Building up the Army

Hagar

Manic Moran wrote:

I believe the Gendarmerie have limited artillery and anti-tank support, for example. And they do have a regular army to back them up for when the Germans invade.

Then there's the CRS, they make the Gendarmerie look like the Police Municipal. And I don't think you're far off the mark with "the Germans", this is one country that won't face humiliiation at the hands of foreigners again. Hell it even says "Non" to the US and doesn't care about the consequences.:D

purple'n'gold

Hagar wrote:

Then there's the CRS, they make the Gendarmerie look like the Police Municipal. And I don't think you're far off the mark with "the Germans", this is one country that won't face humiliiation at the hands of foreigners again. Hell it even says "Non" to the US and doesn't care about the consequences.:D

They also have a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. Serious hardware or what?
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/gaulle/gaulle1.html

neilled

Satan Polaroid wrote:

Can you elaborate please? What type of system do the Swiss and Swedish have?

A system of national conscription of every able bodied male of fighting age. A set initial training period of about half a year to nine months followed by refresher courses and compulsory training every year until middle age. The swiss notably keep their rifles at home, along with 50 sealed rounds of ammo to be opened in the event of invasion.

The idea behind these systems is that the country can have a very small standing/professional forces that are exceptionally well equipped with the latest in high tech weaponry, but can achieve national mobilisation within a short space of time and confront the invader with every able bodied male in the country, without of course spending a huge amount of the GDP that comes with a large standing or professional force.

Or course the concept of service to the country, the rite of passage and earning ones citizenship comes into it as well, the idea of the duties/responsibilities of the citizen, not just their rights.

For those who aren't inclined to the military there are normally "civil" services are normally made available like working in hospitals or with emergency services, teaching etc but for a longer period than military service. I believe the swiss actually tax those who don't serve in the armed forces more to discourage the faking of injuries in order to get out of service.

The finns, danes , germans and norwegians also operate similar systems. In recent times these have been through reform, the numbers of troops needed for conscription every year have been reduced.

Would something like that work in Ireland? I'm not so sure. The tradition of conscription simply doesn't exist and was resisted strongly in the past. In addition it clashes with the title of the defence forces "The Volunteers of Ireland".

And i'm not sure that we as a country would be "mature" enough to deal with every male in the country having a knowledge of assault weapons. Look what the americans do to each other with legally held fire arms on a regular basis.

Such a system of service would of course be a shock to my generation of late teens to twenty somethings who aren't even capable of putting up tents during the two big summer music festivals in Ireland and you'd have every parent harassing their local TD for intervention and favoured treatment for their beloved little darlings during training........

slapper2

i would be in favour of building up the defence forces alround but not a major build up but i do want major investment

Satan Polaroid

Excellent post neilled. Thanks for the info

I think there is a need for major changes within An Garda Síochána.

One of the major flaws in our police force is the fact they take so long to make decisions, so I can't see anything happen anytime soon.

Conor108

Do other countries have unarmed police forces or is it just us?

testicle

Conor108 wrote:

Do other countries have unarmed police forces or is it just us?

Our nearest neighbours.

gunnerfitzy

cp251 wrote: »

I'm afraid that says it all. No, Mr Ahern, they won't be safe. If you send them to Cork they might be safe but Chad is not a safe place for anyone, let alone soldiers. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE GOING THERE!:mad:

No one wants to see Irish soldiers suffer casualties but there seems to be a pathological fear in the Irish government about using soldiers in a situation where they might actually come into combat. It's insulting to the army and makes us a laughing stock.

What Mr Ahern would be looking for here is to ensure that troops are not put at UNNECESSARY risk. Not promises that they will not be shot at. It should be remembered that combat is not what UN missions are all about. Something else that Mr Ahern should looking for are assurances that the Rules of Engagement are sufficent and that there is a sufficent quick reaction force available to assist any troops that require it. Those of us who served on UN missions can lay testimony to the fact that that UN missions are generally alot less efficent than, for example, NATO missions. Delays and indecision at higher levels are notorious.

purple'n'gold

We understand what you are saying about what Mr Ahern should be looking for. But what he actually looked for was an assurance that Irish troops going to Chad would be safe. Its here in black and white.
http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jDRNv8upFFzoDOZ1MrpaKIpiTeKw

And maybe UN missions are not all about combat, but soldiers are all about combat, that why they are called soldiers. If we want to look after the unfortunate people of Chad in another way we should send social workers, or missionaries. The soldiers of the Irish army are neither.

Morpheus

I think that as we are deploying up to 350 infantry soldiers / engineers and thats the sum of our contribution (no irish artillery, no irish air / naval support, no irish armour), that he wants assurances that should our Bat come under attack that the UN ROE are robust enough to protect us.

So if we request qrtillery support from the nigerians or french or whicever UN artillery unit is within range, that we get it immediately and the UN allies dont go off up the echelons bickering over the order to fire.

Look what happened the Dutch in Srebrenica (correct?).

That is the more probable definition of "Safe". No country will willingly send its troops to a place like that without knowing that its troops have the full, unflinching and immediate support from the other units and assets comprising the total force in order to support them and save them if necessary, just as they themselves are willing to deploy their own guys in similiar support of the other UN units on request.

My 2 c

OS119

Morphéus wrote: »

I think that as we are deploying up to 350 infantry soldiers / engineers and thats the sum of our contribution (no irish artillery, no irish air / naval support, no irish armour), that he wants assurances that should our Bat come under attack that the UN ROE are robust enough to protect us.

So if we request qrtillery support from the nigerians or french or whicever UN artillery unit is within range, that we get it immediately and the UN allies dont go off up the echelons bickering over the order to fire.

Look what happened the Dutch in Srebrenica (correct?).

That is the more probable definition of "Safe". No country will willingly send its troops to a place like that without knowing that its troops have the full, unflinching and immediate support from the other units and assets comprising the total force in order to support them and save them if necessary, just as they themselves are willing to deploy their own guys in similiar support of the other UN units on request.

My 2 c

true, but UN missions have shown consistantly that whatever promises are given in New York, immediate fire-support from other nations and via the UN ROE rarely happens.

if the Irish deployment to Chad to was a structured part of the Nordic Battlegroup under direct EU or NATO command then this wouldn't be a problem, its used to working with the constituant parts, the participating nations have tight working and emotional relationships to each other and all the nations are singing from the same hymm sheet.

contrast that with your typical UN mission where you dump several thousand soldiers with utterly disparate levels and types of training, equipment, doctrine, political backing, mission objectives, leadership and morale and you call it a coherant force - which anyone who's had the misfortune to be involved in one knows it isn't.

if you are going on a job with NATO or EU formations you know that they have the political backing, equipment and skill to back you up should the crap hit the fan, so you can send little gangs to do specific jobs that rely on others to help with logistics, mobility, and fire-support knowing that everyone else is operating on the same team. however, if you wish to rely on the Angolans for absolutely anything - except perhaps AIDS and corruption - you may be left swinging in the wind, regardless of what the resident talking head in New York promised.

Morpheus

No, I agree WITH you, what I was pointing out was that the reason WHY he is asking to ensure we will be safe, is probably BECAUSE of it being a UN mission (their ROE are dodgy at best) and its involving some very inexperienced armies.

100% agree that as part of the nordic battlegroup we would have a much more effective role in chad.

Maybe we are finally at the graveside of the UN and new bodies such as the EU battlegroups will allow nations who care, to actually undertake these type of missions.

Nowadays corrupt governments, who have economic interests in some of the places that the UN are desperately needed, are effectively using vetoes either as a bargaining chip with other UN countries, or because they have interests in Fossil Fuels, exports of commodities or selling weapon systems.

Now maybe over the next couple of years, we will lower our UN contribution and increase our battle group contributions.

Thats my vision of a better future anyway, the UN, as a credible world effort at democratising and stabilising war torn areas, is slowly decomposing and will continue to do so, its like an old dog with no teeth.:rolleyes::



PS MODs, whould these last few posts be moved to the Peacekeeping in Chad thread?

Hagar

Last few posts copied to Peacekeeping Force to go to Chad [Merged] thread as per users request.

If you wish to follow that discussion please follow the link above,
otherwise this thread continues with original topic Building up the Army. Thanks.

Manic Moran

It should be remembered that combat is not what UN missions are all about

*Cough* Korea *Cough*

The Congo wasn't a peacekeeping operation either, it should be noted. It was a peace enforcing operation. Though most UN operations are peacekeeping, with the UN presence approved by all parties to the conflict, UN ops can also be unilateral.

NTM

Mick86

Marquall wrote: »

we don't have an Army, its a Defence Force ^_^

We've got both. The DF consists of the Army, the Naval Service and the Air Corps.

uptherebels

we could get some transport planes
take for example new zealand
military budget 1.7billion nz dollars about if my maths are correct 850million euro out of a gdp of 108 billion
active personal in its army about 9000 full time and they operate 5 hercules and 5 orion aircraft
and what is the budget of the irish df and we have none. now im not saying that we even need 5 hercules but .
reasons for: not having to rely on other eu countries or privately chartered planes to transport equipment and troops for peacekeeping missions
reasons against : cant really think of any except having to train the maintenace crews and pilots and that the government will have to spend money on something that might actually be useful instead of voting machines (52 million! that would have got you a plane)and computer systems that go way over budget

SimpleSam06

I don't think we need much if any regular army at this stage (nor the reserves), to be honest. Conscription, forget it, the day of the massed land army is long gone. Any nation that can field a force to invade another country also has access to nuclear weapons (barring third world squabbles), which can knock out whatever army you put together. Not to mention politically, it would go down like a lead balloon.

What this country needs is something to deal with the real issues we have today, I mean lets be honest, who the hell is going to invade us, sandwiched as we are between the UK and the US. We need an emphasis on smaller, more mobile and very well equipped forces that can deal with terrorism or particularily well armed criminals. It might be best to field this as an extension of the guards, alright.

There also should be a much greater emphasis on the Navy and Air Force. We are after all an island, and we should focus our efforts on high speed interceptors, AEGIS-style cruisers, underwater stealth and coastal emplacements. This would have significant knock-on effects for local industry as well, something sorely needed.

OS119

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

There also should be a much greater emphasis on the Navy and Air Force. We are after all an island, and we should focus our efforts on high speed interceptors, AEGIS-style cruisers, underwater stealth and coastal emplacements. This would have significant knock-on effects for local industry as well, something sorely needed.

your logic is flawed, you'd downsize the Army because - as you point out - there is no conceivable conventional threat to the territory of the Republic and no domestic threat to its internal security that the Army could assist in dealing with..

yet in the next breath you'd ramp up the NS and AC with systems purely dedicated to the defence of Irish waters and Air Space - despite saying that no conceivable threat to them exists.