I’m not Skald, so I’m not going to do a big story. This presupposes you’d join the military. The facts are these: you’re in the military and your unit is called upon to go to Africa and help with the Ebola containment effort. What do you do?
StG
I go to Africa and help with the ebola containment effort.
I am a soldier and I have been given a legitimate order by my legitimate superior. I have only one option.
Go. Why not?
Now if I have to shoot suspected Ebola carriers, that may bring ethical concerns, but that is not the given hypothetical.
I suppose I’d have to make a pass at my commanding officer.
And this is somehow more dangerous/scary than going into a zone where people are actively using weapons to try to kill you? If I’m a soldier, there’s a reasonable expectation that I could be sent into harm’s way – I don’t think Ebola is inherently a bigger threat to a soldier than guns or explosives.
I wouldn’t be thrilled about the assignment, but I have to figure that the soldiers are going to be pretty closely monitored for exposure and have access to immediate top-level care and experimental drugs if they are exposed. So off I would go.
My husband (who is former military) told me last night that given a choice between being sent to West Africa to help with the epidemic or to Syria to fight ISIS, he’d take Syria. Why? Because you can at least see who is enemy is.
Given no choice, he’d of course go where he was told. Because that’s what you sign up for when you join. I’d do the same.
I answered glad to help.
I would quality that: I’m not so glad to help that I’d outright volunteer. However, if I was ordered to go, then I’d go and be pleased to do my duty.
It’s a shame you’re not Skald, though. Athena can do wonders with Ebola, and I’m starting to get hungry for some lunch. 
I’d go. It would suck, but it’s not my place to choose.
I might hope that someone helps me out with a quick death if I start showing symptoms though.
Military action usually involves killing mostly the “bad” guys.
An Ebola assignment might end up with you having to kill sick or panicked people if the situation went tits up.
The later would bother me much more.
I’d go. Former soldier, medic, USAR.
The fatality rate isn’t 100%, it’s rather lower. Still worth fighting to survive through.
Of course I’d go. In my experience the platoon, if not the entire company, is tighter than family. The thought of letting them go someplace nasty without me to do my bit would be beyond shameful. There would not be epihets for ‘coward’ strong enough to describe such a betrayal.
No need for mercy kills either. That only comes when an alien face-hugger has done its dirty deed.
Risk to ones person is part of the job for a soldier, whether it’s by ebola or an IED. So if I’d signed up I would be foolish to think I’d be the one soldier who could get a sick note when battle comes, one imagines the military weeds those types out.
I’d feel the opposite. Ebola does not transmit through the air, but bullets do.
For someone with immediate modern medical care, its probably less than 50%. Kinda silly to off yourself with those odds of survival. Plus why dying off Ebola doesn’t seem like fun, it doesn’t seem like a super-agonizing or drawn out death compared to other things, especially in a hospital. Hardly worth killing yourself to avoid.
I’d be kinda happy to be deployed to help out with Ebola. The actual risk to a serviceman seems pretty small, and I think I’d feel happier about helping people fight a deadly disease then I would about dropping bombs on a bunch of Arabs I’d never met.
Wouldn’t you be wearing an NBC suit if you in a zone where risk of infection is high? Hazmat suits are cheaper than soldiers, after all, so as a soldier you might be safer against ebola in a your MOPP Level 4 gear than you would be against bullets and explosions in a regular combat zone.
Were I still in the Seabees, I’d probably be there. That’s who they’re sending to build the medical facilities. The news refers to all military as “soldiers” for some stupid reason.