Does Ireland Need a Military?

Bagenal

God and the Soldier

God and the soldier
All men adore
In time of trouble,
And no more;
For when war is over
And all things righted,
God is neglected -
The old soldier slighted.

Quoted from another discussion board, also on the same board this was posted, TOMMY
by Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936), its a long piece so I wont post it but I'm sure it can be googled

syklops

Manic Moran wrote: »

What OS said.

The guy doing Cash in Transit escort isn't only trained and paid to do CiT tasks or keep people from breaking out of prisons. He's also trained and paid to call indirect fire, provide the medium recon role, close with and destroy the enemy on the high-intensity battlefield.

NTM

I think we are forgetting one thing and that is, now the majority of prisoners that get armed escorts are drug dealers and gang leaders, but it wasn't always this way. Not too long ago a lot of the prisoners being escorted under armed guard were members of the IRA and other splinter groups, any of whom may be 'sprung' for want of a better word by a para-military hit squad so it made sense for the guys guarding and escorting these prisoners to not just be armed but also trained and skilled in tactical warfare. Cash in Transit too, was vulnerable to such attacks by republican or loyalist para-military groups. Thankfully, now, the political landscape is different, but things could return to such violence practically overnight.

OS119

syklops wrote: »

I think we are forgetting one thing and that is, now the majority of prisoners that get armed escorts are drug dealers and gang leaders, but it wasn't always this way...

unless you believe that an IA prisoner escort convoy would be armed with - and genuinely authorised to fire - weapons well above the level of Assault rifle and Minimi/GPMG (Javelin ATGW, SRAAW, mortar, Artillery etc..) - then the Army provides nothing that the Metropolitan Police or any big city Police force in the US doesn't.

if they can do it, then so can the Gardai.

however, if you're talking about a level of Terrorist activity/Insurgency where a Gardai uprated to UK/US/European standards in terms of its armed capability was regularly being outgunned and outfought, then i'd have to question whether the state could survive, regardless of whether it had an Army to fall back on - quite simply because i don't see any Irish government authorising/ordering the Irish Army to engage such a campaign with the heavier, non-police weapons that it would have at its disposal.

i may be wrong in that belief, its a political judgement and therefore subjective.

bk

In my opinion, there would seem to be a major advantage to switch from using Army for CiT and prisoner transport to armed Gardai for the task.

Assuming you decreased the number of soldiers and increased the number of Gardai in line with these new duties and armed and trained them accordingly.

Then you would have an increased number of Gardai who could then be used for other policing tasks, such as deal with armed drug gangs when needed.

I know that isn't too different to the situation we currently have with the army: Highly trained soldiers who are trained in artillery, heavy arms use, etc. being used for Civil type duties versus Gardai trained in the law, policing, public order, etc. working as Civil type duties.

However I'd imagine it is cheaper to train a Guard then a soldier and I think the state would benefit more from having a larger number of well equipped, trained and armed Gardai then well trained soldiers.

The state will never deploy the army to deal with drug gangs or riots. But they could and do deploy armed Gardai (like the ERU) to deal with drug gangs. And having more well armed Gardai would benefit us all.

Also thinking about it a little, aren't the Army badly equipped for CiT type ops in urban areas? The Steyr Aug with it's 5.56mm round seems like it is far too powerful to be used in an urban setting. Where it fired it would easily cut through vehicles and walls, thus endangering the lives of surrounding civilians.

xflyer

Of course it's fair to say that the Gardai do provide cash escort in certain situations. The unfortunate Garda McCabe was on one such mission. Also back in the days when cash was king, the local Garda detectives would accompany the cash van into the factory on payday. It was odd to see someone toting an Uzi on the shop floor.

I still see plain clothes Garda outside banks when money is delivered although not overtly armed. Then there's also the armed response units.

syklops

OS119 wrote: »

unless you believe that an IA prisoner escort convoy would be armed with - and genuinely authorised to fire - weapons well above the level of Assault rifle and Minimi/GPMG (Javelin ATGW, SRAAW, mortar, Artillery etc..) - then the Army provides nothing that the Metropolitan Police or any big city Police force in the US doesn't.

if they can do it, then so can the Gardai.

however, if you're talking about a level of Terrorist activity/Insurgency where a Gardai uprated to UK/US/European standards in terms of its armed capability was regularly being outgunned and outfought, then i'd have to question whether the state could survive, regardless of whether it had an Army to fall back on - quite simply because i don't see any Irish government authorising/ordering the Irish Army to engage such a campaign with the heavier, non-police weapons that it would have at its disposal.

i may be wrong in that belief, its a political judgement and therefore subjective.

I dont really understand your post.

"If they can do it, so can the gardai"

I dont think anyone is suggesting the gardai cannot be trained up to a similar level as the soldiers who do the cash in transit duties.

The question "Do we really need an army", came about due to a debate on the military budget with people thinking whether we could save a lot of money by getting rid of the army and have the Gardai doing things like Cash in Transit etc.

However, I think, for a small country like ours, it is more cost effective to have the army do armed escorts. Sure, the gardai could be trained to do it, but generally speaking the Gardai get paid a lot more than your average squaddie does. I take Manic Morans point that the soldier doing CIT has a lot of extra and needless training like recon and field craft and so on, which is not needed for just Cash in Transit, but were the gardai to do the CIT, they would need to get training with arms which they don't have already, and they would probably get an extra allowance, etc etc.

So it comes down to this: is it cheaper to the state to have 4 Irish soldiers, 4 steyrs, and an army jeep doing CIT or is it cheaper to have a Gardai jeep, 4 guards, and 4 steyrs doing CIT? I think if you were to look at a breakdown of salaries for the gardai and the army, including the different allowances they are entitled to, I would guess that it is more cost effective to have the army do it. Could the Gardai do it? Sure, but it would cost a lot more.

OS119

syklops wrote: »

...I would guess that it is more cost effective to have the army do it. Could the Gardai do it? Sure, but it would cost a lot more.

i doubt it.

the Army currently stands at about 8,500 regulars and another 2,500 or so active reservists, it is formed into three regular and three reserve Brigades (paper brigades for sure, but all with fully manned and paid HQ's...), it has 80-odd Armoured Personnel Carriers, 40(ish) Javelin Anti-Tank Guided Weapons launchers, 8 helicopters, 8 'advanced trainers', 6 (paper) regiments of Artillery, Engineers, Medics, Loggies, and 18 (paper) Infantry Battalions.

do you really beleive that the cost of maintaining/arming/training/equipping that force - which is where your four blokes in a jeep comes from - could possibly be cheaper than employing another 1000 Gardai and sending them off to the FBI, or Met Police, or GSG9 in Germany, to be trained in to their level in Firearms?

Evade

OS119 wrote: »

i doubt it.

the Army currently stands at about 8,500 regulars and another 2,500 or so active reservists, it is formed into three regular and three reserve Brigades (paper brigades for sure, but all with fully manned and paid HQ's...), it has 80-odd Armoured Personnel Carriers, 40(ish) Javelin Anti-Tank Guided Weapons launchers, 8 helicopters, 8 'advanced trainers', 6 (paper) regiments of Artillery, Engineers, Medics, Loggies, and 18 (paper) Infantry Battalions.

do you really beleive that the cost of maintaining/arming/training/equipping that force - which is where your four blokes in a jeep comes from - could possibly be cheaper than employing another 1000 Gardai and sending them off to the FBI, or Met Police, or GSG9 in Germany, to be trained in to their level in Firearms?

This statement is little misleading. It reads like there are only 4 (I believe it's actually 8 to 12 soldiers per cash van) Army personnel on CIT at any one time while the other 8,496 regulars are doing nothing.

OS119

Evade wrote: »

This statement is little misleading. It reads like there are only 4 (I believe it's actually 8 to 12 soldiers per cash van) Army personnel on CIT at any one time while the other 8,496 regulars are doing nothing.

no, it means that the cost of the other 8,496 is a factor in the cost of the four whether they are all on a club 18-30 holiday or fighting in Brigade strength in southern Afghanistan - you can't just employ 100 soldiers and have them do the CIT/Prison work, thats not how it works.

ChunkyLover_53

If you have to take into account the upkeep & maintenance of the entire Army to put 4 lads in a Nissan on Subsistance allowance then surely you have to take into account the upkeep & cost of the entire GS, (plus all the criminals they put away) if you put 4 Garda with Uzi's into a squad car on Overtime.

OS119

ChunkyLover_53 wrote: »

If you have to take into account the upkeep & maintenance of the entire Army to put 4 lads in a Nissan on Subsistance allowance then surely you have to take into account the upkeep & cost of the entire GS, (plus all the criminals they put away) if you put 4 Garda with Uzi's into a squad car on Overtime.

well yes - the cost of 'law enforcement' in its every facet is going to be pretty high, what i'm saying is that if you use part of the Army (even if its only four blokes) for law enforcement then you have to include the the cost of the whole of the Army in your calculations for what 'law enforcement' costs (because without the existance of the rest of the Army, the four blokes wouldn't be available), in the same way as you have to include the cost of the bloke who cleans the toilets in the custody suite in the cost of running a Garda Station.

the big difference between the two costs would be that one option - the current option - requires a law enforcement agency, and a further agency that supplies regular, systemic support to that LE agency along with undertaking other tasks, and an option that abolishes the support agency, and just has the LE agency directly employing additional people to carry out the tasks it previously used to have done by the support agency.

Rawhead

It baffles me why the military or Gardai are even involved in the whole prisoner transfer idea.
The prison service has an dedicated escort corp.
The prison service has a large portion of ex service personnel in its ranks.
Train a group of these officers in firearms and you now have a armed escort group. Releases the Gardai and DF back to the jobs they should be doing.
Only extra cost is the firearms and training, it needn't be SAS selection or anything. There is only about 10 armed escorts per week nationwide, hardly justification for the army.

Prison escorts/guarding= Prison Service
Cash in Transit= Gardai/civilian
Night flying= Civilian/Ex military
Snow clearance= I'll take my chances with the council rather than keep a standing army of 10,000 just to shovel fecking snow every 5 years.

I do believe we should have a DF but they should stick to military roles and not try and justify themselves with civilian jobs that they have taken on over the years.

neilled

Rawhead wrote: »

It baffles me why the military or Gardai are even involved in the whole prisoner transfer idea.
The prison service has an dedicated escort corp.
The prison service has a large portion of ex service personnel in its ranks.
Train a group of these officers in firearms and you now have a armed escort group. Releases the Gardai and DF back to the jobs they should be doing.
Only extra cost is the firearms and training, it needn't be SAS selection or anything. There is only about 10 armed escorts per week nationwide, hardly justification for the army.

Prison escorts/guarding= Prison Service
Cash in Transit= Gardai/civilian
Night flying= Civilian/Ex military
Snow clearance= I'll take my chances with the council rather than keep a standing army of 10,000 just to shovel fecking snow every 5 years.

I do believe we should have a DF but they should stick to military roles and not try and justify themselves with civilian jobs that they have taken on over the years.

This state has a strong aversion of the availability of Firearms, as well as being very prickly about who can carry them. As it stands, I believe a change in legislation would be required in order to make this happen.

The role of military prison escorts goes back to the troubles were attempts to "spring" paramilitary prisoners were attempted. A further consideration is would the prison service be capable of and be willing to carry out such a role?

The armys involvement in Aid to the Civil Power didn't come about because the army went to the minister and asked for something to do and begged to escort cash vans/shovel snow like an overenthusiastic school child shouting "pick me,me me me", they came about because the state seen the need to have personel carry weapons for various different tasks or a body of people who would carry out jobs that others would not or are incapable of doing. Rather than looking at changing existing bodies (who have can go on strike, work to rule, demand extra pay) back in the hazy mists of time some minister or simple serpant turned ask themselves "who has access to weapons..... ah yes, those green fellows. Army something or other I believe they're called. How about we get them to do task X as well, seeing their already on the state pay roll."

One of the thing about a conventional standing army is that it will do pretty much any damn thing you want if you task it to. Fight Fires without proper gear? No problem. Provide transport because the drivers are on strike? Sure thing. The list goes on and on. Ultimately standing armies exist because states like to have a group of people that they can rely on to do their bidding no matter what (almost) circumstances, and maintain the ability to carry out organised violence with lethal intent on a large scale based - largely based on the realist school of international relations.

OS119

neilled wrote: »

....Ultimately standing armies exist because states like to have a group of people that they can rely on to do their bidding no matter what (almost) circumstances, and maintain the ability to carry out organised violence with lethal intent on a large scale based - largely based on the realist school of international relations.

thats absolutely true - that Armies exist to bring, or plausibly threaten to bring, violence and destruction on those that the government of the day points them towards, and while they are doing that they have the ability to offer little 'sidelines' of niche capability to their government that cost little.

the problem here however, is that apart from under the most prescriptive - and frankly unrealistic - circumstances, the DF can't do the violence bit, and the 'sidelines' have expanded to take up a significant part of what the current force does not just on a 'we've got nothing else planned today' day, but even under conditions of military emergency when it should be digging in and oiling the artillery tubes, its got to bugger about with CIT's and prisoner escorts.

not only is the tail wagging the dog, but the dog has no teeth.

syklops

neilled wrote: »

This state has a strong aversion of the availability of Firearms, as well as being very prickly about who can carry them. As it stands, I believe a change in legislation would be required in order to make this happen.

The role of military prison escorts goes back to the troubles were attempts to "spring" paramilitary prisoners were attempted. A further consideration is would the prison service be capable of and be willing to carry out such a role?

The armys involvement in Aid to the Civil Power didn't come about because the army went to the minister and asked for something to do and begged to escort cash vans/shovel snow like an overenthusiastic school child shouting "pick me,me me me", they came about because the state seen the need to have personel carry weapons for various different tasks or a body of people who would carry out jobs that others would not or are incapable of doing. Rather than looking at changing existing bodies (who have can go on strike, work to rule, demand extra pay) back in the hazy mists of time some minister or simple serpant turned ask themselves "who has access to weapons..... ah yes, those green fellows. Army something or other I believe they're called. How about we get them to do task X as well, seeing their already on the state pay roll."

One of the thing about a conventional standing army is that it will do pretty much any damn thing you want if you task it to. Fight Fires without proper gear? No problem. Provide transport because the drivers are on strike? Sure thing. The list goes on and on. Ultimately standing armies exist because states like to have a group of people that they can rely on to do their bidding no matter what (almost) circumstances, and maintain the ability to carry out organised violence with lethal intent on a large scale based - largely based on the realist school of international relations.

Thats what I was trying to say, only you did it more eloquently.

Leonidas BL

Can someone explain this neutral s4!T to me. If China invades europe with 1.2 million troops do ya think there gonna leave us and the billions of euro of gas and oil off the west coast alone just because were neutral??
Its just a word and were part of the western world just as much as Briton, France, Canada, Spain and of course the USA, Not to mention Ireland is stratigicly well placed in the world. Think of it as a 84,000 km2 aircraft carrier...

Rawhead

neilled wrote: »

This state has a strong aversion of the availability of Firearms, as well as being very prickly about who can carry them. As it stands, I believe a change in legislation would be required in order to make this happen.

The role of military prison escorts goes back to the troubles were attempts to "spring" paramilitary prisoners were attempted. A further consideration is would the prison service be capable of and be willing to carry out such a role?

The armys involvement in Aid to the Civil Power didn't come about because the army went to the minister and asked for something to do and begged to escort cash vans/shovel snow like an overenthusiastic school child shouting "pick me,me me me", they came about because the state seen the need to have personel carry weapons for various different tasks or a body of people who would carry out jobs that others would not or are incapable of doing. Rather than looking at changing existing bodies (who have can go on strike, work to rule, demand extra pay) back in the hazy mists of time some minister or simple serpant turned ask themselves "who has access to weapons..... ah yes, those green fellows. Army something or other I believe they're called. How about we get them to do task X as well, seeing their already on the state pay roll."

One of the thing about a conventional standing army is that it will do pretty much any damn thing you want if you task it to. Fight Fires without proper gear? No problem. Provide transport because the drivers are on strike? Sure thing. The list goes on and on. Ultimately standing armies exist because states like to have a group of people that they can rely on to do their bidding no matter what (almost) circumstances, and maintain the ability to carry out organised violence with lethal intent on a large scale based - largely based on the realist school of international relations.

A change in legislation would not be a big deal. The expertise already exists within the prison service, I know ex Royal Marines, USMC recon, FFL 2nd REP, ARW, 82nd Airborne not to mention all the regular DF personnel.
The question of expertise is answered. I mentioned above that they wouldn't be required to do hostage rescues or assault terrorist laden airliners. 5 lads with rifles escorting a prisoner will have the same effect whether they are dressed in blue or green. As to being picky about who they arm, if the a lad was good enough to carry a rifle in the army he's good enough to carry one in the prison service.
As I said I'm pro military but using ****ty excuses like prison escorts and driving buses during strikes is a losing battle I'm afraid.

neilled

OS119 wrote: »

thats absolutely true - that Armies exist to bring, or plausibly threaten to bring, violence and destruction on those that the government of the day points them towards, and while they are doing that they have the ability to offer little 'sidelines' of niche capability to their government that cost little.

the problem here however, is that apart from under the most prescriptive - and frankly unrealistic - circumstances, the DF can't do the violence bit, and the 'sidelines' have expanded to take up a significant part of what the current force does not just on a 'we've got nothing else planned today' day, but even under conditions of military emergency when it should be digging in and oiling the artillery tubes, its got to bugger about with CIT's and prisoner escorts.

not only is the tail wagging the dog, but the dog has no teeth.

The problem is that the strategy of the state (not the defence forces - i defy you to try find a general who doesn't want bigger guns, more planes, helicopter, ships and troops) is the just in time - as in WWII.

As in if trouble happens, we'll see it coming (we didn't), we'll then expand and train as necessary - that didn't happen either because there were no weapons to be had as everyone was keeping everything they produced for their own survival... Fine, it might have worked back when you could order a spitfire and have it delivered 6 weeks latter and the pilot trained in just over that(provided you built it yourself - we didn't) , but it doesn't work like that these days Order modern kit and it'll take a year or three and months or years to train the operators and instructors. As such it would be a belief in some circles the DF are maintained in order to ensure that some of those skills are kept in practise so that they could be expanded on if it all goes pair shaped and the training regieme uped. We as a state haven't quite grasped the realist school of IR then again our foreign policy was always very nobily and rather naively idealistic banging on for nuclear disarmament at the UN etc. Not realistic. But until the Dog wags the tail in a different way - ie the state sets out a different vision and direction for its armed forces then the current situation will continue.

Rawhead wrote: »

A change in legislation would not be a big deal. The expertise already exists within the prison service, I know ex Royal Marines, USMC recon, FFL 2nd REP, ARW, 82nd Airborne not to mention all the regular DF personnel.
The question of expertise is answered. I mentioned above that they wouldn't be required to do hostage rescues or assault terrorist laden airliners. 5 lads with rifles escorting a prisoner will have the same effect whether they are dressed in blue or green. As to being picky about who they arm, if the a lad was good enough to carry a rifle in the army he's good enough to carry one in the prison service.
As I said I'm pro military but using ****ty excuses like prison escorts and driving buses during strikes is a losing battle I'm afraid.

I'm not questioning the ability of individuals, rather the institutional willingness for senior management of the prison service to embrace such a role. The change in legislation would be a very big deal I'm afraid.

It would be changing the rules about who does and does not have the means and right to use lethal force in the course of their duties. Thats a very big deal.

The act of carrying firearms would also have wider implications for the rest of the prison service, changing their status from unarmed to armed and the implications it would have for those who are not on such an armed protection group - would they more likely to be targeted by gangs etc for attacks ala northern ireland?

I also question the willingness of the Irish State to expand the remit to use firearms to the prison service.

In any event, I believe prison escorts etc would be a task of the primarly law enforement agency of the state to look after armed escorts, not the prison service.

By no way am I using the idea of driving buses during strikes as a justification for the existance of the DF, rather to explain why most states like to have standing armies in general, although some of the points are still applicable to the Df.

Geekness1234

Leonidas BL wrote: »

Can someone explain this neutral s4!T to me. If China invades europe with 1.2 million troops do ya think there gonna leave us and the billions of euro of gas and oil off the west coast alone just because were neutral??
Its just a word and were part of the western world just as much as Briton, France, Canada, Spain and of course the USA, Not to mention Ireland is stratigicly well placed in the world. Think of it as a 84,000 km2 aircraft carrier...

First off,just because China can mobilise troops,doesn't mean the have infrastructure to mount a massive global campaign.
Billions of oil?There's even more in Africa,which there buying up through no interest loans.
Maybe,but all those countries rely on the U.S. for defence despite having decent militaries.
China has no interest in invading Europe,they only care about expanding their influence in Asia.
Europe is no longer the world's battlefield,Asia is.
If they do manage to get to us through Europe,then they will have to have defeated the U.S. military,the greatest military the world over.

Rawhead

neilled wrote: »

I'm not questioning the ability of individuals, rather the institutional willingness for senior management of the prison service to embrace such a role. The change in legislation would be a very big deal I'm afraid. It would be changing the rules about who does and does not have the means to use lethal force in the course of their duties. Thats a very big deal. The act of carrying firearms would also have wider implications for the rest of the prison service, changing their status from unarmed to armed and the implications it would have for those who are not on such an armed protection group - would they more likely to be targeted by gangs etc for attacks ala northern ireland?

I also question the willingness of the state to expand the remit to use firearms to the prison service.

In any event, I believe it would be a task of the primarly law enforement agency of the state to look after armed escorts, not the prison service.

Agree whole heartily with regards management and their willingness or capabilities (or lack there of). As regards being targeted, I don't see your point, why would you target lads who provide armed escorts, I don't think its been an issue for the army. The NI prison officers are only armed off duty and they were targeted the same as all the other security services.
My point is that providing armed prisoner escorts is something the prison service can and probably should do. Becoming an armed service is not really a major issue, you won't see officers walking down Grafton street carrying assault rifles, they will be in blacked out vans going from Portlaoise to the special criminal court, 99% of the public wouldn't know or care they were armed.

Will it happen, I doubt it. The DF will not be disbanded (thankfully) and guarding Portlaoise and providing prisoner escorts is not a drain on the army.

trendyvicar

I have to ask here, what military use The Irish Army is? Where is the threat? China invading? Well I'm sorry to say, but unless Ireland gets hold of a nuclear deterrent, I suspect that even if every Irish male is drafted, my money would still be on The Chinese.

Of course, there is the possibility of an alien invasion, but again, what I said about The Chinese would presumably also apply to any little green men who turned up - except more so...

Leonidas BL

trendyvicar wrote: »

I have to ask here, what military use The Irish Army is? Where is the threat? China invading? Well I'm sorry to say, but unless Ireland gets hold of a nuclear deterrent, I suspect that even if every Irish male is drafted, my money would still be on The Chinese.

Im sure the same was said before WW2 about the Germans.

Are ya saying we should lay down and not fight even if we were out numbered??? I dunno about you but id like to take a few of them with me if I was gonna go :P

trendyvicar

Leonidas BL wrote: »

Im sure the same was said before WW2 about the Germans.

Are ya saying we should lay down and not fight even if we were out numbered??? I dunno about you but id like to take a few of them with me if I was gonna go :P

But surely your point about The Germans actually makes my point?! IRELAND DIDN'T FIGHT THE NAZIS! Yes, there's been sneers ever since, but who's to say it was the wrong decision?

Also, would you be so keen to fight an enemy prepared to machine gun say ten Irish civilians for every man they lost? Not every foe would act like The British in Northern Ireland, waiving their yellow cards around and trying to 'arrest' insurgents.

Manic Moran

trendyvicar wrote: »

But surely your point about The Germans actually makes my point?! IRELAND DIDN'T FIGHT THE NAZIS! Yes, there's been sneers ever since, but who's to say it was the wrong decision?

Without the benefit of hindsight? If this state of affairs was the result of anything the Irish did, it would have been the decision to mobilise a large army. Nothing else the Irish did would have had any impact on the German decision to carry out Operation Green or not. Otherwise, the only reason that Ireland never fought Germany was purely out of Irish control and a case of hoping for the best.

Also, would you be so keen to fight an enemy prepared to machine gun say ten Irish civilians for every man they lost? Not every foe would act like The British in Northern Ireland, waiving their yellow cards around and trying to 'arrest' insurgents.

Are not those the sorts of foes who, if any need fighting, are precisely the ones who should be fought?

NTM

trendyvicar

Manic Moran wrote: »

Without the benefit of hindsight? If this state of affairs was the result of anything the Irish did, it would have been the decision to mobilise a large army. Nothing else the Irish did would have had any impact on the German decision to carry out Operation Green or not. Otherwise, the only reason that Ireland never fought Germany was purely out of Irish control and a case of hoping for the best.



Are not those the sorts of foes who, if any need fighting, are precisely the ones who should be fought?

NTM

That's a matter of opinion. Perhaps it's better to collaborate?

syklops

trendyvicar wrote: »

But surely your point about The Germans actually makes my point?! IRELAND DIDN'T FIGHT THE NAZIS! Yes, there's been sneers ever since, but who's to say it was the wrong decision?.

Well we shot down one of their planes, so we weren't completely neutral.

Also, would you be so keen to fight an enemy prepared to machine gun say ten Irish civilians for every man they lost? Not every foe would act like The British in Northern Ireland, waiving their yellow cards around and trying to 'arrest' insurgents.

If I was defending my homeland, then absolutely. Sign me up!

Leonidas BL

trendyvicar wrote: »

But surely your point about The Germans actually makes my point?! IRELAND DIDN'T FIGHT THE NAZIS! Yes, there's been sneers ever since, but who's to say it was the wrong decision?

Also, would you be so keen to fight an enemy prepared to machine gun say ten Irish civilians for every man they lost? Not every foe would act like The British in Northern Ireland, waiving their yellow cards around and trying to 'arrest' insurgents.

So we didnt fight them, only because we were lucky enough to have Briton in the way. They came very close to loosing. Didnt the Germans say Ireland was going to be a farm for feeding the rest of europe in Hitlers plans.

Also, that type of enemy sound very much like the type we had here 100 years ago!! Thankfully some people had the balls to fight them...

westdub

syklops wrote: »

Well we shot down one of their planes, so we weren't completely neutral.

When??

During the Second World War no actual engagements with foreign air forces were recorded but the Air Corps’ fighter fleet of Hurricanes and Gladiators did shoot many dozens of barrage balloons

http://www.military.ie/air-corps/history

goldie fish

westdub wrote: »

When??



http://www.military.ie/air-corps/history

Have you tried anti aircraft artillery? A number of shot down aircraft were repaired and pressed into service by the Air Corps.

xflyer

Several people veering from the facts here.

The Air Corps never shot down or even intercepted any aircraft. In fact aircraft of both sides pretty much had free range anywhere in Ireland. The RAF did intercept Luftwaffe aircraft over Ireland, one Spitfire was shot down by the German bomber it was attacking over Country Meath.

Anti Aircraft artillery didn't shoot down anyone either, fired warning shots but never hit anything.

Plus the RAF aircraft that landed in Ireland and put into service by the Air Corps were in fact bought from the British.

Skeewa

I agree with you 100%... The only arguments for maintaining an army is the "what if" and my personal favourite is the genius that sent me a reply "to have peace you must prepare for war". You have put a bit of thought into your argument and the best that these army heads can come back is the "what if boogey man". I think this country would be better served with a beefed up Gardai... Recriut a paramilitary police force on the lines of the Gendarmarie and let Gendarmarie/Gardai carry out CITs instead of having the need to have both the Gaurds and army. Plus make the banks pay for the CITs... I agree that the prison service who deal with these prisoners on a daily basis are well able to deal with prisoner transfers and if we have to have an armed escort service within the prison service then so be it... Having a Gendarmarie or something similar would mean possibly putting an extra maybe 2000 to 3000 police/gardai on the streets... The ranger wing can be increased and used as a swat team and to help deal with organised crime... Our naval service and air corps should be turned into a coastgaurd/ costums role... dealing with drug trafficing the biggest threat to our state.... As for UN duties the gardai have carried out this role in the past and are quite capable of doing it again in the future... These are pease keeping missions... i.e. There already is a cease fire and these countries are trying to return to the norm... The gardai could help these countries set up their local police forces are mantain the rule of law... The basis for a civil society... I like you have put forward some of my arguments as to why I think we do not need an army but I know that the reply will be "what if or you weren't there man". To all the 'Don Quixotes' in the Irish DF "keep fighting your windmills" because the goverment doesn't have the balls to deal with the elephant in the room the public service let alone disband the army... "to have peace you must prepare for war" ah thats a keeper!!!

petergfiffin

Skeewa wrote: »

The only arguments for maintaining an army is the "what if"...

"What If" is why cars have airbags and I have house insurance! From personal experience thinking about "what if" has been some of the wisest questions I've asked myself. OK, it's highly unlikely Ireland is going to be invaded and if we did the only realistic defence the Army could put up would be to head for the hills and engage in a guerilla war but hey, it's better than nothing. Personally I think the chances of Ireland being invaded are up there with an alien invasion but what we've seen in Yugoslavia in the past and across the Middle East more recently is things can change more quickly and dramatically than anybody can foresee.


But putting talk of invasions etc aside....

Should a national emergency (natural or otherwise) happen the Defence Forces remains the only state agency that can provide a "one stop shop" for a wide range of services e.g. medical support, security, logistics including food & accommodation, transport (by air, sea and land), communications and engineering to name but a few, this is why, across the world, we see armies mobilised in time of natural disaster.

Skeewa wrote: »

...make the banks pay for the CITs

They already do.

Skeewa wrote: »

Recriut a paramilitary police force on the lines of the Gendarmarie and let Gendarmarie/Gardai carry out CITs instead of having the need to have both the Gaurds and army.

Thus replacing a multi-purpose state entity with a smaller single/limited use one. Also who trains them? You would only end up replicating what is already in place with the Army and you can be sure - with this being Ireland - you would end up with a smaller less capable force for more than it would cost in current Army expenditure!! What happens if the threat is perceived to no longer exist, what do you do with your Gendarme then? You will have the same debates about them being wasted on "Normal" policing duties.


CIT is an unfortunate hangover from a time when the state found itself coming under attack from heavily armed, well trained groups when realistically the only feasible solution was the Army. The state has never taken the opportunity to seriously review the operation with a view to moving it to the Gardai (where I feel it belongs). People can't blame the Army if they have continued to do the job they have been asked by the state to do, btw not a single CIT has ever been held up while under the care of the Army. CIT is not the reason the Army is there, it's just something they do.

Skeewa wrote: »

The ranger wing can be increased and used as a swat team and to help deal with organised crime...

The ERU is already there for that, the ARW fulfills a different albeit sometimes a parallel role but the question is
where would the beefed up Ranger Wing be recruited from? If you don't have a larger body of experienced military staff to draw from then you can't expect to resource a special forces unit, remember even getting onto the ARW selection course requires you have certain experience.

Skeewa wrote: »

As for UN duties the gardai have carried out this role in the past and are quite capable of doing it again in the future...These are pease keeping missions... i.e. There already is a cease fire and these countries are trying to return to the norm...

Not so. Ireland has increasingly moved from peace keeping to peace enforcement (East Timor, Eritrea, Liberia, Chad) with different rules of engagement requiring a completely different mindset and level of equipment as can be seen with the purchase of Mowags and RG32s, the fact is the missions Ireland is tasked with will become increasingly more dangerous, not less.


I would accept 100% that a real debate about the future of the Defence Forces would be a hugely healthy thing, as would providing clarity around what we, as a country want from them, unfortunately - as can be seen by Willie Penrose's actions - what's right for the Defence Forces will always take a backseat to politicians desires to use it for their own immediate gains.

Skeewa

petergfiffin wrote: »

"What If" is why cars have airbags and I have house insurance! From personal experience thinking about "what if" has been some of the wisest questions I've asked myself. OK, it's highly unlikely Ireland is going to be invaded and if we did the only realistic defence the Army could put up would be to head for the hills and engage in a guerilla war but hey, it's better than nothing. Personally I think the chances of Ireland being invaded are up there with an alien invasion but what we've seen in Yugoslavia in the past and across the Middle East more recently is things can change more quickly and dramatically than anybody can foresee.


But putting talk of invasions etc aside....

Should a national emergency (natural or otherwise) happen the Defence Forces remains the only state agency that can provide a "one stop shop" for a wide range of services e.g. medical support, security, logistics including food & accommodation, transport (by air, sea and land), communications and engineering to name but a few, this is why, across the world, we see armies mobilised in time of natural disaster.



They already do.


Thus replacing a multi-purpose state entity with a smaller single/limited use one. Also who trains them? You would only end up replicating what is already in place with the Army and you can be sure - with this being Ireland - you would end up with a smaller less capable force for more than it would cost in current Army expenditure!! What happens if the threat is perceived to no longer exist, what do you do with your Gendarme then? You will have the same debates about them being wasted on "Normal" policing duties.


CIT is an unfortunate hangover from a time when the state found itself coming under attack from heavily armed, well trained groups when realistically the only feasible solution was the Army. The state has never taken the opportunity to seriously review the operation with a view to moving it to the Gardai (where I feel it belongs). People can't blame the Army if they have continued to do the job they have been asked by the state to do, btw not a single CIT has ever been held up while under the care of the Army. CIT is not the reason the Army is there, it's just something they do.




The ERU is already there for that, the ARW fulfills a different albeit sometimes a parallel role but the question is
where would the beefed up Ranger Wing be recruited from? If you don't have a larger body of experienced military staff to draw from then you can't expect to resource a special forces unit, remember even getting onto the ARW selection course requires you have certain experience.



Not so. Ireland has increasingly moved from peace keeping to peace enforcement (East Timor, Eritrea, Liberia, Chad) with different rules of engagement requiring a completely different mindset and level of equipment as can be seen with the purchase of Mowags and RG32s, the fact is the missions Ireland is tasked with will become increasingly more dangerous, not less.


I would accept 100% that a real debate about the future of the Defence Forces would be a hugely healthy thing, as would providing clarity around what we, as a country want from them, unfortunately - as can be seen by Willie Penrose's actions - what's right for the Defence Forces will always take a backseat to politicians desires to use it for their own immediate gains.

Look ARW could be intergrated into a swat/ ERU role so no need for a military background... As for peace inforcer???? Fighting for peace is like saying that your ****ing for virginity... I too think that we should have a real debate on the future of the defence forces but you have to take a serious step back and look at the bigger picture... We would be no less safer without them... The what if, that it's an insurance but just as unlikely to happen as an alien invasion???? If that is some how an argument for retaining the army then take out insurance againt been anally probbed or mankind been inslaved... The fact is that it's never going to happen... Finally the Irish army could take to the hills and wage Guerrilla warfare? have you ever been in the Wicklow hills? Anyway that would suit an invading army if they did because it would be easier to contain them there and starve them into submission...

Morpheus

Skeewa wrote: »

Look ARW could be intergrated into a swat/ ERU role so no need for a military background...

Literally, in that ONE sentence you lost some of my respect and have also shown a total lack of knowledge of the ARW's roles, skillset and experience...

Im actually shocked that you managed to compare two completely different animals... for one, the ERU receive some of their training FROM the ARW.

The ARW do some of the ERU role but its a tiny part compared with the training they receive and as for the missions they carry out, well id love to see the ERU on an LRP in the desert in some god forsaken UN post... they also operate under completely different ROE's and have a far more mature modus operandi

Theres a reason why you never hear about 99% of the missions that the ARW carry out, yet if the ERU so much as fart the news is flamed across society.


You also claim to be from the loins of four generations of an army family? I find your blatant lack of knowledge about military topics in ireland quite concerning or maybe you have no respect or interest for those who went before you and the organisation that they were part of?

petergfiffin

Skeewa wrote: »

Look ARW could be intergrated into a swat/ ERU role so no need for a military background...

Yes, you're correct when you say they could be integrated, my point is you can only do that once at which point the ERU is beefed up but the ARW then ceases to exist as you can't continue to resource a special forces without numbers but yes, you could absorb them.

Skeewa wrote: »

As for peace inforcer???? Fighting for peace is like saying that your ****ing for virginity...

Think you've mixed up what peace enforcement is then.

Skeewa wrote: »

Finally the Irish army could take to the hills and wage Guerrilla warfare? have you ever been in the Wicklow hills? Anyway that would suit an invading army if they did because it would be easier to contain them there and starve them into submission...

Taking to the hills is just an expression but it's been proven time and again around the world the disruption a small number of well trained people can inflict - particularly with the support of the people - taking away the Defence Forces removes even that small potential.

Skeewa wrote: »

We would be no less safer without them

This is always going to come down to how you view safety. Personally I'm happy for my tax money to go to the DF although I would still like to see it reformed/improved.




Oh and as we've taken to correcting spelling....:D

Skeewa wrote: »

Look ARW could be intergrated into a swat/ ERU role so no need for a military background... As for peace inforcer enforcer???? Fighting for peace is like saying that your you're ****ing for virginity... I too think that we should have a real debate on the future of the defence forces but you have to take a serious step back and look at the bigger picture... We would be no less safer no less safer without them... The what if, that it's an insurance but just as unlikely to happen as an alien invasion???? If that is some how an argument for retaining the army then take out insurance againt against been being anally probbed probed or mankind been being inslaved enslaved... The fact is that it's never going to happen... Finally the Irish army could take to the hills and wage Guerrilla warfare? have you ever been in the Wicklow hills? Anyway that would suit an invading army if they did because it would be easier to contain them there and starve them into submission...

Skeewa

petergfiffin wrote: »

Yes, you're correct when you say they could be integrated, my point is you can only do that once at which point the ERU is beefed up but the ARW then ceases to exist as you can't continue to resource a special forces without numbers but yes, you could absorb them.


Think you've mixed up what peace enforcement is then.



Taking to the hills is just an expression but it's been proven time and again around the world the disruption a small number of well trained people can inflict - particularly with the support of the people - taking away the Defence Forces removes even that small potential.


This is always going to come down to how you view safety. Personally I'm happy for my tax money to go to the DF although I would still like to see it reformed/improved.




Oh and as we've taken to correcting spelling....:D

Hey half wit some of us have real jobs and don't have the luxury of spending all day playing with spell check on a computer... For the last time and read carefully if you get rid of the army there is no need for the ARW and the only logical place to put them would be in the ERU... There would be no need for special forces training ok... Or would you prefer a pop up version.... BTW I come from a military family and have spent time in the DF... I have close friends in the army and personally know members of the ARW... The topic today is "Is there a need for an Irish Military". Plus if you were to get rid of them what would fill the vacuum... What are you going to reply back with some other bull like "doooo to have peace doooo you must dooo prepare for war dooo". Go run off and play bang bang with your friends, big people are trying to have a conversation here...

OS119

Skeewa wrote: »

...big people are trying to have a conversation here...

well, they were before you dribbled all over the thread. and the one you got banned from...

Skeewa

OS119 wrote: »

well, they were before you dribbled all over the thread. and the one you got banned from...

Only because little girls like you got upset.... :D The reality is that the only "defence" that you have come back with is spell check!!!!!:D But don't worry ladies because your jobs aren't in danger because the government haven't the balls to put a stop to your cosy little country club.... ("to have peace you must prepare for war")... Pure genius and I bet they let him hold a weapon as well... Don't forget your orange crayons for work tomorrow!!!!!:D:D:D

Evade

Skeewa wrote: »

BTW I come from a military family and have spent time in the DF... I have close friends in the army and personally know members of the ARW...

I wonder how they'd feel about you ridiculing their chosen profession and calling them all Walter Mitties?

goldie fish

If they have told you they are in the ARW, then they aren't in the ARW.

SIRREX

goldie fish wrote: »

If they have told you they are in the ARW, then they aren't in the ARW.

The First rule of FIGHT CLUB? You don't talk about fight club!

wildfowler94

Skeewa wrote: »

Only because little girls like you got upset.... :D The reality is that the only "defence" that you have come back with is spell check!!!!!:D But don't worry ladies because your jobs aren't in danger because the government haven't the balls to put a stop to your cosy little country club.... ("to have peace you must prepare for war")... Pure genius and I bet they let him hold a weapon as well... Don't forget your orange crayons for work tomorrow!!!!!:D:D:D

May I ask where you work? cosy little country club? you'd soil yourself if you were to see the half of the stuff members of the DF have seen, I agree there is room for reform and improvements within the DF but that's up to our political masters in the Dail, you can shove them orange crayons where I am guessing you put everything else, I am sick of pencil pushers with no clue about life in the military or military affairs coming here and smearing the Defence Forces reputation, may I remind you that 24/7 365 since the foundation of the state the DF have serve this state unquestionably through some of its darkest hours and several members have giving their life's for the cause of international peace and to bring peace many people who have known nothing but war and turmoil and for what so they can have some jumped up little man sitting behind a computer bad mouth them. ill say this much, you come down and say the half of what you said to a few members and we will see who'd be bringing crayons to work.

Skeewa

goldie fish wrote: »

If they have told you they are in the ARW, then they aren't in the ARW.

I bet your a bloody bagger... Of course I know their in the ARW... I hate to burst your bubble but they don't walk around with their faces all blurred up... I have checked a few of the threads on this site and there seems to be a lot of nerds who play airsoft war games at the weekends... Explains where all the wanna be Rambo comments are coming from...

Leonidas BL

People talk about the waste of money the DF is, but the only waste of money I know of was building a hospital for pulling out babys like Skeewa who sits and talks to strangers online who have no trousers on...

goldie fish

Skeewa wrote: »

I bet your a bloody bagger... Of course I know their in the ARW... I hate to burst your bubble but they don't walk around with their faces all blurred up... I have checked a few of the threads on this site and there seems to be a lot of nerds who play airsoft war games at the weekends... Explains where all the wanna be Rambo comments are coming from...

You are a bitter little girl this morning.
Look if thats what they told you then I believe that they told you that..
Perhaps it would be easier for you to make a point without insulting everyone who disagrees with you?
What's a bagger?

Leonidas BL

goldie fish wrote: »

You are a bitter little girl this morning.
Look if thats what they told you then I believe that they told you that..
Perhaps it would be easier for you to make a point without insulting everyone who disagrees with you?
What's a bagger?

Id say he means you pack bags in a supermarket :rolleyes:

Zambia

Leonidas BL wrote: »

Id say he means you pack bags in a supermarket :rolleyes:

Whats wrong with packing bags in a supermarket?

goldie fish

Leonidas BL wrote: »

Id say he means you pack bags in a supermarket :rolleyes:

NEVER!
I was a trolley boy once, and they promised to promote me to bag.. then them pesky scouts came along and did it for charittee....

My ambitions of being a bagger, gone forever...

Manic Moran

Skeewa wrote: »

I bet your a bloody bagger... Of course I know their in the ARW... I hate to burst your bubble but they don't walk around with their faces all blurred up... I have checked a few of the threads on this site and there seems to be a lot of nerds who play airsoft war games at the weekends... Explains where all the wanna be Rambo comments are coming from...

Posts like this are not helpful. I'm going to be a wannabe Rambo Moderator. Infracted.

People talk about the waste of money the DF is, but the only waste of money I know of was building a hospital for pulling out babys like Skeewa who sits and talks to strangers online who have no trousers on...

These aren't helpful either.
Warned.

NTM

Leonidas BL

Zambia wrote: »

Leonidas BL wrote: »

Id say he means you pack bags in a supermarket :rolleyes:

Whats wrong with packing bags in a supermarket?

better axe him that