[Legbreaker]

I use Australia during WWII as a basis for my arguement that Switzerland cannot sustain an active military strength of 625,000 for long.
Australia in the early 1940s had a total population of a little over 7 million (approximately the same as Switzerland today). It had 724,000 men serve during WWII in the army, 39,650 in the navy (as at June 1945) and 216,900 in the RAAF (air force) for a total of approximately 1 million, or about 14% of the total population.
The military had to be downsized during the war, even though plans had been for an even larger force, because there simply wasn't the manpower to support it.

I don't understand where you are finding 625,000 trained soldiers? From what I can see, in July 2009, "the armed forces consist of 134,886 people on active duty, of which 4,230 are professionals, with the rest being conscripts or volunteers". There are a further 77,000 reserves. It seems very doubtful that anyone not in the military will be given a military weapon, although it is possible they would have sporting rifles, shotguns, etc.

Further research shows the military in 1995 with a strength totalling 400,000 (including inactive reserves)- closer, but still less than 2/3rds.

Adding the 480,000 civil defence personnel strength to the 625,000 military strength and we've got more than a million in service, or approximately 16% of the total population - a higher percentage than Australia was able to support 50 or so years before.

Furthermore, using current figures, "Swiss agriculture meets sixty-five per cent of the domestic food demand". In a T2K scenario when large scale trade effectively ceases with the outside world, a much larger percentage of it's population will be forced into agricultural production and therefore unavailable for military service.

To sum up, it just doesn't seem feasible for Switzerland to field a strong military for more than a few weeks in a 12 month period. Even training time would be restricted due to the pressing need to feed the population.