Irish military exports worth a massive €10.7bn.

Orando Broom

Other (state in post).

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

:

:eek:

Where does it say that?

And how do you know that.

Have the designers and users put forward that spec? and if so where?

Like I said I was told by a bomb disposal expert about them and he said that they were used to maim kids because they were attractive to kids to pick up and play with. Make of that what you will. I have no independent peer reviewed material or expert witnesses. Choose to believe me or not. I don't care I saw no reason for your man to misinform me.

FlutterinBantam

Other (state in post).

Orando Broom wrote: »

Like I said I was told by a bomb disposal expert about them and he said that they were used to maim kids because they were attractive to kids to pick up and play with. Make of that what you will. I have no independent peer reviewed material or expert witnesses. Choose to believe me or not. I don't care I saw no reason for your man to misinform me.

Ok , ok he wasn't being correct, but I accept your line of reasoning.

Tks.

Orando Broom

Other (state in post).

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Ok , ok he wasn't being correct, but I accept your line of reasoning.

Tks.

Where was he wrong? Are you a bomb disposal officer? Do enlighten me.

FlutterinBantam

Other (state in post).

Orando Broom wrote: »

Where was he wrong? Are you a bomb disposal officer? Do enlighten me.

Eh?...........

How do I know where he was wrong bud?

Where does it say on the spec that the items are aimed at children?

maddragon

Other (state in post).

The butterfly mine was shaped that way so it could be delivered by air or artillery (i.e. a scatterable mine). It was a very unfortunate consequence that the shape was attractive to children who would pick it up, squeeze it or stand on it and have their arms or legs blown off. The Russians weren't bothered as they viewed it as one less adult in the future who could handle a weapon.

Orando Broom

Other (state in post).

maddragon wrote: »

The butterfly mine was shaped that way so it could be delivered by air or artillery (i.e. a scatterable mine). It was a very unfortunate consequence that the shape was attractive to children who would pick it up, squeeze it or stand on it and have their arms or legs blown off. The Russians weren't bothered as they viewed it as one less adult in the future who could handle a weapon.

And it continues to be made outside of Russia despite the obvious casualties.

Donny5

Orando Broom wrote: »

And it continues to be made outside of Russia despite the obvious casualties.

By whom?

harmoniums

I had a business making rifles for civilian sale here in California.





I wonder if the IDA would help out with setting up business in Ireland?

who wants a Job?

Orando Broom

Other (state in post).

harmoniums wrote: »

I had a business making rifles for civilian sale here in California.





I wonder if the IDA would help out with setting up business in Ireland?

who wants a Job?

Jobbridge for the win!

longhalloween

Other (state in post).

harmoniums wrote: »

I had a business making rifles for civilian sale here in California.





I wonder if the IDA would help out with setting up business in Ireland?

who wants a Job?

Ooh Oooh ME ME!!:P

Sonnenblumen

Donny5 wrote: »

Now this is a ludicrous argument. Neutral countries by definition should have strong defences to protect their sovereignty, and almost all neutral countries have large defence industries.

Ireland, with our extremely weak defences and almost non-existent armaments industry is the exception, not the rule.

Now that is a ludicrous statement. Why would neutral countries require strong defences? Pleaes spare us the 'coldwar' sales pitch. Perhaps you can also explain how and from whom is Ireland's sovereignty at risk?

Ireland's defence forces are far bigger for our needs, and only some opportunistic UN Peacekeeping tours helps to pay the enormous wagebill.

Manic Moran

Why would neutral countries require strong defences?

You can get further with a kind word, and a tank, than you can with just a kind word...

Neutral countries require strong defences for three reasons.
1) If they don't have a strong defence, they are reliant on others to defend them if the country is to be defended at all (Ask a Dutchman, for example)
2) Other nations may not respect the neutral country's neutrality (Ask a Dutchman, for example)
3) The current, nice, peaceful state of world affairs can change more rapidly than a nation's military can. (Ask a Dutchman, for example).

Not picking on the Dutch, just they are a fairly close practical example.

NTM

Monty Burnz

harmoniums wrote: »

I had a business making rifles for civilian sale here in California.





I wonder if the IDA would help out with setting up business in Ireland?

who wants a Job?

It's not the IDA you want, it's Enterprise Ireland. If you have a track record in the industry and a good business case (why would someone buy your rifle over one from another maker?), get onto them and/or your county enterprise board. Ireland is badly in need of small/medium scale 'mittlestand' manufacturers.

revell

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It's not the IDA you want, it's Enterprise Ireland. If you have a track record in the industry and a good business case (why would someone buy your rifle over one from another maker?), get onto them and/or your county enterprise board. Ireland is badly in need of small/medium scale 'mittlestand' manufacturers.

IDA's targets are foreign investors and EI's targets are indigenous Irish business.

Monty Burnz

revell wrote: »

IDA's targets are foreign investors and EI's targets are indigenous Irish business.

Um...yes, that's what my post was about.

Sonnenblumen

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Um...yes, that's what my post was about.

EI also works with many non-indigenous companies here in Ireland, usually referred to those companies with 'strategic management and/or marketing control in Ireland'. This type of company accounts for the bulk of EI export sales!;)

Sonnenblumen

Manic Moran wrote: »

You can get further with a kind word, and a tank, than you can with just a kind word...

Neutral countries require strong defences for three reasons.
1) If they don't have a strong defence, they are reliant on others to defend them if the country is to be defended at all (Ask a Dutchman, for example)
2) Other nations may not respect the neutral country's neutrality (Ask a Dutchman, for example)
3) The current, nice, peaceful state of world affairs can change more rapidly than a nation's military can. (Ask a Dutchman, for example).

Not picking on the Dutch, just they are a fairly close practical example.

NTM

Sorry they are weak points which are no longer relevant in today's more developed world of international diplomacy. More of the old arguments made by weapon producers, if youy cannot convince them with the technology, scare them with potential threats. The Coldwar period involved the wasting of billions of $ £ on US/Soviet threats. In stable democracies (and nuclear world as a backdrop) only aspiring Super powers/aggressor led States would believe in stockpiling weapons.

We are unlikely to witness a repeat of WWII in Europe, so the smaller nations would be better to ignore any scaremongering from the arms industry.

Manic Moran

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

We are unlikely to witness a repeat of WWII in Europe, so the smaller nations would be better to ignore any scaremongering from the arms industry.

I agree that it is unlikely. But similar was said after WW1, and in effect, you are being the nation on "unlikely" being "will not". It its unlikely that my house will burn down, but I still spend a bit of my income on insurance and a couple of fire extinguishers.

Wurzelbert

"irish military exports"…a slightly misleading headline when the vast majority of the stuff is dual-use products…