Same for military? If not, why not? Same issues. Same risks. Actually, far worse risks.
Tho at times the police appear similar to military, the differences are massive. Police must be prepared for combat often rare and never experienced, however their roles on an everyday basis are maintaining of peace, resolution of conflicts by other means, enforcement of societal structural laws, assistance of others when needed, rescuing of people and animals from dangerous situations, first responders to interruptive horrors, and living with much more consistent stress as police always interact with the public. Most police serve for 15-20 years, a career.
The military, tho it may occasionally function as first responders, law enforcers, as in the case of National Guard units, is mostly segregate from the pubic, with the single role of combat and combat support as its raison d'être, with stress from those moments of combat and simulated combat as part of preparedness. The worst enemy for soldiers, boredom and repetitive tasks. Most soldiers serve 3-5 years, then move on to other careers, and the relative few who maintain military service careers tend to live very relatively unstressed lives. Some may argue an enclosed and separate socialist environment. An army cannot function with two leaders in contention. Which at times, is what a union representation comes to. The Russians learned, political officers usually got in the way of combat officers, and sustained much higher death rates during times of combat, early in combat actions, and not because they committed brave acts. As well, the roles of union representatives among military has been naturally coopted by NCO's whose job is to somewhat nurture the men for which they have responsibility.
The risks, other than maiming, injury and death during high stress moments, are not the same, and far less for military personnel. Both psychologically and physically. Especially today, where military personnel is not viewed as cannon fodder, and police are targeted daily.
