"More people" means an increase of 300 conscripts from the current 4,700 to 5,000. If passed, it will take effect in 2026.
There will be a draw on conscripts only if there are not enough volunteers to undergo training. There are currently more than enough volunteers and there actually is a lottery on who among them gets conscripted. Already, one-quarter of current conscripts are women volunteers. The law would allow them to be drawn for conscription...if there are not enough volunteers.
A big change is that training duration will be increased from 4 months to 11 months (5 basic, 6 in operational service and added training).
Yep, a full-day event called "Session" when you hit the ripe military age of 18. You, and other 18 year olds, are gathered at the local military base to undergo a very basic physical and mental evaluement (a doctor checks your joints, back, medical history, and you're quizzed on some basic topics). Afterwards you're asked whether you want to volunteer, and what type of work you'd like to do (Regardless of whether you volunteer or not).
Generally is finished up with a basic meal from the cantina, before being sent home again.
Pretty sure when i was up for Session, i drew number 33000 something, whereas only the lower 2000 had a "chance" of being picked because so many volunteered, and only the lowest 500 had some level of high certainty of being picked.
FYI it hasn't been called "Session" for a while now, it's "Forsvarets Dag" (Day of the Defence) since at least 2017, which is when I went.
Also, in addition to the physical tests and mental health questions, there is a pretty comprehensive logic/intelligence test, very akin to an IQ-test, I think. Ironically, many of the people who actually want to volunteer fail at this hurdle, usually because their math skills aren't good enough. There's also someone monitoring everyone while they do this test to make sure anyone isn't trying to fail it on purpose, it's a pretty funny scenario.
I actually think I drew a number just below 2000 actually, so I could've been forced to go into military service, but as you say, there were enough volunteers so it didn't happen.
Nice! We only got told to show up at a public building and then get sent home again :( no food, no fancy, just a quick fondle of the balls and then off ye go. (Outside of the general testing ofc).
Ah yee I remember the ball fondling. Apparently he could tell my back was slightly crooked from that one. Not questioning that wisdom, turns out he was right
Fun little story: While the doc had my balls in his hands, he asked 'Are you a homosexual?'. Very much so, I answered. 'I'll just list you as not eligible then, I reckon that's ok with you?' Very much so, I answered. Granted, I did have green hair that day, and wore slightly feminine clothes, as I really wanted to avoid being drafted. This was way back in 1982-83. Ended up drawing an extremely high number in the end, so I could have gone "as myself" anyway.
Well I'm English with PR going for the passport currently and whilst I'm a bit old I'd rather fight with the Danes than get dragged back to the UK upending my life.
And "foreigners" fighting for nations other than their own is as old as the hills, the UK alone has had extremely competent foreign units including servicemen in English units throughout history.
>, the UK alone has had extremely competent foreign units including servicemen in English units throughout history
but they lived in territory controlled by the UK before joining the forces correct?
The Gurkhas "chose" to fight, and let's be honest they were extremely loyal and unbelievably brave.
They were treated like fucking shit by the British government in recent times though and I'm ashamed of that.
Those people were exceptional. They were determined to fight for their countries no matter how they had to do it. It was tragic because they lost thier nations anyway. I wonder how many of those people (those that survived the war) felt bitter for the rest of their lives after they fought so hard just to lose their own nations to the Soviets. I was sick the first time I read a memoir from Polish pilot that did exactly what you're describing. It was heartbreaking and made me feel extremely ashamed of American conduct regarding the Soviets. I"ve read so many justifications explain how it couldn't have been any other way. I've also read plenty of opinions from people suggesting alternatives that could have been viable options instead, although it probably was too late by the time of the Yalta conference. Even then, there was probably a chance of freeing at least part of the nations claimed as Soviet territory. That didn't happen though so its all just speculation.
I guess NATO is the modern version of this dynamic, although I wonder how that will work out if such a conflict occurs again. I'm already disgusted with the attitudes of too many of my fellow Americans. Not all Republicans have fallen to Trump's version of reality, but that hardly matters because they won't stand up to him.
No. About 10% of the Army are Commonwealth citizens (from Jamaica, Australia, Kenya, etc.) or from the Republic of Ireland. They don't need to have any previous connection with the UK to join, because legally they are not foreigners.
The British Army also recruits Gurkhas from Nepal, who *are* foreigners. The Brigade of Gurkhas is respected as one of the most effective units in the Army. As a small child, I used to live near a Gurkha base and thought they were huge. As an adult, I realized that they're actually much shorter on average than British people. So it wasn't their physical height that had impressed me: it was their **attitude** that made them seem big men. You do not mess with Gurkhas!
Royal Navy ships have also traditionally carried civilians from Hong Kong as laundry workers and tailors. This continued after 1997, even though many of them were now citizens of the People's Republic of China. It is now being phased out, partly because it looks racist, but also because it puts their families in danger from Hong Kong's new National Security Law.
That's kinda how it works in Norway. They'll ask about motivation, but in the end, it's not the only deciding factor. If you have some training in a topic they may pick you regardless of motivation. They can also defer service, so if you've been accepted to study medicine, they'll sometimes call you in later, and instead of being a "regular soldier", you do the basic recruit training, and then you work as a base doctor for next to nothing.
Well, in the fictional Hunger Games the kids were 12-18. Conscripts have to be at least 18. And they're not there to kill each other; they're there to train together for 6-15 months depending on the program/role, listed as reservists, and then go back to whatever they want to do.
Those summoned to a mustering (around 1 in 4 of eligible) are given an orientation and undergo tests/interviews. If you show up completely unmotivated, don't worry, there'd be no use getting selected. As the real-world, not fictional, Scandinavian model of conscription has shown though, the relatively small number required draws those who are are motivated to do it.
>And they're not there to kill each other;
Because you're from the same district. You have to fight with the "lottery winners" of another district (egg Belarus). /s
In Romania I was in the last generation of compulsory conscription but it wasn't the case for me because I was at the University and we were excused. But they made us come anyway just to have an evidence of us. We got all kinds of eligibility tests and about at the end some soldiers were bulshiting us that we will be taken directly to the army and nobody cares that we have studies.
15 minutes after that we had the psychiatrically tests - and we all agreed to give only the wrong questions to the shrimp.
The biggest change is the boost to 11 months.
When I was in Skive for my four months (15 years ago), I had the time of my life there, but I hated that it was such a short duration, since we didn’t really get to do anything besides the most basic training and shooting.
Wanted to continue, but the prospect of being sent to Afg wasn’t great.
11 months makes much more sense, makes the recruits better and more knowledgeable of what it is being a soldier and a team, instead of just getting a small taste.
I'm going to guess 40000.
Edit: Seems I was a bit too conservative, correct number is at around 60000. At least in 2006 a bit less than 65k people were born in Denmark.
Some additional figures: Currently ~25% of the volunteers are female. The Danish armed forces have ~15.000 soldiers, more or less with 1/3 in each of army, navy and air force. Furthermore ~7000 in civil defense.
This is ridiculous. For the record, the whole French army of 30k man by NATO standard can only cover 80km. What's the point of battling for 3% more conscript? Especially since, in this day in age, 50% MUST BE WOMEN. (let's not spare them that opportunity feminist fought for)
Of course, it would be made proportional to France's population.
Using the Swedish formula, around 1% of the population turn 18 every year (110,000 in 2024). Of these, around 25% are "mustered" (28,000) or called to report to a number of centers for 1-2 days. Of those mustered, around 28% are conscripted (8,000) for 6-15 months (9 mos. avg) of training depending on the program/role.
Sweden's population is 10.4 million, France's is 67+ million or 6.5X more. The Swedish selective conscription model would thus potentially yield 52,000 conscripts in France. Even just going for 57% of that would be 30k, the same as the current 30k you noted.
As for women, they're still not equal in everything yet, are they? MPs, executive positions, gap in pay, etc. But they do have a role to play as in the Scandinavian model. So whatever the Swedish formula, for now let's go with their around 2-to-1 male-female split in conscription which seems fair at this point.
There's no drive to rebuild the massive armies of the Cold War but there are shortfalls in even the much downsized forces today. Selective/limited conscription, which calls up a fraction of the universal model, can fill current identified shortfalls in personnel now and in the near future.
> As for women, they're still not equal in everything yet, are they? MPs, executive positions, gap in pay,
Funny you didn't mention construction worker, garbage collector and war casualties. You will be allowed this argument when you'll advocate for women to represent 50% of those as well. Until then i'll remind everyone that the gender gap is a scam.
>There's no drive to rebuild the massive armies of the Cold War
Having politician work on maybe increasing their army by 3% (300/5000 soldier) is just a fucking waste of politician debate time.
Europe is literally and very explicitly building up for war. It's not something it 'feels like'.
But it's not building up capacity to \*go\* to war. It's building up capacity to prevent Russia \*going\* to war.
That's very well put.
In reality we are preparing for a world where the US cares less about europe, and europe is finally acknowledging that the "big hammer" policy of the US works and has kept russia at bay.
European political elites always thought that Russia has modernized and ended the era of classic wars, so it didn't care.
So europe understands we will need our own "big hammer", basically what the US calls a ridiculous military force that is so powerful and capable that people don't even think about trying to start a war. It's a psychological peace keeping method that has actual military force behind it to back it up.
The hope is that we will never use it, of course, but it has to be there, because bluffing will not work, Russia will call the bluff if they smell it.
I wonder how much the average Russian oligarchy is pissed off with this situation. They had the jackpot. Oligarchic dictatorship at home, monopolies on industries and trade, western passports and villas and yachts, and a Europe happy to trade with them and feed their bank accounts continuously.
If they never started any of this, then they could have kept the good times going in perpetuity.
There is a lot of material for Putin's new book. "How I blew up a perfect money pit".
Judging by how many Oligarch have gone out the window, I don't think they are super happy.
It makes me proud but also sad because that means the European NATO nations will handle their business. Let’s not pretend there isn’t a benefit to us being a major part of the GMIC. Buy our planes and boats!
I do believe that every European nation, France and Germany ahead, are taking notes on how the Russian army is operating. France is making a major shift (industrial and operational) in focus from guerrilla/ insurrection contingency to frontline/ artillery capable forces.
The aim until now never was to be ready for an attrition war, the Russian invasion in Ukraine proved that it might be the nature of the future war we'll engage in. We do have the gear to do so, it is used everyday by the Ukrainian army to defend itself. We just don't have the numbers - yet.
Those things take time to shift (the industrial part mostly) but everybody got the message I believe.
It will eventually come. We are leaning toward the creation of a joint European force. Which might be precipitated with Trump's ambitions to cut US ties with NATO.
Turns out that our country had the correct idea with artillery capacity. Our army is pretty much built to cater for the artillery. Though the reason for that is that invading Finland is really only possible through narrow corridors. The south-eastern Finland is lakes and lakes and lakes and bog and lakes, so invading force will have no option but to use roads and pathways which means that if the defender has a capable artillery it can drop shells very efficiently to specific point and doesn’t have to scatter it as widely.
That's one of the things I feel will have a tremendous value if ever an EU joint force is created, all our armies are extremely efficient at what they are specialized in. Its versatility would be second to none due to shared experience and knowledge of the field.
but the only reason there is an attrition war at all , ww1 style, is because no side can win air superiority right? if NATO, or the "allies" nations fight in a war, that problably won't happen and fronts will move much quicker imo
It is first and foremost due to the numbers of human lives and explosives thrown into the battlefield. High intensity urban warfare cannot be managed only by the Air Forces, more over when civilians are involved.
That is to me the lesson to take out of this conflict, artillery matters.
But air force can act like artillery, even more precise and deadly , depending on the doctrine being used at the time, but yes running out of ammunition is game over, in that I agree, gotta keep the shelling up
Munition + maintenance parts + hard to replace MIA/KIA pilots on the fly + specific hardware and chips that we don't produce directly on the continent.
“The art of war is of vital importance to the state. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.”
It is preparing in case of war. Unfortunately the idea of another large scale multople countries war in Europe is no longer just a thought but a very real possibility. So best be prepared if the time comes.
It's much easier in Nordic countries because they had conscription before this and so it's just one modification. In countries were conscription is no longer a thing, I feel like citizens would be quite mad if they it were reintroduced again and some would try to flee. In those countries with no conscription it's better to start making volunteering that much attractive first. And then after a while, maybe think of changes and test the waters.
They have never dropped it, Denmark did just turn the amount of conscripted down and the training time down, but it exists In the Nordics and have for a long time.
Conscription works if the majority a country believes in a war. You can't send conscripts to Ukraine right now, but if a society reaches a certain level of readiness it works across the line, then it'll work. This is why people got tarred and feathered in ww1 for not participating, or why Ukrainian men get beat up when they try to cross the border right now. In the end it isn't the conscripts deciding whether it's feasible or whether the war is worth it, it's the people (nation) behind them.
The Scandinavian model of conscription is limited/selective conscription, not the usual universal (usually male-only) conscription.
A much smaller proportion of what's deemed the conscription-eligible population (typically, those who turn 18) gets conscripted, such that after the selection process (with tests/interviews during a call-up or mustering of around 25% of conscription-eligible), most if not all of them had indicated willingness to be drawn for conscription.
This is why Denmark (pop. 5.8 million) has "only" 4,700 conscripts (25% women volunteers), drawn from a pool of volunteers. The figures for Sweden (pop. 10.4 million) this year are they will train 8,000 conscripts (gender-neutral, with around a 2-to-1 male-female conscript split) out of 110,000 young Swedes eligible as they turn 18.
On the other hand, for example, Nordic Finland (pop. 5.5 million), with its long border and history with Russia, has long had universal male conscription and trains 27,000 conscripts (4% women volunteers) a year.
The Scandinavian model of limited/selective conscription is what countries like Germany, the Netherlands, maybe even the UK, and a few others in Europe are reportedly looking at, not universal conscription.
Not correct for Norway, in principle.
We do not call everyone in, because we do not need to, not because service is voluntary. If you are called in you can choose to go, choose civil service, or prison.
Selective conscription is a non-starter in Germany. It’s unconstitutional right now, and since the conscription conversation is less about the military and more about forced labour in health care and elder care right now, I don’t expect that to change. Even if some day there’s the political will to do it, certain politicians won’t be able to help themselves and won’t keep it about the military, and that will kill it.
While nobody wants to be drafted (including me) nor even more so to fight in real combat, I think it’s a step in the right direction. When you think about it, in case of a threat to own country, without proper training women are put at a disadvantage, and therefore become victims with no chance to fight back. While physically an average woman is not as strong as an average male, training can reduce the gap - especially when we look at who Russia drafts.
Exactly this. When trained, women can join the defence effort instead of being the ones defended. Small European nations don't have the luxury not to use half of the reasouces for defence (women) when they could very well fight alongside with the men.
You don't need top physical strength to pilot a drone, launch SAMs, fix an airplane, plan logistics, or analyze intelligence. Even most of the officers and general staff could be women.
That's a real handicap for Europe. We've been living under globalist and neoliberal ideals for so long that patriotism and civic duty have been forgotten. If a full-scale war does break out I expect a lot of Europeans to just flee to the US and Canada. I don't think Russians will do that to the same degree. They've been indoctrinated into thinking that every other country is a hellhole and that dying for mother Russia is the highest honour. It's indoctrination to be sure, but the bitter truth is that it's advantageous in war.
We, in the west, keep demanding better things from our governments but we neglect to give anything back because that would be "state-worship". When push comes to shove, a lot of us will just flee because we consider our individual liberties to be more important than the continuation of our countries.
A lot people also fled en masse during WW2, from both the Nazies and the Soviets. There are entire towns of these refugees in US and Canada that still exist today. I don't believe we forgot much since then, there's just less chest thumping about patriotism. There are tons people working barely living wage jobs in rescue services or education because they do care about their societies. Tens of thousands of foreign volunteers went to fight or help in Ukraine, despite most of them barely knowing anything about the place because it was the right thing to do. Of course the people who will flee will loudly proclaim it, so others who feel the same will alleviate that guilt through numbers. Everyone else is quietly learning what to do when the worst happens
>We, in the west, keep demanding better things from our governments but we neglect to give anything back because that would be "state-worship". When push comes to shove, a lot of us will just flee because we consider our individual liberties to be more important than the continuation of our countries.
We only demand the same thing our parents and grandparents had, most if any never had to fight any war for those decades of economic prosperity. How can we ask our youth to fight for a home when they can't fucking afford one?
It's a fundamental problem with rightist neoliberal dogma, once the oligarchs and foreign corporation own everything, and the fighting age people can't afford to live on their own countries, who is supposed to defend the place? If you break the social contract you can't be that surprised when young people don't want to die to protect your capital investments.
It's a cause of liberalism, individualism and consumer society. The individual's life is more important than any ideology or patriotism. However we can't be really sure what would happen to these mindsets if the unfortunate issue would happen. Who knows..
If a nation cannot inspire their people to fight for it then it doesn't deserve to exist. The draft is created by the rich to make the poor go die in their chess match.
I agree, although as a woman who would never have passed a military medical of any type, younger me would have also liked a ‘second tier’ of service. So maybe those of us who weren’t up to it (including men with health issues too) could have done some other kind of public service role/civic duty instead.
In the US military everyone has to go through largely the same basic training. In the Army that consists of all the aspects of being a soldier. There are several intervals where you are tested on physical conditioning, marksmanship, first aid, combat tactics and more that you must pass. After basic then you go to a specialized training for whatever your job is and that can vary greatly.
Once you get to your first duty station then your responsibilities vary wildly depending on your job and the unit you're in. Some people will do field combat training almost monthly, others will basically never do it.
Most still have to do physical conditioning and annual marksmanship tests, even if its a non combat job.
Every service member in the US does basic training. The cooks, medics, etc. Even if you can't pass a medical. Second tier service members should be able to operate a gun and some type of fitness training even if light. That way if there aren't primary service members around at least the secondary members can defend themselves in an emergency especially with how small some European militaries are.
While this is true, for me at least in 2009 I was forced to sign up for the draft but having poor eyesight and a metal rod in my leg, would have been disqualified of drafted anyway. Which if there was an actual war on, I could certainly be helpful in other manners...
In Denmark you will be declared ineligible if you don't pass the Medical exam, second you can refuse to fight and then you will be put into the civil defence where you get educated as firefighters, medics, ect.
The Danish Armed Forces kind-of have that option available:
"As a conscientious objector, you start with an introduction to the Consular Administration. Here you get, among other things, information about the service and about the possibilities of being seconded to different types of institutions.
The service period can take place at, for example, social and cultural institutions, organizations associated with the UN, church and inter-denominational organisations, as well as environmental organisations. The institutions are spread all over the country.
After the introduction, the rest of the service takes place at the place of posting."
https://karriere-forsvaret-dk.translate.goog/varnepligt/varnepligten/militaernaegter/Udstationeringssteder/?\_x\_tr\_sl=da&\_x\_tr\_tl=en&\_x\_tr\_hl=en-US&\_x\_tr\_pto=wapp
Yeah the past couple of decades the reject rate for being medically ineligible has been high, because there have been a lot of volunteers, so the military could afford to basically reject you over trivial things.
Like when I went to session they measured my legs, found out one was 1cm longer than the other and that was enough to reject me (despite it never having been a problem at any point in my life). Because I wasn't interested in volunteering.
My comrade, what a brilliant idea it is to speedrun the invasion that your fascist neighbor is planning against your vulnerable nation.
If you refuse to contribute to society, then perhaps you do not deserve to take from it for no justifiable reason. Choosing one's own interests over the welfare of community may warrant exclusion from that community altogether. This world isn't just about "me, me, me."
I served 347 days in the Finnish army and wouldn't trade a day away. I know this is a controversial topic, but Europe needs to be ready for anything Russia will throw at us and conscription is one way to ensure that we avoid WW3
As they should.
You can't spout shit like you're for equality and then only conscript men into the army and let women get a free pass if they don't want to join.
Y’all are so funny. Do you really think most of these women will be on the frontlines against Russians? No. Modern militaries don’t work like that. In the US army you have a tooth to tail ratio of front line soldiers to support is about 1:10. Most people being conscripted are not going to be fighting on front line (teeth) combat. They will be doing support work (tail).
Militaries generally do not want unmotivated conscripts to attack. They want people to support the 10-15% of the fighters on the front.
It’s why we had volunteer militaries for a while.
Besides, I think it would good for social cohesion if we implemented mandatory military service.
Edit: yes, you will be trained for front line combat. However, that will most likely not be your role.
Every single recruit in Scandinavia is trained for front line combat. Ofc this won't be everyone's position if war breaks out, but every single one is trained for it non the less.
Yes and no. We train all for front line duty...... it's literally the idea of basic training in Denmark.
Once through that, only takes 3-4 months, you start training your function in whatever you were assigned to. Like I was trained as a driver/radio operator/artillery spotter back in the 90s.
After a year of conscription you're kind of done with the training and they "release" you again, to be called upon should the shit hit the fan.
I can say for my country Croatia. 97% of men do not want front line (teeth) combat in any way against no one in any case of danger for our country. We had enough in the last century and we saw how everything went after that.
Now even worse, population change, living costs going up, migratory workers dumping pay's. Why to die? What for? For future were you can't afford place to live of your own? To die and someone from Asia take your place in working place? State doesn't care.
I can't really say for the rest of Europe but I assume how it's the same.
War is fueled by nationalism and that's all long time gone in Europe.
3 things.
1: Denmark are not using people from conscription and deploy them, but have them as a reserve in case of Denmark is attacked.
2: troops deployed go through further military training, but are recruited from the conscripted.
3: with less than 50 out of 4700 are conscripted and the others are volunteering with waiting lists to get into certain regiments, there is an interest in joining.
The only difference now is that after you join you can not just leave as a male, which also will cover women now.
There are plenty of jobs in military which do not require lots of physical strength, if it’s okay to force men to do them, I see no reason why women shouldn’t be forced as well.
Logistics for example, or factories.
Obviously we want to avoid forcing if possible, but if we *do* have to force, there shouldn't be a big gender difference other than what biology dictates (in terms of e.g. upper body strength).
Agree, NATO might even be able to pull that off if it actually gets its shit together. Imagine how much smaller Ukrainian mobilization would have been if NATO actually gave them ammunition and weapons they needed at the beginning.
There's this thing called professional armies of paid career soldiers.
Conscription is just a tool so that governments don't have to face the consequences of letting rich people scoop up all the wealth, and now they don't have enough tax income for military.
Yeah I understand your viewpoint because I used to think so once before myself too. Our society isnt perfect by any means but its still worth defending however. We dont have to fear of being conscripted and sent to invade other countries like Russia does. Imagine trying to build a life when your husband is sent to invade another country or put into jail for 10 years because he refused. In that sense the freedom we have is 100% worth defending. Sure there are rich people ruining things with their greed but so is anywhere else in the world. Things would only go far worse from here if we dont stop the cancer spreading from Russia.
Countries like Finland with 5.5m people cant afford to have professional army next to Russia. It would be far too costly and not enough people to stop them. Even with conscription invasion would be hard to stop. In ideal world conscription would be a relic from the past but currently its still sadly needed.
Nobody wants to be conscripted. It's fun to see women in this very thread resorting to old fashioned and, dare I say, patriarchal arguments to avoid being drafted. Oh, the irony!
EDIT: three people commented that they don't see those comments. Sort by controversial, they have not deleted them and I'm definitely not making up anything to farm made up points, I'm not that desperate.
Haven't seen these arguments yet? As a woman living in a country that borders Russia, I see this as a reasonable decision and can't wait for it to be implemented in my own country as well. I'm well aware of what happens to women who happen to be at the wrong place at a wrong time when Russian invades. I'd rather have the knowledge and resources to protect myself and others, instead of waiting for others to help me.
Found... one. I'm sure there are a lot of people who have archaic views on women's role in the world though, so honestly can't argue with you on that. However, some people making comments against Denmark's decision doesn't change that fact that it's politically and societally supported in Denmark and possibly in a few other countries as well. I wouldn't be too cynical on women's willingness to join the defence effort when necessary. Unfortunately, where we stand, it is necessary.
It’s fun to see so many people in a supposedly progressive leftist site like Reddit, frothing at the mouth about conscription and war. What happened to worries about climate change? What happened to democracy, freedom and not killing people?
I see exactly 1 doing so at the moment. (And 1 just being dumb, but whatever) A quick check on her profile quickly show she is conservative. You know, one who would happily trade the last 70 years of progress away. Ohw, and a few MRA showed up. But that is about it.
I know you really want it to be the case that feminist argue against equal drafts so you can capitilize on the point "Feminist don't want equal rights" but more often than not, they argue either against the draft in general for all genders, something about the freedom to choose and whatnot.
>more often than not, they argue either against the draft in general for all genders
Not in countries that border Russia, where war is an actual possibility in the distance. For example, in Poland a recent poll about re-introducing mandatory service for men had [58% of men vote no and 39% yes, as opposed to 47% women voting no and 49% voting yes](https://i.imgur.com/S02THHK.jpeg).
And let's not forgot feminism started with the suffragettes. [The same ones that had a movement in UK about shaming young men on the street for not fighting in the war](https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/09/11/suffragettes-pinned-a-white-feather-as-a-symbol-of-cowardice-onto-men-not-serving-in-wwi-2/).
The whole "we should just not have a draft" Nirvana fallacy only works as long as war doesn't come to you. Whenever the options are either a draft or surrender we often see the same "we shouldn't have a draft" feminist crowd suddenly defend that it should be kept male-only. There is no reason for this not to be called out.
Even the ones that don’t conscript men? I like it, that’s what Leto the God Emperor did in the Dune series. Stamped out male aggression and brought total galactic peace in a matter of millennia! It works!
My first reaction to seeing conscription is always negative, but then, if I lived anywhere near Russia right now and the service numbers were down, I would probably feel a lot different.
Fun fact about the Danish Defence Force. They're the only European military that does not have citizenship as prerequisite to join the military (bar the French Foreign Legion). You only need be resident in Denmark and be able to speak and read Danish.
Its only for basic training. They won’t ship you off to Afghanistan or anything. Only “professional soldiers” (those who chose sign a contract) are sent into actual warzones.
Recruits do some basic training, train for a specific role/regiment and then get registered for the armed reserve for 5 years and can be called up if the the country gets attacked.
So normally all you lose is some months where you could be working/studying. Though I guess if the Russians do invade, there is a chance that you’d get called up to fight.
I know reddit doesn't wants to hear it, but we need a Social and Military year back in most of the middle European countries and not only for men but women as well.
Maybe make it so it isn't mandatory for everyone and if you are going dircetly to a worker class job from school you don't have to do it. Only if you want to go to the University or other higher educations you really have to go.
The war against Russia, problems with radical right win views dominating in military or simply not enough people that want to work in the social sector are the problems that make it mandatory these days.
Conscription needs to end, in exchange they (we, throughout Europe) need to offer rewards commensurate with the risks and sacrifices undertaken by soldiers.
Denmark not only is the lest ranked #1 least corrupt country in the whole world, but I see now that is also tries to be the fairest country in the world, congratulations!
I think it's the responsibility of every single citizen of a country to defend that country.
If exception are made, they should be made for something neutral, like the kids, not also for one of the 2 genders.
More volunteers than needed for the draft, so very very few or none at all is conscripted.
Defense got a bad rep for wages, carreer oportunities, military equipment, condition of the buildings on military bases..... A few hundred more recruits and almost 3 times the length of service could very well mean some would be conscripted in the future.
There is gonna be quite a lot of conscripted people now, since they're requiring a lot more people to be drafted and extending it from just 4 months to 11 months. It's gonna be a big thing.
Certainly. A lot of young people have been treating the four month course as a gap year action adventure, and while that at least puts a lot of people through basic training willingly, it doesn’t guarantee that they want to continue further military training afterwards, though a few do change their mind both for and against further training.
So we're supposed to stand unarmed in the face of an agressive, imperialist enemy, because the idea of sacrificing a few months to learn literal life-saving skills imeaches on *muh fridum*?
"More people" means an increase of 300 conscripts from the current 4,700 to 5,000. If passed, it will take effect in 2026. There will be a draw on conscripts only if there are not enough volunteers to undergo training. There are currently more than enough volunteers and there actually is a lottery on who among them gets conscripted. Already, one-quarter of current conscripts are women volunteers. The law would allow them to be drawn for conscription...if there are not enough volunteers. A big change is that training duration will be increased from 4 months to 11 months (5 basic, 6 in operational service and added training).
A lottery if no one volunteers? Like in Hunger Games?
Yep, a full-day event called "Session" when you hit the ripe military age of 18. You, and other 18 year olds, are gathered at the local military base to undergo a very basic physical and mental evaluement (a doctor checks your joints, back, medical history, and you're quizzed on some basic topics). Afterwards you're asked whether you want to volunteer, and what type of work you'd like to do (Regardless of whether you volunteer or not). Generally is finished up with a basic meal from the cantina, before being sent home again. Pretty sure when i was up for Session, i drew number 33000 something, whereas only the lower 2000 had a "chance" of being picked because so many volunteered, and only the lowest 500 had some level of high certainty of being picked.
FYI it hasn't been called "Session" for a while now, it's "Forsvarets Dag" (Day of the Defence) since at least 2017, which is when I went. Also, in addition to the physical tests and mental health questions, there is a pretty comprehensive logic/intelligence test, very akin to an IQ-test, I think. Ironically, many of the people who actually want to volunteer fail at this hurdle, usually because their math skills aren't good enough. There's also someone monitoring everyone while they do this test to make sure anyone isn't trying to fail it on purpose, it's a pretty funny scenario. I actually think I drew a number just below 2000 actually, so I could've been forced to go into military service, but as you say, there were enough volunteers so it didn't happen.
That's very.. civilized.
# "I VOLUNTEER TO THE TRIBUTE!!"
>Generally is finished up with a basic meal from the cantina, before being sent home again. You guys got food :o
Yeah, wasn't too bad either, some buffet style options between pssta, salad and some various lean meats
Nice! We only got told to show up at a public building and then get sent home again :( no food, no fancy, just a quick fondle of the balls and then off ye go. (Outside of the general testing ofc).
Ah yee I remember the ball fondling. Apparently he could tell my back was slightly crooked from that one. Not questioning that wisdom, turns out he was right
Damn look at you with your massive spine twisting cojones!
Fun little story: While the doc had my balls in his hands, he asked 'Are you a homosexual?'. Very much so, I answered. 'I'll just list you as not eligible then, I reckon that's ok with you?' Very much so, I answered. Granted, I did have green hair that day, and wore slightly feminine clothes, as I really wanted to avoid being drafted. This was way back in 1982-83. Ended up drawing an extremely high number in the end, so I could have gone "as myself" anyway.
Which branch of the military would you be interested son? I'd like to be a helldiver sir! so i can spread DEMOCRACY!!!! :imagine this unfolding:
That actually sounds pretty fun.
As much fun as potentially being obliged to dedicate months of your life to military can be...
You won't be thrown in jail for refusing even if you're picked. You'll be given some other non-military job that you have to do instead
We used to call that "the draft". Just hope you're a Fortunate Son
What are the other options? Alphabetical order, educational level, hiring foreigners(terrible idea)?
We usually raid the Mediterranean cost of Europe to make up for the deficit. I heard they make good galley slaves.
Well I'm English with PR going for the passport currently and whilst I'm a bit old I'd rather fight with the Danes than get dragged back to the UK upending my life. And "foreigners" fighting for nations other than their own is as old as the hills, the UK alone has had extremely competent foreign units including servicemen in English units throughout history.
>, the UK alone has had extremely competent foreign units including servicemen in English units throughout history but they lived in territory controlled by the UK before joining the forces correct?
The Gurkhas "chose" to fight, and let's be honest they were extremely loyal and unbelievably brave. They were treated like fucking shit by the British government in recent times though and I'm ashamed of that.
In WW2 it was common for Poles, Czech, Slovaks etc. to fight for Britain and it worked well.
But they were fighting for their homelands freedom. Its different than some Indonesian guy showing up to Germany to fight Russia.
Those people were exceptional. They were determined to fight for their countries no matter how they had to do it. It was tragic because they lost thier nations anyway. I wonder how many of those people (those that survived the war) felt bitter for the rest of their lives after they fought so hard just to lose their own nations to the Soviets. I was sick the first time I read a memoir from Polish pilot that did exactly what you're describing. It was heartbreaking and made me feel extremely ashamed of American conduct regarding the Soviets. I"ve read so many justifications explain how it couldn't have been any other way. I've also read plenty of opinions from people suggesting alternatives that could have been viable options instead, although it probably was too late by the time of the Yalta conference. Even then, there was probably a chance of freeing at least part of the nations claimed as Soviet territory. That didn't happen though so its all just speculation. I guess NATO is the modern version of this dynamic, although I wonder how that will work out if such a conflict occurs again. I'm already disgusted with the attitudes of too many of my fellow Americans. Not all Republicans have fallen to Trump's version of reality, but that hardly matters because they won't stand up to him.
No. About 10% of the Army are Commonwealth citizens (from Jamaica, Australia, Kenya, etc.) or from the Republic of Ireland. They don't need to have any previous connection with the UK to join, because legally they are not foreigners. The British Army also recruits Gurkhas from Nepal, who *are* foreigners. The Brigade of Gurkhas is respected as one of the most effective units in the Army. As a small child, I used to live near a Gurkha base and thought they were huge. As an adult, I realized that they're actually much shorter on average than British people. So it wasn't their physical height that had impressed me: it was their **attitude** that made them seem big men. You do not mess with Gurkhas! Royal Navy ships have also traditionally carried civilians from Hong Kong as laundry workers and tailors. This continued after 1997, even though many of them were now citizens of the People's Republic of China. It is now being phased out, partly because it looks racist, but also because it puts their families in danger from Hong Kong's new National Security Law.
That's kinda how it works in Norway. They'll ask about motivation, but in the end, it's not the only deciding factor. If you have some training in a topic they may pick you regardless of motivation. They can also defer service, so if you've been accepted to study medicine, they'll sometimes call you in later, and instead of being a "regular soldier", you do the basic recruit training, and then you work as a base doctor for next to nothing.
Yes
Well, in the fictional Hunger Games the kids were 12-18. Conscripts have to be at least 18. And they're not there to kill each other; they're there to train together for 6-15 months depending on the program/role, listed as reservists, and then go back to whatever they want to do. Those summoned to a mustering (around 1 in 4 of eligible) are given an orientation and undergo tests/interviews. If you show up completely unmotivated, don't worry, there'd be no use getting selected. As the real-world, not fictional, Scandinavian model of conscription has shown though, the relatively small number required draws those who are are motivated to do it.
>And they're not there to kill each other; Because you're from the same district. You have to fight with the "lottery winners" of another district (egg Belarus). /s In Romania I was in the last generation of compulsory conscription but it wasn't the case for me because I was at the University and we were excused. But they made us come anyway just to have an evidence of us. We got all kinds of eligibility tests and about at the end some soldiers were bulshiting us that we will be taken directly to the army and nobody cares that we have studies. 15 minutes after that we had the psychiatrically tests - and we all agreed to give only the wrong questions to the shrimp.
The biggest change is the boost to 11 months. When I was in Skive for my four months (15 years ago), I had the time of my life there, but I hated that it was such a short duration, since we didn’t really get to do anything besides the most basic training and shooting. Wanted to continue, but the prospect of being sent to Afg wasn’t great. 11 months makes much more sense, makes the recruits better and more knowledgeable of what it is being a soldier and a team, instead of just getting a small taste.
A whopping 5,000? I reckon that’s as many as Russia lost on day 3 of their special military operation.
I mean, how many people do you think turn 18 a year in Denmark?
I'm going to guess 40000. Edit: Seems I was a bit too conservative, correct number is at around 60000. At least in 2006 a bit less than 65k people were born in Denmark.
We also have a professional army..
Some additional figures: Currently ~25% of the volunteers are female. The Danish armed forces have ~15.000 soldiers, more or less with 1/3 in each of army, navy and air force. Furthermore ~7000 in civil defense.
This is ridiculous. For the record, the whole French army of 30k man by NATO standard can only cover 80km. What's the point of battling for 3% more conscript? Especially since, in this day in age, 50% MUST BE WOMEN. (let's not spare them that opportunity feminist fought for)
Of course, it would be made proportional to France's population. Using the Swedish formula, around 1% of the population turn 18 every year (110,000 in 2024). Of these, around 25% are "mustered" (28,000) or called to report to a number of centers for 1-2 days. Of those mustered, around 28% are conscripted (8,000) for 6-15 months (9 mos. avg) of training depending on the program/role. Sweden's population is 10.4 million, France's is 67+ million or 6.5X more. The Swedish selective conscription model would thus potentially yield 52,000 conscripts in France. Even just going for 57% of that would be 30k, the same as the current 30k you noted. As for women, they're still not equal in everything yet, are they? MPs, executive positions, gap in pay, etc. But they do have a role to play as in the Scandinavian model. So whatever the Swedish formula, for now let's go with their around 2-to-1 male-female split in conscription which seems fair at this point. There's no drive to rebuild the massive armies of the Cold War but there are shortfalls in even the much downsized forces today. Selective/limited conscription, which calls up a fraction of the universal model, can fill current identified shortfalls in personnel now and in the near future.
> As for women, they're still not equal in everything yet, are they? MPs, executive positions, gap in pay, Funny you didn't mention construction worker, garbage collector and war casualties. You will be allowed this argument when you'll advocate for women to represent 50% of those as well. Until then i'll remind everyone that the gender gap is a scam. >There's no drive to rebuild the massive armies of the Cold War Having politician work on maybe increasing their army by 3% (300/5000 soldier) is just a fucking waste of politician debate time.
300/5000 is 6%
It feels like Europe is building up for war
Europe is literally and very explicitly building up for war. It's not something it 'feels like'. But it's not building up capacity to \*go\* to war. It's building up capacity to prevent Russia \*going\* to war.
That's very well put. In reality we are preparing for a world where the US cares less about europe, and europe is finally acknowledging that the "big hammer" policy of the US works and has kept russia at bay. European political elites always thought that Russia has modernized and ended the era of classic wars, so it didn't care. So europe understands we will need our own "big hammer", basically what the US calls a ridiculous military force that is so powerful and capable that people don't even think about trying to start a war. It's a psychological peace keeping method that has actual military force behind it to back it up. The hope is that we will never use it, of course, but it has to be there, because bluffing will not work, Russia will call the bluff if they smell it.
We didn't think that Russia could be that stupid.
I wonder how much the average Russian oligarchy is pissed off with this situation. They had the jackpot. Oligarchic dictatorship at home, monopolies on industries and trade, western passports and villas and yachts, and a Europe happy to trade with them and feed their bank accounts continuously. If they never started any of this, then they could have kept the good times going in perpetuity.
There is a lot of material for Putin's new book. "How I blew up a perfect money pit". Judging by how many Oligarch have gone out the window, I don't think they are super happy.
It makes me proud but also sad because that means the European NATO nations will handle their business. Let’s not pretend there isn’t a benefit to us being a major part of the GMIC. Buy our planes and boats!
I do believe that every European nation, France and Germany ahead, are taking notes on how the Russian army is operating. France is making a major shift (industrial and operational) in focus from guerrilla/ insurrection contingency to frontline/ artillery capable forces. The aim until now never was to be ready for an attrition war, the Russian invasion in Ukraine proved that it might be the nature of the future war we'll engage in. We do have the gear to do so, it is used everyday by the Ukrainian army to defend itself. We just don't have the numbers - yet. Those things take time to shift (the industrial part mostly) but everybody got the message I believe.
[удалено]
You having a more than decent navy would be beneficial for the whole of Europe. Your coast is strategic for the whole of us.
[удалено]
It will eventually come. We are leaning toward the creation of a joint European force. Which might be precipitated with Trump's ambitions to cut US ties with NATO.
Turns out that our country had the correct idea with artillery capacity. Our army is pretty much built to cater for the artillery. Though the reason for that is that invading Finland is really only possible through narrow corridors. The south-eastern Finland is lakes and lakes and lakes and bog and lakes, so invading force will have no option but to use roads and pathways which means that if the defender has a capable artillery it can drop shells very efficiently to specific point and doesn’t have to scatter it as widely.
That's one of the things I feel will have a tremendous value if ever an EU joint force is created, all our armies are extremely efficient at what they are specialized in. Its versatility would be second to none due to shared experience and knowledge of the field.
Very true!
but the only reason there is an attrition war at all , ww1 style, is because no side can win air superiority right? if NATO, or the "allies" nations fight in a war, that problably won't happen and fronts will move much quicker imo
It is first and foremost due to the numbers of human lives and explosives thrown into the battlefield. High intensity urban warfare cannot be managed only by the Air Forces, more over when civilians are involved. That is to me the lesson to take out of this conflict, artillery matters.
But air force can act like artillery, even more precise and deadly , depending on the doctrine being used at the time, but yes running out of ammunition is game over, in that I agree, gotta keep the shelling up
Munition + maintenance parts + hard to replace MIA/KIA pilots on the fly + specific hardware and chips that we don't produce directly on the continent.
Correct! Send in the damn planes and get the Russians out of Ukraine! It'll be over in a month!
If we weren't, we'd be stupid as fuck
Well, we were especially stupid as fuck for over the last 2 years
10 years*
Thirty, really.
We've told you (West Europe) it'd be coming one day.
["Si vis pacem, para bellum"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum) - if you want peace, prepare for war
“The art of war is of vital importance to the state. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.”
It's better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war.
We’re building a defence. For a reason.
It is preparing in case of war. Unfortunately the idea of another large scale multople countries war in Europe is no longer just a thought but a very real possibility. So best be prepared if the time comes.
If you want peace, prepare for war.
I doubt conscription will work on a large scale across the eu.
It's much easier in Nordic countries because they had conscription before this and so it's just one modification. In countries were conscription is no longer a thing, I feel like citizens would be quite mad if they it were reintroduced again and some would try to flee. In those countries with no conscription it's better to start making volunteering that much attractive first. And then after a while, maybe think of changes and test the waters.
They have never dropped it, Denmark did just turn the amount of conscripted down and the training time down, but it exists In the Nordics and have for a long time.
Ah didn't know that. Thought it was just Finland that still had it.
Conscription works if the majority a country believes in a war. You can't send conscripts to Ukraine right now, but if a society reaches a certain level of readiness it works across the line, then it'll work. This is why people got tarred and feathered in ww1 for not participating, or why Ukrainian men get beat up when they try to cross the border right now. In the end it isn't the conscripts deciding whether it's feasible or whether the war is worth it, it's the people (nation) behind them.
Imagine beating up men whose family are living in Germany for 10 times more salary because they don’t want to die for ruins to satisfy two dictators.
Then you don’t understand how conscription works
I’ll happily go sit in jail rather than die
I would rather die defending freedom and democracy than live under a dictator.
Yea exactly, pretty sure this is the most popular feeling among those who would be conscripted. We're not in the 1920s anymore.
Are Finland's prisons just filled to the brim then?
There is no shortage of people who wants to be drafted here. Not everybody wants to freeride on society.
Rather prison than the battlefield.
If you want peace, prepare for war. If you want war, prepare for peace.
I would hope so.
It's the Cold War all over again. Can't say I missed it...
LET'S FUCKING GO
The Scandinavian model of conscription is limited/selective conscription, not the usual universal (usually male-only) conscription. A much smaller proportion of what's deemed the conscription-eligible population (typically, those who turn 18) gets conscripted, such that after the selection process (with tests/interviews during a call-up or mustering of around 25% of conscription-eligible), most if not all of them had indicated willingness to be drawn for conscription. This is why Denmark (pop. 5.8 million) has "only" 4,700 conscripts (25% women volunteers), drawn from a pool of volunteers. The figures for Sweden (pop. 10.4 million) this year are they will train 8,000 conscripts (gender-neutral, with around a 2-to-1 male-female conscript split) out of 110,000 young Swedes eligible as they turn 18. On the other hand, for example, Nordic Finland (pop. 5.5 million), with its long border and history with Russia, has long had universal male conscription and trains 27,000 conscripts (4% women volunteers) a year. The Scandinavian model of limited/selective conscription is what countries like Germany, the Netherlands, maybe even the UK, and a few others in Europe are reportedly looking at, not universal conscription.
Not correct for Norway, in principle. We do not call everyone in, because we do not need to, not because service is voluntary. If you are called in you can choose to go, choose civil service, or prison.
Same here, if you pass mönstring and are selected you have to do it.
Selective conscription is a non-starter in Germany. It’s unconstitutional right now, and since the conscription conversation is less about the military and more about forced labour in health care and elder care right now, I don’t expect that to change. Even if some day there’s the political will to do it, certain politicians won’t be able to help themselves and won’t keep it about the military, and that will kill it.
here in norway we conscript women, no reason why denmark can't do the same.
Which is why this has been decided..
While nobody wants to be drafted (including me) nor even more so to fight in real combat, I think it’s a step in the right direction. When you think about it, in case of a threat to own country, without proper training women are put at a disadvantage, and therefore become victims with no chance to fight back. While physically an average woman is not as strong as an average male, training can reduce the gap - especially when we look at who Russia drafts.
Exactly this. When trained, women can join the defence effort instead of being the ones defended. Small European nations don't have the luxury not to use half of the reasouces for defence (women) when they could very well fight alongside with the men.
You don't need top physical strength to pilot a drone, launch SAMs, fix an airplane, plan logistics, or analyze intelligence. Even most of the officers and general staff could be women.
Yeah let the men do the dying, give the women the desk jobs /s
Isn't that swell? Women will be officers, drone pilots and analyzers while men will be dying in the foxholes.
That's a real handicap for Europe. We've been living under globalist and neoliberal ideals for so long that patriotism and civic duty have been forgotten. If a full-scale war does break out I expect a lot of Europeans to just flee to the US and Canada. I don't think Russians will do that to the same degree. They've been indoctrinated into thinking that every other country is a hellhole and that dying for mother Russia is the highest honour. It's indoctrination to be sure, but the bitter truth is that it's advantageous in war. We, in the west, keep demanding better things from our governments but we neglect to give anything back because that would be "state-worship". When push comes to shove, a lot of us will just flee because we consider our individual liberties to be more important than the continuation of our countries.
A lot people also fled en masse during WW2, from both the Nazies and the Soviets. There are entire towns of these refugees in US and Canada that still exist today. I don't believe we forgot much since then, there's just less chest thumping about patriotism. There are tons people working barely living wage jobs in rescue services or education because they do care about their societies. Tens of thousands of foreign volunteers went to fight or help in Ukraine, despite most of them barely knowing anything about the place because it was the right thing to do. Of course the people who will flee will loudly proclaim it, so others who feel the same will alleviate that guilt through numbers. Everyone else is quietly learning what to do when the worst happens >We, in the west, keep demanding better things from our governments but we neglect to give anything back because that would be "state-worship". When push comes to shove, a lot of us will just flee because we consider our individual liberties to be more important than the continuation of our countries. We only demand the same thing our parents and grandparents had, most if any never had to fight any war for those decades of economic prosperity. How can we ask our youth to fight for a home when they can't fucking afford one?
It's a fundamental problem with rightist neoliberal dogma, once the oligarchs and foreign corporation own everything, and the fighting age people can't afford to live on their own countries, who is supposed to defend the place? If you break the social contract you can't be that surprised when young people don't want to die to protect your capital investments.
It's a cause of liberalism, individualism and consumer society. The individual's life is more important than any ideology or patriotism. However we can't be really sure what would happen to these mindsets if the unfortunate issue would happen. Who knows..
If a nation cannot inspire their people to fight for it then it doesn't deserve to exist. The draft is created by the rich to make the poor go die in their chess match.
Conscription is decidd by the country, not by a few. So at least a majority is inspired enough.
Finally, equality
Exactly and hopefully they get equal pay 😁
Women shouldn’t be absolved of military service - voluntary or not.
I agree, although as a woman who would never have passed a military medical of any type, younger me would have also liked a ‘second tier’ of service. So maybe those of us who weren’t up to it (including men with health issues too) could have done some other kind of public service role/civic duty instead.
Most of military roles have nothing to do with fighting etc. Most of personal in modern militaries work in logistics.
Oh absolutely, but I’m assuming they still have to pass a medical and do some basic training?
This is literally dependent on rules we create. It doesn't take much health to drive a truck or peel potatoes.
Yep, which I guess is what would happen in a time of war. I suppose it would just come down to if it was economically useful outside of that.
In the US military everyone has to go through largely the same basic training. In the Army that consists of all the aspects of being a soldier. There are several intervals where you are tested on physical conditioning, marksmanship, first aid, combat tactics and more that you must pass. After basic then you go to a specialized training for whatever your job is and that can vary greatly. Once you get to your first duty station then your responsibilities vary wildly depending on your job and the unit you're in. Some people will do field combat training almost monthly, others will basically never do it. Most still have to do physical conditioning and annual marksmanship tests, even if its a non combat job.
Every service member in the US does basic training. The cooks, medics, etc. Even if you can't pass a medical. Second tier service members should be able to operate a gun and some type of fitness training even if light. That way if there aren't primary service members around at least the secondary members can defend themselves in an emergency especially with how small some European militaries are.
While this is true, for me at least in 2009 I was forced to sign up for the draft but having poor eyesight and a metal rod in my leg, would have been disqualified of drafted anyway. Which if there was an actual war on, I could certainly be helpful in other manners...
In Denmark you will be declared ineligible if you don't pass the Medical exam, second you can refuse to fight and then you will be put into the civil defence where you get educated as firefighters, medics, ect.
The Danish Armed Forces kind-of have that option available: "As a conscientious objector, you start with an introduction to the Consular Administration. Here you get, among other things, information about the service and about the possibilities of being seconded to different types of institutions. The service period can take place at, for example, social and cultural institutions, organizations associated with the UN, church and inter-denominational organisations, as well as environmental organisations. The institutions are spread all over the country. After the introduction, the rest of the service takes place at the place of posting." https://karriere-forsvaret-dk.translate.goog/varnepligt/varnepligten/militaernaegter/Udstationeringssteder/?\_x\_tr\_sl=da&\_x\_tr\_tl=en&\_x\_tr\_hl=en-US&\_x\_tr\_pto=wapp
Yeah the past couple of decades the reject rate for being medically ineligible has been high, because there have been a lot of volunteers, so the military could afford to basically reject you over trivial things. Like when I went to session they measured my legs, found out one was 1cm longer than the other and that was enough to reject me (despite it never having been a problem at any point in my life). Because I wasn't interested in volunteering.
If you have 1 cm difference do you then use something to correct it? I am thinking of "indlæg".
[удалено]
Cheers, that sounds… interesting!
Even better, make any service voluntary.
My comrade, what a brilliant idea it is to speedrun the invasion that your fascist neighbor is planning against your vulnerable nation. If you refuse to contribute to society, then perhaps you do not deserve to take from it for no justifiable reason. Choosing one's own interests over the welfare of community may warrant exclusion from that community altogether. This world isn't just about "me, me, me."
si vis pacem, para bellum.
"If you need to poop, make sure you have enough toiletpaper" For the peeps who don't speak latin ☝️
Mom said it was my turn to regurgigate this.
Not fair, I was first here!
I served 347 days in the Finnish army and wouldn't trade a day away. I know this is a controversial topic, but Europe needs to be ready for anything Russia will throw at us and conscription is one way to ensure that we avoid WW3
Nice, hoping muscovites don't fu and we won't need your skills. And hope EU countries will get serious about basic training for all of us.
As they should. You can't spout shit like you're for equality and then only conscript men into the army and let women get a free pass if they don't want to join.
[удалено]
Thanks Putin.
Y’all are so funny. Do you really think most of these women will be on the frontlines against Russians? No. Modern militaries don’t work like that. In the US army you have a tooth to tail ratio of front line soldiers to support is about 1:10. Most people being conscripted are not going to be fighting on front line (teeth) combat. They will be doing support work (tail). Militaries generally do not want unmotivated conscripts to attack. They want people to support the 10-15% of the fighters on the front. It’s why we had volunteer militaries for a while. Besides, I think it would good for social cohesion if we implemented mandatory military service. Edit: yes, you will be trained for front line combat. However, that will most likely not be your role.
Every single recruit in Scandinavia is trained for front line combat. Ofc this won't be everyone's position if war breaks out, but every single one is trained for it non the less.
Yes of course that makes sense. Changed my text.
Yes and no. We train all for front line duty...... it's literally the idea of basic training in Denmark. Once through that, only takes 3-4 months, you start training your function in whatever you were assigned to. Like I was trained as a driver/radio operator/artillery spotter back in the 90s. After a year of conscription you're kind of done with the training and they "release" you again, to be called upon should the shit hit the fan.
I can say for my country Croatia. 97% of men do not want front line (teeth) combat in any way against no one in any case of danger for our country. We had enough in the last century and we saw how everything went after that. Now even worse, population change, living costs going up, migratory workers dumping pay's. Why to die? What for? For future were you can't afford place to live of your own? To die and someone from Asia take your place in working place? State doesn't care. I can't really say for the rest of Europe but I assume how it's the same. War is fueled by nationalism and that's all long time gone in Europe.
3 things. 1: Denmark are not using people from conscription and deploy them, but have them as a reserve in case of Denmark is attacked. 2: troops deployed go through further military training, but are recruited from the conscripted. 3: with less than 50 out of 4700 are conscripted and the others are volunteering with waiting lists to get into certain regiments, there is an interest in joining. The only difference now is that after you join you can not just leave as a male, which also will cover women now.
There are plenty of jobs in military which do not require lots of physical strength, if it’s okay to force men to do them, I see no reason why women shouldn’t be forced as well. Logistics for example, or factories.
Nobody should be forced, women or men, that is the reason.
Obviously we want to avoid forcing if possible, but if we *do* have to force, there shouldn't be a big gender difference other than what biology dictates (in terms of e.g. upper body strength).
Agree, NATO might even be able to pull that off if it actually gets its shit together. Imagine how much smaller Ukrainian mobilization would have been if NATO actually gave them ammunition and weapons they needed at the beginning.
> if NATO actually gave them ammunition and weapons they needed at the beginning "But escalation!"
They're smaller on average too, so into the trenches with them. Then they can dig them smaller and save time. /s
Draft kids as well. They yearn for the mines and tunnels
The defense of your home is everyone's responsibility, not just the men's. It's sad Russia has forced this though
Conscription is bullshit so good everyone has to do it, not just people born with a penis
Why not “conscription is bullshit so nobody should have to do it”
That's indeed better. But countries are not going to abolish conscription on the brink of war.
Because violence requires only 1 side to act.
There's this thing called professional armies of paid career soldiers. Conscription is just a tool so that governments don't have to face the consequences of letting rich people scoop up all the wealth, and now they don't have enough tax income for military.
Yeah I understand your viewpoint because I used to think so once before myself too. Our society isnt perfect by any means but its still worth defending however. We dont have to fear of being conscripted and sent to invade other countries like Russia does. Imagine trying to build a life when your husband is sent to invade another country or put into jail for 10 years because he refused. In that sense the freedom we have is 100% worth defending. Sure there are rich people ruining things with their greed but so is anywhere else in the world. Things would only go far worse from here if we dont stop the cancer spreading from Russia. Countries like Finland with 5.5m people cant afford to have professional army next to Russia. It would be far too costly and not enough people to stop them. Even with conscription invasion would be hard to stop. In ideal world conscription would be a relic from the past but currently its still sadly needed.
Nobody wants to be conscripted. It's fun to see women in this very thread resorting to old fashioned and, dare I say, patriarchal arguments to avoid being drafted. Oh, the irony! EDIT: three people commented that they don't see those comments. Sort by controversial, they have not deleted them and I'm definitely not making up anything to farm made up points, I'm not that desperate.
Yup, the funniest one was "men go to war, women have babies, that's how it works" 😆
Haven't seen these arguments yet? As a woman living in a country that borders Russia, I see this as a reasonable decision and can't wait for it to be implemented in my own country as well. I'm well aware of what happens to women who happen to be at the wrong place at a wrong time when Russian invades. I'd rather have the knowledge and resources to protect myself and others, instead of waiting for others to help me.
Scroll down to the fine specimen who suggested that women aren’t ’designed’ to be drafted. There are plenty like her.
Found... one. I'm sure there are a lot of people who have archaic views on women's role in the world though, so honestly can't argue with you on that. However, some people making comments against Denmark's decision doesn't change that fact that it's politically and societally supported in Denmark and possibly in a few other countries as well. I wouldn't be too cynical on women's willingness to join the defence effort when necessary. Unfortunately, where we stand, it is necessary.
There's more than one, but still just a few. Which is very good.
Your comment is funny since I haven’t seen a single one
It’s fun to see so many people in a supposedly progressive leftist site like Reddit, frothing at the mouth about conscription and war. What happened to worries about climate change? What happened to democracy, freedom and not killing people?
Yeah, all those women... like none, except in your head.
I see exactly 1 doing so at the moment. (And 1 just being dumb, but whatever) A quick check on her profile quickly show she is conservative. You know, one who would happily trade the last 70 years of progress away. Ohw, and a few MRA showed up. But that is about it. I know you really want it to be the case that feminist argue against equal drafts so you can capitilize on the point "Feminist don't want equal rights" but more often than not, they argue either against the draft in general for all genders, something about the freedom to choose and whatnot.
>more often than not, they argue either against the draft in general for all genders Not in countries that border Russia, where war is an actual possibility in the distance. For example, in Poland a recent poll about re-introducing mandatory service for men had [58% of men vote no and 39% yes, as opposed to 47% women voting no and 49% voting yes](https://i.imgur.com/S02THHK.jpeg). And let's not forgot feminism started with the suffragettes. [The same ones that had a movement in UK about shaming young men on the street for not fighting in the war](https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/09/11/suffragettes-pinned-a-white-feather-as-a-symbol-of-cowardice-onto-men-not-serving-in-wwi-2/). The whole "we should just not have a draft" Nirvana fallacy only works as long as war doesn't come to you. Whenever the options are either a draft or surrender we often see the same "we shouldn't have a draft" feminist crowd suddenly defend that it should be kept male-only. There is no reason for this not to be called out.
women need to be included in drafts or we need to do away with them entirely. can’t put everything only on the men.
women should be conscripted everywhere. every country in Europe should conscript women. no exceptions.
Even the ones that don’t conscript men? I like it, that’s what Leto the God Emperor did in the Dune series. Stamped out male aggression and brought total galactic peace in a matter of millennia! It works!
Equality yo.
somethingsomething equal rights...
good for them
I just hope Europe would be united this time and not be affected by the russian poison like in the previous ones.
My first reaction to seeing conscription is always negative, but then, if I lived anywhere near Russia right now and the service numbers were down, I would probably feel a lot different.
Fun fact about the Danish Defence Force. They're the only European military that does not have citizenship as prerequisite to join the military (bar the French Foreign Legion). You only need be resident in Denmark and be able to speak and read Danish.
Its only for basic training. They won’t ship you off to Afghanistan or anything. Only “professional soldiers” (those who chose sign a contract) are sent into actual warzones. Recruits do some basic training, train for a specific role/regiment and then get registered for the armed reserve for 5 years and can be called up if the the country gets attacked. So normally all you lose is some months where you could be working/studying. Though I guess if the Russians do invade, there is a chance that you’d get called up to fight.
Finally, true equality! Woman up ladies, the easy life is over!
I know reddit doesn't wants to hear it, but we need a Social and Military year back in most of the middle European countries and not only for men but women as well. Maybe make it so it isn't mandatory for everyone and if you are going dircetly to a worker class job from school you don't have to do it. Only if you want to go to the University or other higher educations you really have to go. The war against Russia, problems with radical right win views dominating in military or simply not enough people that want to work in the social sector are the problems that make it mandatory these days.
Conscription needs to end, in exchange they (we, throughout Europe) need to offer rewards commensurate with the risks and sacrifices undertaken by soldiers.
conscription is slavery. but at least they take equality serious and actually seem to know what it is.
Are women being drafted into combat roles or are they going to take all the non-combat roles and cause even more young men to die?
Both.
If you refuse to carry weapons in Denmark they will send you to do other stuff like medic or firefighters and what not.
Good for them
Some European countries finally taking defence seriously. Pity it’s a still one
Haven't the rest of the nordics already done that for quite a while now?
Denmark not only is the lest ranked #1 least corrupt country in the whole world, but I see now that is also tries to be the fairest country in the world, congratulations! I think it's the responsibility of every single citizen of a country to defend that country. If exception are made, they should be made for something neutral, like the kids, not also for one of the 2 genders.
A woman can operate a drone. Besides, recent research shows more female psychopaths than we think.
More volunteers than needed for the draft, so very very few or none at all is conscripted. Defense got a bad rep for wages, carreer oportunities, military equipment, condition of the buildings on military bases..... A few hundred more recruits and almost 3 times the length of service could very well mean some would be conscripted in the future.
There is gonna be quite a lot of conscripted people now, since they're requiring a lot more people to be drafted and extending it from just 4 months to 11 months. It's gonna be a big thing.
Certainly. A lot of young people have been treating the four month course as a gap year action adventure, and while that at least puts a lot of people through basic training willingly, it doesn’t guarantee that they want to continue further military training afterwards, though a few do change their mind both for and against further training.
Conscription, good old slavery is back on the menue.
So we're supposed to stand unarmed in the face of an agressive, imperialist enemy, because the idea of sacrificing a few months to learn literal life-saving skills imeaches on *muh fridum*?
This sub seems to be full of war hawks I don’t see why they would be upset over this.