@Grahor you're so far disjoint with the real world it's amusing.
Point 1: the younger population are in general more fit, making them more suitable for the physically demanding conscription. There's also health benefits and educational points during conscription that are better utilized on the younger population rather than the old.
Point 2: the conscription is training, during a war you'll require everyone with training. Going 40+ you're limited to 40-65, beyond that and they're mostly old and useless. picking the young ones, and suddenly you have 20-65 as the total age range. Significantly larger portion of the population with basic training.
Point 3: younger people are less settled down, making it significantly easier to remove them from society for a year. Both because they're not economically supporting families, and because you won't require thousands of temporary 1 year positions requiring higher specialised skills.
Point 4: the "bloody point" of conscription is to have soldiers with basic training available should Sweden be attacked. You won't have time to train soldiers for a year when you're under attack. Your logic is equivalent to complaining about having any military at all, since you're not currently being invaded. Everyone with more than half a brain see the benefits...
0
@Grahor you're so far disjoint with the real world it's amusing.
Point 1: the younger population are in general more fit, making them more suitable for the physically demanding conscription. There's also health benefits and educational points during conscription that are better utilized on the younger population rather than the old.
Point 2: the conscription is training, during a war you'll require everyone with training. Going 40+ you're limited to 40-65, beyond that and they're mostly old and useless. picking the young ones, and suddenly you have 20-65 as the total age range. Significantly larger portion of the population with basic training.
Point 3: younger people are less settled down, making it significantly easier to remove them from society for a year. Both because they're not economically supporting families, and because you won't require thousands of temporary 1 year positions requiring higher specialised skills.
Point 4: the "bloody point" of conscription is to have soldiers with basic training available should Sweden be attacked. You won't have time to train soldiers for a year when you're under attack. Your logic is equivalent to complaining about having any military at all, since you're not currently being invaded. Everyone with more than half a brain see the benefits...