@Grahor Are you suggesting nobody in the age bracket 40-60 who make the policy have children that would be affected by the policy, or are they all as heartless as to willingly sacrifice their kids in your views? I've pointed out logical reasons as to why 20 year olds are better suited than 40 year olds, who make the policy don't affect that.
The point of conscription isn't a professional army, it's basic training such that in a crisis, a few weeks of refreshing would bring them back to acceptable levels, rather than a year of initial training. For everything that isn't a crisis, the fulltime soldiers will do the job. It's not sustainable to have the equivalent of all that will be conscripted over a few years as fulltime soldiers, hence conscription is the best way to strenghten the military.
Going by the 20.000 fulltime and 4.000 conscripts mentioned elsewhere, after 5 years, you'd have 20.000 fulltime soldiers and 20.000 civillians with basic training in the event of a crisis. If they were to work fulltime, you'd likely have around 22.000 fulltime soldiers due to how their salaries are more expensive than that of the conscripts. Surely you'd agree that 20.000+20.000 is better than 22.000+0?
Since the conscription for all practical purposes are vulunteer based due to the capacity limitation, half your complaints are irrelevant. Heck, if you just lied on a check "can you swim 200m" here in Norway (likely very comparable to Sweden), you wouldn't be conscripted. Along with things such as being a pacifist or doing higher education, you're pretty safe if you didn't want to conscript.
However, many do want to join. Since it builds character through the training mentioned previously, it's a nice point on a CV. You get living expenses covered for a year, and earn bit of money as welll, thus many use it as a break in their education that otherwise wouldn't be possible.
0
@Grahor Are you suggesting nobody in the age bracket 40-60 who make the policy have children that would be affected by the policy, or are they all as heartless as to willingly sacrifice their kids in your views? I've pointed out logical reasons as to why 20 year olds are better suited than 40 year olds, who make the policy don't affect that.
The point of conscription isn't a professional army, it's basic training such that in a crisis, a few weeks of refreshing would bring them back to acceptable levels, rather than a year of initial training. For everything that isn't a crisis, the fulltime soldiers will do the job. It's not sustainable to have the equivalent of all that will be conscripted over a few years as fulltime soldiers, hence conscription is the best way to strenghten the military.
Going by the 20.000 fulltime and 4.000 conscripts mentioned elsewhere, after 5 years, you'd have 20.000 fulltime soldiers and 20.000 civillians with basic training in the event of a crisis. If they were to work fulltime, you'd likely have around 22.000 fulltime soldiers due to how their salaries are more expensive than that of the conscripts. Surely you'd agree that 20.000+20.000 is better than 22.000+0?
Since the conscription for all practical purposes are vulunteer based due to the capacity limitation, half your complaints are irrelevant. Heck, if you just lied on a check "can you swim 200m" here in Norway (likely very comparable to Sweden), you wouldn't be conscripted. Along with things such as being a pacifist or doing higher education, you're pretty safe if you didn't want to conscript.
However, many do want to join. Since it builds character through the training mentioned previously, it's a nice point on a CV. You get living expenses covered for a year, and earn bit of money as welll, thus many use it as a break in their education that otherwise wouldn't be possible.