly lying to you about what is and isn't safe: agent orange, proximity to constantly running burn pits, Lejeune's water toxicity, "shaking off" PTSD symptoms, etc.

> Of course they had a choice to join.

Really? <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Russia#Late_So... "The late Soviet Armed Forces were manned by mandatory draft (with some exceptions) for all able-bodied males for 2 years (3 years for seagoing parts of the Navy and Border troops), based on the 1967 Law on Universal Military Service"

I'm unclear from the article whether this was discontinued in 1989, but chernobyl was 1986 so that's moot.

No. Full stop. Your initial comment suggested that choosing to join the military implied that a long-drawn out death due to radiation poisoning was "a choice", as its written.

Now you're trying to deflect and act like I'm arguing about whether or not conscription existed, which is nowhere near the point I was countering.

Slow down, I think it's crossed wires. I'm not suggesting that they chose a nasty death by rad poisoning, I'm saying that a military career is risky in many aspects, war being being what it is. The military tend to get used for other risky things as well.

> Now you're trying to deflect and act like I'm arguing about whether or not conscription existed

I thought you were saying they had a choice to join up, I said they certainly didn't. I guess I misunderstood your point. No offence.

I think we're in violent agreement. My apologies.