https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/denmark-expands-military-service-include-women-2025-07-01/

Apparently all women who turn 18 after July 1st 2025 have to register.

It looks like volunteer females already made up 24% of their military recruits.

Quote:

---

Denmark, which together with NATO allies last week agreed to boost defence spending, plans to gradually increase the duration of the conscription period from four months to 11 months in 2026 and raise the number of recruits doing military service from around 5,000 now to 7,500 in 2033.

---

They might have to serve for 11 months. Up from the current 4 months for male conscripts.

Can you imagine the weeping and gnashing of teeth if the USA adopted this?

Best part - it's all Trump's fault - literally. Because he's getting NATO countries to step up.

They have to defend Greenland from Trump somehow

Headline tomorrow: "Support for Ukraine among Danish women plummets"

That is one way to up the birth rate!

Glad someone knows what a woman is.

Now is the time for us to make our own Selective Service "more inclusive".

If my conservative sons have to be drafted, then so should your feminist daughters.

Danish women are pretty attractive. I hope they aren't going to waste these chicks in combat roles. Put them in Lebensborn programs as their service commitment.

There are two things I can't stand in this world: people who are intolerant of others cultures… and the Dutch!

Oh dang I misread. Oh well, the Danes too

Without them who would provide the danish for breakfast?

HollywoodBQ said:

---

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/denmark-expands-military-service-include-women-2025-07-01/

Apparently all women who turn 18 after July 1st 2025 have to register.

It looks like volunteer females already made up 24% of their military recruits.

Quote:

---

Denmark, which together with NATO allies last week agreed to boost defence spending, plans to gradually increase the duration of the conscription period from four months to 11 months in 2026 and raise the number of recruits doing military service from around 5,000 now to 7,500 in 2033.

---

They might have to serve for 11 months. Up from the current 4 months for male conscripts.

Can you imagine the weeping and gnashing of teeth if the USA adopted this?

Best part - it's all Trump's fault - literally. Because he's getting NATO countries to step up.

---

Do it. Please, please do it!

4 months? Man, that's a pretty short time to learn enough to be a functional part of a reserve.

Buck Turgidson said:

---

Put them in Lebensborn programs as their service commitment.

---

Just say "No!" to gay camps!

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

Headline tomorrow: "Support for Ukraine among Danish women plummets"

---

They will skirt the issue when they experience a draft.

Women should have to register for selective service just like men do.

If they want "equality" then it should go all the way, not only when for instances where women think it is to their benefit.

IIIHorn said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

Headline tomorrow: "Support for Ukraine among Danish women plummets"

---

They will skirt the issue when they experience a draft.

---

You don't think they'll Dane to serve?

I do not think that this will get very far for the Danish Army is unionized so that if they do not agree with things, they can always strike.

While equality should be equality, I don't celebrate societal degradation. Healthy cultures don't send their women to war.

Now. I do think we could leverage selective service for voting purposes. Voting contingent upon the completion of 10 years of selective service compliance or 2 years of honorable service. Register at 18. Vote by 20 if you volunteer. Vote at 28 if you didn't. Selective service includes a trip through MEPS and annual muster (w/ height / weight). Those who are physically ineligible to serve (whether through MEPS determination or subsequent ht/wt failure) get their deferment period extended.

Women should not be in combat roles.

And it isn't just physical limitations or even capability.
It adds layers of complication that decrease combat readiness.
It is hard enough for officers to send men into danger for the mission, add in natural protective instincts and it is extremely difficult to send women into danger for the mission.
Women are too valuable to civilization due to a small window of reproductive capability.
The list goes on . . .

Civilizations have known this since the dawn of time, I swear the smarter we get, the dumber we get.

Ozzy Osbourne said:

---

They have to defend Greenland from Trump somehow

---

With an army made up of women, I don't think that will work out well for them

4 said:

---

Ozzy Osbourne said:

---

They have to defend Greenland from Trump somehow

---

With an army made up of women, I don't think that will work out well for them

---

The mobilization to defend Greenland would be derailed the moment someone asked "what do you want to eat?"

Rebel Yell said:

---

4 said:

---

Ozzy Osbourne said:

---

They have to defend Greenland from Trump somehow

---

With an army made up of women, I don't think that will work out well for them

---

The mobilization to defend Greenland would be derailed the moment someone asked "what do you want to eat?"

---

Lol

"Ladies, how do we feel about taking that hill today?"

GAC06 said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

Headline tomorrow: "Support for Ukraine among Danish women plummets"

---

They will skirt the issue when they experience a draft.

---

You don't think they'll Dane to serve?

---

Maybe if they are double dog Daned.

Probably the best way to end this insanity is to go ahead and fully embrace it and let the fallout occur. Conscript women and put them in combat. Wouldn't take long for reality to deal with girl power movements.

90% of modern politics is just people pretending to be helpless/sad/angry so that single women will vote to ‘mother’ them with other people’s money.

— Stefan Molyneux, MA (@StefanMolyneux) July 2, 2025

I'm sure they have some comfort in knowing Denmark won't do squat if any **** hits the fan.

Just another data point to file away for the next time someone tells us that we should do things more like the way Europe does things.

I agree. Let's start conscripting women into the military. That should end the Euro praise conversation quickly.

Buck Turgidson said:

---

Danish women are pretty attractive. I hope they aren't going to waste these chicks in combat roles. Put them in Lebensborn programs as their service commitment.

---

Buck Turgidson said:

---

Danish women are pretty attractive. I hope they aren't going to waste these chicks in combat roles. Put them in Lebensborn programs as their service commitment.

---

The fighting men of Denmark will be well supplied with sammiches.

Rebel Yell said:

---

Women should not be in combat roles.

And it isn't just physical limitations or even capability.
It adds layers of complication that decrease combat readiness.
It is hard enough for officers to send men into danger for the mission, add in natural protective instincts and it is extremely difficult to send women into danger for the mission.
Women are too valuable to civilization due to a small window of reproductive capability.
The list goes on . . .

Civilizations have known this since the dawn of time, I swear the smarter we get, the dumber we get.

---

Who said these were combat roles? A majority of our own army personnel are non-combat.

They need the troops to defend Greenland.

Rebel Yell said:

---

Women should not be in combat roles.

And it isn't just physical limitations or even capability.
It adds layers of complication that decrease combat readiness.
It is hard enough for officers to send men into danger for the mission, add in natural protective instincts and it is extremely difficult to send women into danger for the mission.
Women are too valuable to civilization due to a small window of reproductive capability.
The list goes on . . .

Civilizations have known this since the dawn of time, I swear the smarter we get, the dumber we get.

---

I'm prepared to make an exception for women for vote democrat.

Teslag said:

---

Rebel Yell said:

---

Women should not be in combat roles.

And it isn't just physical limitations or even capability.
It adds layers of complication that decrease combat readiness.
It is hard enough for officers to send men into danger for the mission, add in natural protective instincts and it is extremely difficult to send women into danger for the mission.
Women are too valuable to civilization due to a small window of reproductive capability.
The list goes on . . .

Civilizations have known this since the dawn of time, I swear the smarter we get, the dumber we get.

---

Who said these were combat roles? A majority of our own army personnel are non-combat.

---

This is a silly comment.

But ok, first I do not think Denmark is excluding them from combat roles.

But let's say you are correct, the current Denmark army has roughly 8,000 soldiers, if they are in fact excluding women from combat roles and follow this policy to a 50-50 split then they will only have a standing army of 4,000 combat ready soldiers.

To provide you context they would have equal number of combat ready soldiers as the power houses of Trinidad and Tobago, Papua New Guinea, Maldives and Fiji.

So yes I think Denmark plans to use them in combat.

A 50-50 split is laughably generous. Our current tooth to tail is about 4 to 1. Basically for every combat MOS you have 4 non combat in support. A country like Denmark is probably even higher than ours based on their NATO roles.

Rebel Yell said:

---

4 said:

---

Ozzy Osbourne said:

---

They have to defend Greenland from Trump somehow

---

With an army made up of women, I don't think that will work out well for them

---

The mobilization to defend Greenland would be derailed the moment someone asked "what do you want to eat?"

---

POTD

Teslag said:

---

A 50-50 split is laughably generous. Our current tooth to tail is about 4 to 1. Basically for every combat MOS you have 4 non combat in support. A country like Denmark is probably even higher than ours based on their NATO roles.

---

This is tedious. I am not debating that there are more non-combat roles in the military than combat roles.

But do you really think a military of 8,000 should be scaled and resourced the same as a military of 1.3 million?

Again I am not sure why you have chosen this odd line of attempts at gotcha questions. I am moving on.