This message was self-deleted by its author

[KitSileya]

823. De jure it may have conscription,

but de facto it doesn't, and that is what counts. Believe me, I work with 18-19-year old Norwegians, and they are not conscripted. In fact, it is an increasing problem for those who want have a career in the armed forces that the numbers accepted are limited, as the competition for the spots are fierce. The calling in is comparative to the US Selective service registration, and is, as you noted, also mandatory for women. It is to classify them according to service capability. In addition, these teens cannot be ordered into combat zones even if they are in the military - they have to volunteer for that.

As for my comment about privileged non-minorities, pretty much only white middle class Americans have the attitude that a mandatory service for all teenagers will somehow 'straighten' out today's youth. The rest of us know full well that teens of color, LGBT teens, poor teens, et al have obstacles enough to overcome, if they aren't going to have to postpone getting proper jobs and going to school, and leave their families in addition to everything else. Many White middle class American teens may be so spoiled that they would benefit from a year or two of service, but being spoiled isn't their fault, it is their parents' and the society that favors them, and anyway they would get the cushy, not-really-a-sacrifice positions where they get even further ahead because they will have a chance to network with their peers, while the minority teens will be given the worst and most dangerous jobs, and, being far from their families, be even more vulnerable to rape and exploitation.

I think your idea isn't just bad, I think it is dangerous for the most disadvantaged teens, and if implemented, would be incredibly detrimental.