Military staff face unique challenges, both in terms of occupational injuries during combat and training as well as exposure to environmental hazards when stationed in high-risk areas. These challenges can lead to a myriad of consequences, ranging from physical and mental stress to life-threatening conditions and enduring disabilities [1,2].

While the term “disability” generally refers to impairments that hinder one’s ability to perform everyday activities and interact with the world, it is worth noting that this can encompass challenges in areas such as communication, hearing, learning, mental health, and social engagement. Though it might be tempting to view all individuals with disabilities under a single umbrella, it is crucial to understand the diverse needs and origins of these impairments. For example, the challenges and experiences faced by military service members may differ significantly from those of civilians, emphasizing the importance of specialized care and understanding for this subset of the population. Further research could shed light on these nuanced differences and the unique needs of our military community [3,4].

Evidence of these distinct challenges comes from comparisons between civilian and military patients [5]. For example, military burn patients from Iraq and Afghanistan displayed more severe injuries in terms of total body surface area but had lower mortality rates. Notably, they had more blast trauma-related injuries, pointing to both a different injury pattern and the benefits of better pre-injury physical conditioning and efficient logistics in the military healthcare system [6,7]. The nature of injuries, like traumatic brain injury (TBI), also varies between military veterans and civilians, underscoring the importance of tailored care [8,9].

Regardless of origin, the management of disabilities—whether from birth or occupational exposure, like in military service members—is multifaceted. It spans activity limitation, impairment, and participation restrictions [3,4]. The World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) offers a framework to understand and classify these dimensions, providing tools for assessing overall health and function [4].

From the above discussion, it is evident that military personnel encounter distinct medical challenges necessitating specialized care immediately post-injury and for long-term management. This is further complicated by the integration of military personnel and veterans into civilian healthcare systems, especially in countries with dual healthcare structures. In contrast, Sweden provides a unique example where a single healthcare system serves both civilians and military personnel [10,11,12].

Military personnel are susceptible to a wide range of battlefield injuries and medical conditions. These can include shrapnel and gunshot wounds, limb amputations, and traumatic head and brain injuries sustained during combat. Additionally, many suffer from tinnitus and hearing loss due to noise exposure, as well as sprains, strains, and limited range of motion—particularly in the ankles and knees—resulting from strenuous exercises and missions in challenging environments [37,38].

The rate and type of injuries in warfare have evolved, reflecting shifts in combat strategies and technologies. While both urban warfare and armored warfare have been integral components of military strategy since WWII, their prevalence and the contexts in which they are employed have varied. For instance, the Battle of Bachmut in 2014 in Ukraine showcased the intricacies of urban warfare. Concurrently, various campaigns have highlighted the nuances of armored warfare. Recent analyses from the war science literature illustrate these shifts and their implications for military health [2]. This shift has been bolstered by the integration of advanced technologies, such as drones [39]. While not entirely novel, these technologies have revolutionized modern conflict dynamics. The increasing targeting and involvement of civilians in conflicts, as evidenced in wars such as WWII, Vietnam, and more recent conflicts in Sudan, challenges traditional estimation methods. This trend underscores a concerning deviation from or neglect of the principles outlined in international humanitarian law. Numerous reports and studies have highlighted how conflict parties have frequently disregarded these principles, leading to dire consequences for civilian populations [40,41]. Furthermore, the emergence of hybrid warfare—a blend of conventional, irregular, and cyber warfare tactics, often combined with measures to influence public opinion and political policies—has revolutionized modern conflicts. This transformation underscores the need for a comprehensive approach to assessing not only physical casualties but also the mental health repercussions that arise from such multifaceted combat scenarios. This change demands not only rigorous analysis but also continuous monitoring of military healthcare requirements and casualty records [24,42,43].

2.2. Environmental Exposure and Impacts