They don't even make the list, obviously. The majority of the military is non combat for every branch, and only a small minority is deployed at any particular time. This isn't WW2, soldiers rarely die.
Over the 8 years of the Iraq war 4.5k US soldiers died out of 1.4 million troops (300k deployed). That's 40 per 100k, compared to 97 for pilots, 64 for metalworkers, and 46 for taxi drivers.
The list in op is for the current year. The number of troops killed this year was far lower than any point during the Iraq war, and they don't come anywhere near the top of the list.
Without doing any research, I'm guessing it's one of two possibilities:
- They're not in the top 25 because death rate among soldiers is low overall. The vast majority of soldiers are clerks, mechanics, and other support personnel, many of whom will never even deploy. Of those who do, many will spend their time on a large base in minimal danger. Those who are in danger from combat and IEDs are those who venture outside the base frequently (infantry, drivers, combat engineers, etc). These are a small fraction of what would be considered "soldiers" on a list like this, which brings the overall mortality rate down significantly.
- This list doesn't account for soldiers at all because, to put it bluntly, calculating this for the military is a pain in the ass. Doing it properly would likely require an entirely separate and more detailed study and breakdown of the data. One reason is because of the variance in jobs. Another is because the danger varies wildly depending on whether we're actually in a war. Being an infantryman during WWII, Vietnam, or in a place like Fallujah circa 2004 was risky business. Right now, not so much. It's worth noting that the military has its own government-funded life insurance program (SGLI) rather than contracting it out to a civilian agency. I suspect this is because no civilian insurers are willing deal with the unpredictability.
"{REDACTED}, age 31, was injured during training at Naval Air Station North Island, Calif., when an auxiliary fuel tank fell off the HH-60H Sea Hawk helicopter he was inspecting. Clement and another sailor were struck by the tank. {REDACTED} died from head injuries sustained in the accident."
I think the rate of death and injury where they weren't back to work in a couple of days for US troops in Iraq was a bit less than 2 in 100. *
Note that most soldiers work in supply, administration, artillery, cooking, running the mail system, and things like that, and aren't exposed to any combat at all at any point in the careers.
I can imagine refuse collector being more dangerous than that.
* Death and Injury Rates of U.S. Military Personnel in Iraq , Goldberg, 2010
I don't think it's helpful to say police don't actually have a dangerous job. It is perhaps helpful to consider other HNer comments like "You couldn't pay me enough to be a cop". That might explain the pay difference.
More importantly, the entire framing is the problem. As soon as you're looking for reasons to cut officers slack, you're on the wrong side. Being a police officer should have at least the same seriousness, responsibility, training, & consequences (if not more) as being a lawyer, judge, doctor, etc. Probably more since they have greater training and capability to end a life and put themselves in such situations more frequently (& often instigate/escalate such situations whether through their own actions or their association with police).