Not to mention, I think SG probably would go "Yeah, that sounds good," for an abolition of all armed forces, so your slippery slope there didn't exactly work as intended 
Naah, I just want clarity and consistent positions - I'm perfectly fine with someone arguing for pacifism.I find your argument really weird Helgoland. If using conscripts is bad, don't use them. If the guy in front is using them, and you end up having to kill people that were sent there against their will, that's on him, not you, at least if you're fighting a defending war.
Using conscripts is bad, because you're endangering the life of someone for political gain (winning the war) against their will.
By the same argument, killing/attacking any enemy soldier (especially conscripts though) is bad for the same reason.
If the circumstances are such that killing enemy soldiers becomes acceptable (because the political gain - defending one's country from occupation, for example - has become big enough), for the same reason using conscripts must have become acceptable at the same time.
Thus if war - necessarily involving killing/attacking enemy soldiers, even if it is a defensive war - is acceptable at all, using conscripts is too.
Sure, the argument sounds a little bit weird, but only because we're used to thinking that non-soldiers dying is somehow worse than soldiers dying.
So are we going to continue along this line of logic & say if war is justified then using any weapon available is justified too. Napalm, Nukes, you name it?
Or that if your killing people anyway, then torture is a lesser evil, so that's perfectly ok too?
I don't think logical arguments about morality ever really work when your talking about a war. It's messed up to start with. Me myself I'd prefer it to be as little messed up as possible, whether it makes perfect sense in logic or not.