Does Ireland need an army?

Poccington

psychward wrote: »

Yep so why waste money on boys toys. Any billions we spent would end up quickly vaporized exactly like little Georgia's billion dollar defense budget went up in smoke when faced with the Russians. Guerrilla warfare for defense plus some nukes giving us the possibility of an attacking capability and attack threat would be our best and only defense.

You can't claim we waste money on "boys toys" and then say we need nukes within a few sentences. If Mowag's and RG32's are boys toys, nukes are an off the wall idea altogether.


I don't like the "Ah sure the Yanks and Brits will protect us" concept that so many people seem to embrace. The world is changing, we're nowhere near as liked or close to those countries as people seem to think. It's not as if, if we got invaded, the rest of the world is going to suddenly say "Ireland is being attacked, we've got to give them a dig out!".

Countries act in their own best interests, they'll show unity when it suits them. With them finishing up in Iraq, knee deep in A'Stan and one eye on the ever changing situation in the Middle East, the idea that Ireland is high up on the Yanks and Brits list of things to keep safe is laughable.

Poccington

Musiconomist wrote: »

As it turns out, I was mistaken about NATO paying Irish troops. Apologies to all for the misinformation.

Just out of curiosity, why would you think what I said about the vehicles being tampered with be a lie? The NATO thing was my mistake, but I dont have any cause to make up such a story.

I'm in a Unit which is making quite a bit of use out of those new vehicles. That story is a lie.

As for the laziness etc. I wish someone would get me into one of those Units that seem to be full of lazy people. I'm upto my tits in work these days.

Judgement Day

Poccington - a lot of what you say makes sense but there are enormous connections between the USA and Britain with Ireland and the very idea that they would leave the country at the mercy of some 'unlikely' foreign aggressor is laughable. Anyway the whole idea of Ireland being able to defend itself from a serious aggressor is also laughable. If Ireland is worried about its defence it would be best to invite the US to establish a base here with a few nukes. Back on topic, in my opinion the current army is surplus to the country's requirements and the manpower would be utilised to rejuvenate the Gardai.

meat bomb

What if people don't want to 'rejuvenate the guards'? How does the mentality and skillset of a soldier automatically lend itself to policing?

Judgement Day

meat bomb wrote: »

What if people don't want to 'rejuvenate the guards'? How does the mentality and skillset of a soldier automatically lend itself to policing?

Join the dole queue I suppose.

psychward

Poccington wrote: »

You can't claim we waste money on "boys toys" and then say we need nukes within a few sentences. If Mowag's and RG32's are boys toys, nukes are an off the wall idea altogether.

Yes I can say exactly that and I explained why already while highlighting the example of Georgia vs Russia and how futile their huge defense budget and foreign military aid was. All those other weapons wouldn't make any difference to defending Ireland.
However what could actually make a difference would be a few Nukes designed to be used. If Ireland was going to be raped, destroyed and enslaved for a few hundred years by some imperial power I would be quite happy to use them. War is supposed to be ''not nice'' by definition. If you're one of the peace at any price pacifist hippy crowd than I can see why you would be against nukes.

Judgement Day

psychward wrote: »

Yes I can say exactly that and I explained why already while highlighting the example of Georgia vs Russia and how futile their huge defense budget and foreign military aid was. All those other weapons wouldn't make any difference to defending Ireland.
However what could actually make a difference would be a few Nukes designed to be used. If Ireland was going to be raped, destroyed and enslaved for a few hundred years by some imperial power I would be quite happy to use them. War is supposed to be ''not nice'' by definition. If you're one of the peace at any price pacifist hippy crowd than I can see why you would be against nukes.

Assuming that this http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPT.shtml did not exist, and that you could buy your nukes in Harvey Norman, using them against any aggressor likely to attack Ireland would simply ensure the eradication of all life on the this island. Anyway, why can we not stick to the topic rather than these red herrings?

psychward

Judgement Day wrote: »

Assuming that this http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPT.shtml did not exist, and that you could buy your nukes in Harvey Norman, using them against any aggressor likely to attack Ireland would simply ensure the eradication of all life on the this island. Anyway, why can we not stick to the topic rather than these red herrings?

If someone is going to kill and destroy us , I want to take them with us. Plus you explode the things where it hurts them most ... on their territory, not on ours. Sure they will use theirs on us but that's why people are supposed to use them intelligently. There has to be a scenario upon when they should be used. If this is deterrent enough to prevent invasion then good. If it is not then that is the fault of the invader.
The question was do we need an army. You are introducing what you refer to as the red herring if you have a problem with the best possible way of punishing the enemy as this means that you must be against defending yourself because since similar to Georgias' predicament there is no other defense. It's not a red herring and it's not irrelevant for a sovereign people to openly discuss all possible options.

dodgydes

Judgement Day wrote: »

... in my opinion the current army is surplus to the country's requirements and the manpower would be utilised to rejuvenate the Gardai.

You are correct in what you say here.

The problem is that if you were to get rid of the army in its current form, you have no capability against any future threat which, in reality is more likely to be internal.
It takes time to build up an army, you can't just create one overnight when they are needed .
It is unfortunate that the current financial mess makes people consider that getting rid of an insurance policy is a good idea

shadowninty

psychward wrote: »

If someone is going to kill and destroy us , I want to take them with us. Plus you explode the things where it hurts them most ... on their territory, not on ours. Sure they will use theirs on us but that's why people are supposed to use them intelligently. There has to be a scenario upon when they should be used. If this is deterrent enough to prevent invasion then good. If it is not then that is the fault of the invader.
The question was do we need an army. You are introducing what you refer to as the red herring if you have a problem with the best possible way of punishing the enemy as this means that you must be against defending yourself because since similar to Georgias' predicament there is no other defense. It's not a red herring and it's not irrelevant for a sovereign people to openly discuss all possible options.

I dont see who could nuke us tbh, the UK and France would be sending their nukes their way if it came to it. How ludicrous. "Take them with us" :pac:

Judgement Day

dodgydes wrote: »

You are correct in what you say here.

The problem is that if you were to get rid of the army in its current form, you have no capability against any future threat which, in reality is more likely to be internal.
It takes time to build up an army, you can't just create one overnight when they are needed .
It is unfortunate that the current financial mess makes people consider that getting rid of an insurance policy is a good idea

Agreed, the threat is far more likely to be internal than external and who is more likely to have the intelligence on that threat than the Gardai? I never suggested that we do an Iraq type operation and dismiss the army, rather that they be subsumed into a new Garda force.

Sunnyisland

dodgydes wrote: »

You are correct in what you say here.

The problem is that if you were to get rid of the army in its current form, you have no capability against any future threat which, in reality is more likely to be internal.
It takes time to build up an army, you can't just create one overnight when they are needed .
It is unfortunate that the current financial mess makes people consider that getting rid of an insurance policy is a good idea

It would be much more efficient in having a police/army force than the current separate organisations.At the height of the troubles there were (afaik)15000 soldiers, since then every successive government have brought the numbers down so its nothing to do with the current crisis as it has been happening for a long time,With modern technology there is more of an effort going into a quality defence force than quantity.

blahfckingblah

I havn't read much of this thread but yes i think we do need an army for cases like riots like those we saw in london this year and which lets face it are very likely with the mixture of austerity and the potential collapse of the euro etc.
Border protection against the likes of smuggling drugs, guns, oil and potential threats like bombings etc. (lets face it there is still potential for trouble)
They also come in handy in times of disaster and can provide a good service with an abundance of resources.
as far as i know they also protect the fisheries?

DublinWriter

Of course we need an Army, who else will collect the bins when the corpo goes out on strike?

Sunnyisland

blahfckingblah wrote: »

I havn't read much of this thread but yes i think we do need an army for cases like riots like those we saw in london this year and which lets face it are very likely with the mixture of austerity and the potential collapse of the euro etc.
Border protection against the likes of smuggling drugs, guns, oil and potential threats like bombings etc. (lets face it there is still potential for trouble)
They also come in handy in times of disaster and can provide a good service with an abundance of resources.
as far as i know they also protect the fisheries?

This is what I posted earlier....We could save a large amount of money if we would abolish the Army and the Department of Defence with it - and be as peaceful and neutral as we always pretend to be.The Navel service and the Aer corps could be amalgamated into a new and strengthened Coast guard, which could also have some land-based units. It should be governed by a restored dept of the marine, which should also get responsibility for Fishing and Natural Resources. And finally we could have an even better Police force maybe even a paramilitary force. So in my opinion we dont need an Army as in the one we have now,

shadowninty

realies wrote: »

With modern technology there is more of an effort going into a quality defence force than quantity.

But, is the problem that we have neither quality in equipment, nor quantity in equipment? :pac:

psychward

shadowninty wrote: »

I dont see who could nuke us tbh, the UK and France would be sending their nukes their way if it came to it. How ludicrous. "Take them with us" :pac:

me neither.; however if we're going to cut back our army we should at least have some kind of deterrent and be respected as having the balls to use it. Nobody knows what the world will be like in 100 or 200 years from now with resources running out and populations increasing. Empires rise and fall. The EU could last 500 years or as long as the Roman empire and then enter world war 3 or world war 5 between an Islamic USSR due to demographics or using demographics in another way... a new version of the USSR dominated by a huge Chinese immigrant population displacing or probably merging with ethnic Russians who are not reproducing enough after 2 world wars in between. Crazy stuff and the world is just at an early stage. We have a few billion years before the sun will start to run out of energy to either create a perfect world or blow it all up :pac: Such time makes the next 500 years look like nothing...

trendyvicar

Judgement Day wrote: »

Poccington - a lot of what you say makes sense but there are enormous connections between the USA and Britain with Ireland and the very idea that they would leave the country at the mercy of some 'unlikely' foreign aggressor is laughable. Anyway the whole idea of Ireland being able to defend itself from a serious aggressor is also laughable. If Ireland is worried about its defence it would be best to invite the US to establish a base here with a few nukes. Back on topic, in my opinion the current army is surplus to the country's requirements and the manpower would be utilised to rejuvenate the Gardai.

I think you're fooling yourself there. The UK State has had nothing but bad experiences with The Irish during 'the troubles' and there's little warmth for The Irish amongst The UK people generally apart from a large amount of condescension - the 'flurry knox' syndrome. There's no chance of The UK bailing out The Irish unless it was in the direct interest of The UK State to do so. Most UK people would probably laugh as Ireland sank.

As for The Yanks, they'd only get involved if there was something in it for them. If you thought a British occupation was bad, wait till you experience The Americans.

No, I'm afraid The Irish Republic is on it's own, which is exactly what it claimed it wanted.

The good news is that there is little in Ireland that anyone would actually want, so no need for a tiny army that never sees combat.

dodgydes

psychward wrote: »

me neither.; however if we're going to cut back our army we should at least have some kind of deterrent and be respected as having the balls to use it. Nobody knows what the world will be like in 100 or 200 years from now with resources running out and populations increasing. Empires rise and fall. The EU could last 500 years or as long as the Roman empire and then enter world war 3 or world war 5 between an Islamic USSR due to demographics or using demographics in another way... a new version of the USSR dominated by a huge Chinese immigrant population displacing or probably merging with ethnic Russians who are not reproducing enough after 2 world wars in between. Crazy stuff and the world is just at an early stage. We have a few billion years before the sun will start to run out of energy to either create a perfect world or blow it all up :pac: Such time makes the next 500 years look like nothing...

Appropriate username you have there:)

psychward

dodgydes wrote: »

Appropriate username you have there:)

Thankyou kindly sir

Manic Moran

All countries have clamped down on all firearms sales and firearm parts sales,so it will be hard to get something without the proper paperwork,the reason is because of the international fight against terroism.
I am not saying its impossible,but you sure need some good reasons and have some good contacts to get to it though.
And Norway doesnt have an internal terrorist group,we have one internal terrorist,so far
And i am well aware of IRAs smuggling of weapons and explosives to the Island,amongst the arsenal you will find 100 AG3s,stolen from a camp in Norway in 84.

Harder maybe, but still entirely possible, and still happening

Meh. You can pick up a new firing pin for an AUG at my local gun store. I bought an AUG trigger kit by mail. I strongly doubt anyone would have picked up on it in my baggage at Dublin.

And if you don't want to travel to the US, travel to Canada, just as easy to get parts. The presumption is that all the parts in the world aren't much use to anyone without the receiver.

NTM

Poccington

Judgement Day wrote: »

Poccington - a lot of what you say makes sense but there are enormous connections between the USA and Britain with Ireland and the very idea that they would leave the country at the mercy of some 'unlikely' foreign aggressor is laughable. Anyway the whole idea of Ireland being able to defend itself from a serious aggressor is also laughable. If Ireland is worried about its defence it would be best to invite the US to establish a base here with a few nukes. Back on topic, in my opinion the current army is surplus to the country's requirements and the manpower would be utilised to rejuvenate the Gardai.

I think we'll keep disagreeing with the Brits and Yanks saving us tbh. History has shown we're a target during large scale wars. Unlikely as it may be, the world is an ever changing place. I'm sure before WW2, we thought the Germans would never want to go near us.

I'm enjoying this discussion btw, it's nice to have a reasonable discussion sometimes. :pac:

psychward wrote: »

Yes I can say exactly that and I explained why already while highlighting the example of Georgia vs Russia and how futile their huge defense budget and foreign military aid was. All those other weapons wouldn't make any difference to defending Ireland.
However what could actually make a difference would be a few Nukes designed to be used. If Ireland was going to be raped, destroyed and enslaved for a few hundred years by some imperial power I would be quite happy to use them. War is supposed to be ''not nice'' by definition. If you're one of the peace at any price pacifist hippy crowd than I can see why you would be against nukes.

I'm a member of the DF, I'm not sure I fit into the "Peace at any price pacifist hippy crowd".

What happened between Georgia and Russia doesn't give Ireland justification for nukes. Where is the money going to come for the technology, infrastructure etc. that comes with being a nuclear power?

You said we were wasting money on "boys toys" when it comes to the vehicles we buy. Getting a nuclear capability will cost a WHOLE lot more than our current Defence budget.

realies wrote: »

It would be much more efficient in having a police/army force than the current separate organisations.At the height of the troubles there were (afaik)15000 soldiers, since then every successive government have brought the numbers down so its nothing to do with the current crisis as it has been happening for a long time,With modern technology there is more of an effort going into a quality defence force than quantity.

Just to point out, when the DF brought the numbers down a few years back that was a DF decision. The DF has continuously tried it's hand at reform, looking at ways to make it leaner while improving it's capabilities. It's not perfect but it tries to remedy it's shortcomings when it can.

deisedave

I would prefer to see the army disbanded and put the saved resources, man power etc into the Guards and the navy. It would be nice to have a army but we are to small and poor of a country to have a good army. I have nothing against the Irish army just think the Guards and Navy would be a better investment, I know people who are in the Irish army will disagree with me.

But its never going to be gotten rid of so no point talking about it just be proud of the boys

paky

Judgement Day wrote: »

In the light of all the fuss about Willie Penrose's resignation over the closure of Mullingar army barracks isn't it about time that the elephant in the room is finally dealt with - why does Ireland need an army at all? Given that Ireland has no offensive capability (submarines/missiles/air or sea power) and no means to defend itself against serious external aggression, what is the point?

Ireland has far too many barracks most of which owe their existence to the Britain's need to control Ireland. Latterly these barracks served as recruiting and training facilities to service the needs of the British Empire but today they are an anachronism.

Since the IRA gave up its campaign there's even less reason to retain a standing army. It could be argued that Ireland needs an army to fulfill its obligations to UN peace keeping but even that is fallacious as we could contribute by supplying members of the Gardai. Perhaps a paramilitary Garda force would be a much better use of resources and the manpower numbers could be greatly reduced and barracks disposed with. I'm not trying to play devil's advocate but I do think a debate on the future of the Irish army is long overdue.

what a stupid idea. true, ireland wouldn't have to worry about a foreign threat but it sure as hell would have to worry about an internal one with ultimate power resting with the police

Judgement Day

paky wrote: »

what a stupid idea. true, ireland wouldn't have to worry about a foreign threat but it sure as hell would have to worry about an internal one with ultimate power resting with the police

The ultimate power with responsibility for internal State security is the Gardai with the army providing assistance when requested.

firemansam4

trendyvicar wrote: »

I think you're fooling yourself there. The UK State has had nothing but bad experiences with The Irish during 'the troubles' and there's little warmth for The Irish amongst The UK people generally apart from a large amount of condescension - the 'flurry knox' syndrome. There's no chance of The UK bailing out The Irish unless it was in the direct interest of The UK State to do so. Most UK people would probably laugh as Ireland sank.

As for The Yanks, they'd only get involved if there was something in it for them. If you thought a British occupation was bad, wait till you experience The Americans.

No, I'm afraid The Irish Republic is on it's own, which is exactly what it claimed it wanted.

The good news is that there is little in Ireland that anyone would actually want, so no need for a tiny army that never sees combat.

Well I think the whole reason why the Uk would get involved and the US for that matter, would be that they wouldn't want an unstable country right on there door step. If someone was to invade Ireland it would be fair to say they must be aggressive, and there is no way the us or uk would allow that, it would purely be in there own interests not to let that happen regardless of what they think of us here.

Sierra Oscar

deisedave wrote: »

I would prefer to see the army disbanded and put the saved resources, man power etc into the Guards and the navy. It would be nice to have a army but we are to small and poor of a country to have a good army.

Comparative to our needs, we have one of the best and most well quipped armies in the world.

Typical Irishness to be putting ourselves down.

Jaafa

Delancey wrote: »

To be frank when people resort to defending the Army by reminding us that they can be bin men as well as security guards that shows the utter sterility of their arguments.
An army exists to defend the country - the dogs in the street know the Irish Army could mount not 1 iota of a defence against foreign aggression and again begs the question - What are they here for ?

Internal security threats could easily be handled by a better resourced Garda service.

You underestimate the guerrilla warfare capabilities of the ARW. Worked very well for the Taliban against the British,Russians and now Americans. Any country that wants invade this country needs to be shown they'll have hell to pay.

Judgement Day

Jaafa wrote: »

You underestimate the guerrilla warfare capabilities of the ARW. Worked very well for the Taliban against the British,Russians and now Americans. Any country that wants invade this country needs to be shown they'll have hell to pay.

Any country with the wherewithal to invade Ireland (the very idea is so 19th century) would be more than willing and able to deal with any insurgency. It isn't going to happen and being prepared for it is nonsense. However, we do have a very serious, some would say out of control, crime situation here which the Gardai are unable to bring to an end. The resources spent on the army would be better spent on the Gardai. Which is more benefit to the Irish citizen, having a well equipped army for UN peace keeping abroad or a well equipped Garda force for law and order keeping at home.?

Jaafa

Judgement Day wrote: »

Any country with the wherewithal to invade Ireland (the very idea is so 19th century) would be more than willing and able to deal with any insurgency. It isn't going to happen and being prepared for it is nonsense. However, we do have a very serious, some would say out of control, crime situation here which the Gardai are unable to bring to an end. The resources spent on the army would be better spent on the Gardai. Which is more benefit to the Irish citizen, having a well equipped army for UN peace keeping abroad or a well equipped Garda force for law and order keeping at home.?

No army in the world has a comprehensive, effective strategy for dealing with insurgents. They simply can't be defeated if they have the numbers and determination. The resources spent on the army is miniscule compared to the potential benefits. Look asst the mid east. The whole place has been turned upside down in the space of a year. You think Europe is much more stable? probably but that just means it could take 5 or 10 Yeats for a major game changing event to happen here. The point I'm trying to make is it simply wouldn't be wise to disband the army only to realise that we need it 20 our even 50 years down the line. You be mad to think that Europe will look anything like it does now 50 years on, or that we'd have the same allies.

steddyeddy

Arent the army ranger wing amongst the best trained groups in the world?

trendyvicar

Jaafa wrote: »

You underestimate the guerrilla warfare capabilities of the ARW. Worked very well for the Taliban against the British,Russians and now Americans. Any country that wants invade this country needs to be shown they'll have hell to pay.

Ye, but could The Irish really put up any resistance against a ruthless foe. PIRA had it pretty easy against The British Army, who were little more than a glorified police force acting under the civil law - "yellow card" rules etc - so that's not much of a guide.

trendyvicar

Jaafa wrote: »

No army in the world has a comprehensive, effective strategy for dealing with insurgents. They simply can't be defeated if they have the numbers and determination. The resources spent on the army is miniscule compared to the potential benefits. Look asst the mid east. The whole place has been turned upside down in the space of a year. You think Europe is much more stable? probably but that just means it could take 5 or 10 Yeats for a major game changing event to happen here. The point I'm trying to make is it simply wouldn't be wise to disband the army only to realise that we need it 20 our even 50 years down the line. You be mad to think that Europe will look anything like it does now 50 years on, or that we'd have the same allies.

I don't know mate. Nazi Germany had few problems occupying Western Europe. Any problems and they just put a hundred civilians up against the wall. Marxist insurgencies were dealt with effectively in both south and central America by ruthless state action. Remember "blow torch Bob" in El Salvador?

paky

Judgement Day wrote: »

The ultimate power with responsibility for internal State security is the Gardai with the army providing assistance when requested.

i dont think you got what i was saying. its the gardai who become the threat

Judgement Day wrote: »

Any country with the wherewithal to invade Ireland (the very idea is so 19th century) would be more than willing and able to deal with any insurgency. It isn't going to happen and being prepared for it is nonsense. However, we do have a very serious, some would say out of control, crime situation here which the Gardai are unable to bring to an end. The resources spent on the army would be better spent on the Gardai. Which is more benefit to the Irish citizen, having a well equipped army for UN peace keeping abroad or a well equipped Garda force for law and order keeping at home.?

if the army was abolished whats stopping the police from overthrowing the government? yes it may sound stupid now, but you would be setting up that possibilty if you abolished the army. the institutions are there for a reason just the way we have a president, dail and seanad.

Jaafa wrote: »

You underestimate the guerrilla warfare capabilities of the ARW. Worked very well for the Taliban against the British,Russians and now Americans. Any country that wants invade this country needs to be shown they'll have hell to pay.

ya when they inherit all their debt