Does Ireland Need a Military?

hippyrod

198 EOD Callouts in 2010; dealing with 48 potentially lethal viable IEDs in addition to conventional munitions, explosives, RPGs and dangerous chemicalsOver 2,100 CIT operations in 2010, in addition to 174 high security prisoner escorts. Over 2,000 troops deployed on security during the 2011 VIP visits. The Army secures the State’s Vital Installations 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. These include the State’s High Security Prison in Portlaoise, the Central Bank, Government Buildings and Aras an UachtarainThe Naval Service was centrally involved in the interdiction of approximately €1.6bn worth of drugs at sea in the last 4 years.the Defence Forces have unbroken service in the cause of peace on over 70 UN or UN approved missions since 1958. Since that time, over 63,000 individual tours of duty have been completed to some of the most hostile regions of the world, protecting some of the most vulnerable people on the planet l;osing 85 members in the process.69 Air Ambulance Missions in 2010, often involving the transportation of critically ill patients between medical facilities in Ireland and the UK for vital life-saving treatment. Air Corps pilots are the only helicopter pilots in the state with the capability of flying with Night Vision Goggles (NVGs).Or during the snow of 2010/2011, almost 3,500 personnel and 1,100 vehicles were deployed on Aid to the Civil Authority Operations. Many of these operations involved the transportation of health care workers and patients, This was as of the 7th september 2011

Manic Moran

hippyrod wrote: »

198 EOD Callouts in 2010; dealing with 48 potentially lethal viable IEDs in addition to conventional munitions, explosives, RPGs and dangerous chemicalsOver 2,100 CIT operations in 2010, in addition to 174 high security prisoner escorts. Over 2,000 troops deployed on security during the 2011 VIP visits. The Army secures the State’s Vital Installations 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. These include the State’s High Security Prison in Portlaoise, the Central Bank, Government Buildings and Aras an UachtarainThe Naval Service was centrally involved in the interdiction of approximately €1.6bn worth of drugs at sea in the last 4 years.the Defence Forces have unbroken service in the cause of peace on over 70 UN or UN approved missions since 1958. Since that time, over 63,000 individual tours of duty have been completed to some of the most hostile regions of the world, protecting some of the most vulnerable people on the planet l;osing 85 members in the process.69 Air Ambulance Missions in 2010, often involving the transportation of critically ill patients between medical facilities in Ireland and the UK for vital life-saving treatment. Air Corps pilots are the only helicopter pilots in the state with the capability of flying with Night Vision Goggles (NVGs).Or during the snow of 2010/2011, almost 3,500 personnel and 1,100 vehicles were deployed on Aid to the Civil Authority Operations. Many of these operations involved the transportation of health care workers and patients, This was as of the 7th september 2011

In fairness none bar one of those are military functions in many countries.

Here in the US, the police have bomb squads, cash is escorted by Treasury Dept, the Dept of Corrections does prison guard duty, the Marshall Service prisoner transport, Fort Knox by Mint Police, drug interception by the Coast Guard, air ambulance by private contractors who have learned to use NVG, and the State Transportation Agencies clear the snow. Flood control is the purview of the Corps of Engineers, but that is mainly staffed by civilians. About the only exception is the use of military forces in cases of extreme necessity, such as the LA riots or Katrina.

The military has, and should only have, one purpose: The execution, or threat of execution, of maximum violence on the behalf of the State. To attain by force or threat of force that which cannot be obtained by more civilized means. This is why soldiers and not Peace Corps get sent to places like Chad, Congo or Lebanon. Anything else is simply a matter of finding something for the soldiers to do while waiting for the call to go somewhere with their guns.

The question is if the State needs the capability to carry out such military missions. I submit it does. Everything else is just gravy.

NTM

johngalway

Manic Moran wrote: »

Fort Knox by Mint Police

Polo or Silver?

syklops

Manic Moran wrote: »

In fairness none bar one of those are military functions in many countries.

Here in the US, the police have bomb squads, cash is escorted by Treasury Dept, the Dept of Corrections does prison guard duty, the Marshall Service prisoner transport, Fort Knox by Mint Police, drug interception by the Coast Guard, air ambulance by private contractors who have learned to use NVG, and the State Transportation Agencies clear the snow. Flood control is the purview of the Corps of Engineers, but that is mainly staffed by civilians. About the only exception is the use of military forces in cases of extreme necessity, such as the LA riots or Katrina.

The military has, and should only have, one purpose: The execution, or threat of execution, of maximum violence on the behalf of the State. To attain by force or threat of force that which cannot be obtained by more civilized means. This is why soldiers and not Peace Corps get sent to places like Chad, Congo or Lebanon. Anything else is simply a matter of finding something for the soldiers to do while waiting for the call to go somewhere with their guns.

The question is if the State needs the capability to carry out such military missions. I submit it does. Everything else is just gravy.

NTM

Your argument would carry more weight if you had used a much smaller country in your example. The US has over 300 million citizens and has one of if not the largest defence budgets in the world. With that kind of money, and that number of citizens, it makes sense to have specialist teams for different roles, like the Marshal Service for guarding prisoners etc.

However, here in Ireland, we have a population of 6 Million, one fiftieth of that of the United States. We have one Military College and one Police Academy. There are 71 law enforcement academies in Texas alone.

With such a small population it makes financial sense to have one army which is used for situations like transporting prisoners and cash. It would cost a lot more money to have specialist organisations for the different roles, each with a different HQ, and a different uniform, and different headed paper. We have enough quangos as it is.

Morpheus

Liber8or wrote: »

Nevertheless, neutrality implies abstaining from conflict, Ireland and her current army has not actively engaged in offensive warfare.

It comes down to context, mandate and activity. Once we understand these three things, then we can attempt to work out if neutrality is being breached.

However, I say this in the strictest sense of what neutrality is. Ireland's version is somewhat skewed dating back as far as the Second World War. I know this, but for the purposes of this thread, what benefit would Ireland gain from leaving neutrality in an official capacity?

Without being a smart ar$e, read the constitution please.

WE ARE NOT A NEUTRAL STATE
we never have been and hopefully never will be.

Let me spell it out for you, we cannot fiscally afford the ramped up defence forces which we would require in order to BE a constitutionally neutral state.

The closest definition that you will get is that we have a defence / foreign policy of non involvement on a case by case basis regulated under the triple lock mechanism.

We are part of the NATO PFP

our constitution neither mentions that we as a nation are neutral, indeed i believe that word doesnt even come up in the text.

Im sorry, its just a pet peeve I have when I see people use the word neutral in relation to ireland as its usually MIS-used.


as for Ireland and her current army not actively engaging in offensive warfare... if by offensive you mean that no element of our defence forces have ever deliberately attacked a belligerent? what about the battle for the tunnel in the congo? We deliberately attacked an enemy position and we took casualties but we also carried the enemy position and won the small battle.There may only be one offensive action... recorded anyway, nevertheless this WAS an offensive operation albeit under a UN mandate. Thats not taking into account the armys offensive actions during the civil war against the IRA.

xflyer

I agree with NTM, far too much of the Defence Force's roles are essentially civilian in nature. Hippyrod's list demonstrates admirably the kind of muddled thinking that exists in this country as to to role of the army and naval service.

Part of the problem are the sacred cows we like to keep and the myths well like to tell ourselves. Like our 'honourable' neutrality, (completely agree with Morpheus BTW) and our unarmed police force. I can't imagine any other country with a long running and ongoing insurgent activity and an active dangerous drug gang culture keeping it's police force unarmed and using the army on the streets to guard things like cash escorts and prisoners. All those IEDs the army are defusing are drug gang related remember.

Then there's flood/fire/snow etc situations. Largely that involves boots on the ground with shovels. Anything more requires specialist training. I seem to remember an outfit called Civil Defence, a mostly voluntary organisation trained specifically for those very situations? Exactly why is the army needed at all when there is a specialist organisation recruited for the purpose already in existence? Using soldiers to put out fires or fill sandbags with their shovels is not exactly cost efficent or a worthy use of well trained soldiers.

The air ambulance missions flown by the Air Corps are all very worthy but again point to a need for a specialist operation not one using military helicopters with a few add ons.

The worst thing about all this is that the 'Defence Forces' are simply not equipped defend the country at any level.

We do need an army. But what kind of army? A catch all organisation to do all the dirty jobs no one else can or will do. Or a credible military force that can stand alongside any other in Europe?

You know there's something wrong when people can ask 'Why do we need an army?'. I doubt if you would hear that question in any country in Europe or anywhere else for that matter.

Gee Bag

Morphéus wrote: »

WE ARE NOT A NEUTRAL STATE

It depends on how you define neutrality. You are right in saying that neutrality is not mentioned in the constitution. Our constitution dates from 1937, so it was probably fairly prudent not to hamstring ourselves. Being neutral did nothing to save Holland or Belgium.

Constitutional neutrality is not the only basis for neutrality. Japan is constitutionally neutral, but it has a large military/self defence force and has a bilateral defence treaty with the USA.

Nor does neutrality have to be of the heavily armed variety like Sweden or Finland. Cost Rica is a neutral state with no military.

Our version of neutrality is based on the principle that we are not a member of any defensive alliance. You could argue that membership of PFP negates this. However, pretty much every non-NATO country in Europe and the former Soviet Union is a member (if memory serves only Cyprus is not). Even the Swiss are members.

I don't think you can say definitivley that we are not neutral. Like a lot of other divisive issues (eg. abortion, nuclear power etc.) we sit firmly on the fence.

However, I would suspect that if there was a referendum on making us constitutionally neutral it would be passed.

Morpheus

Id sincerely hope it wouldn't be passed. It would affect international treaties etc that we have with other countries. Imagine the repercussions if we suddenly under our constitution had to forbid the US from using Shannon... thats just one glaring example. The US would be peeved and quite rightly many patriotic US firms could justifiably pull out of ireland. It would put paid to the meagre arms industry we have and increase restrictions on trade where components and software made by our high tech sector in Irish manufacturing plants and firms are used as 3rd party parts in offensive weaponry and equipment by other states... this is of course just my own humble opinion and all hypothesis and conjecture...

Non-alignment - is the implementation of neutralism by avoiding military alliances... thats as close to neutral as we are therefore I would disagree and say that definitively no we are not neutral, we are rather a non-aligned state.

twinytwo

syklops wrote: »

Your argument would carry more weight if you had used a much smaller country in your example. The US has over 300 million citizens and has one of if not the largest defence budgets in the world. With that kind of money, and that number of citizens, it makes sense to have specialist teams for different roles, like the Marshal Service for guarding prisoners etc.

However, here in Ireland, we have a population of 6 Million, one fiftieth of that of the United States. We have one Military College and one Police Academy. There are 71 law enforcement academies in Texas alone.

With such a small population it makes financial sense to have one army which is used for situations like transporting prisoners and cash. It would cost a lot more money to have specialist organisations for the different roles, each with a different HQ, and a different uniform, and different headed paper. We have enough quangos as it is.

largest by a country mile, the entire eu together dosent ever come close

Gee Bag

Morphéus wrote: »

Id sincerely hope it wouldn't be passed. It would affect international treaties etc that we have with other countries. Imagine the repercussions if we suddenly under our constitution had to forbid the US from using Shannon... thats just one glaring example. The US would be peeved and quite rightly many patriotic US firms could justifiably pull out of ireland. It would put paid to the meagre arms industry we have and increase restrictions on trade where components and software made by our high tech sector in Irish manufacturing plants and firms are used as 3rd party parts in offensive weaponry and equipment by other states... this is of course just my own humble opinion and all hypothesis and conjecture...

Non-alignment - is the implementation of neutralism by avoiding military alliances... thats as close to neutral as we are therefore I would disagree and say that definitively no we are not neutral, we are rather a non-aligned state.

I don't think the US would really care if they were not allowed use Shannon anymore. It would be a minor irritation at most.

As for US companies pulling out of Ireland because of it I think that would be very unlikely. The tax incentives here are too good. At the end of the day it's about dollars.

I don't think it would neccessarily inhibit arms sales, the Swiss sell sig sauer guns worldwide (and swiss army knives!) among other weapons.

I think our version of neutrality is muddled, its an Irish solution to an Irish problem. That said, I think our position is just as valid as that of any other neutral country. Japan, Sweden, Finland, Austria, etc. even Malta all have a version of neutrality based on their own unique circumstances and history.

Costa Rica is probably the only (proper) country that could be considerd Neutral.

Manic Moran

Your argument would carry more weight if you had used a much smaller country in your example.

Well, I live in the US so it was a simple comparison. Let's go smaller, like the Netherlands, where the police have a bomb squad, the waters have a coast guard, or the Custodial Institutions Directorate has prison guards which carry guns.

I also spent almost half an hour trying to figure out what the devil the Luxembourg Army does with its 400 people when they're not partaking in their overseas missions. Beyond ' provide assistance in cases of major unrest and national disaster' there its nothing in their domestic mission statement roles about ' aid to the civil power.' Indeed, I didn't think that a country as small as luxembourg even needed an air ambulance role, but it turns out that there is a civilian group called Luxembourg Air Rescue which operates a fleet of five helicopters and two fixed wing air ambulances.

NTM

Raging_Ninja

Manic Moran wrote: »

Indeed, I didn't think that a country as small as luxembourg even needed an air ambulance role, but it turns out that there is a civilian group called Luxembourg Air Rescue which operates a fleet of five helicopters and two fixed wing air ambulances.

NTM

Maybe to get their own citizens to specialist centres in Germany or France?

Bagenal

syklops wrote: »

Your argument would carry more weight if you had used a much smaller country in your example. The US has over 300 million citizens and has one of if not the largest defence budgets in the world. With that kind of money, and that number of citizens, it makes sense to have specialist teams for different roles, like the Marshal Service for guarding prisoners etc.

However, here in Ireland, we have a population of 6 Million, one fiftieth of that of the United States. We have one Military College and one Police Academy. There are 71 law enforcement academies in Texas alone.

With such a small population it makes financial sense to have one army which is used for situations like transporting prisoners and cash. It would cost a lot more money to have specialist organisations for the different roles, each with a different HQ, and a different uniform, and different headed paper. We have enough quangos as it is.

In my opinion this bit (bolded & underlined) hit the nail on the head. One Defence Force with a command structure & properly trained. Would people rather see gung ho armed private security firms doing some of the jobs the Irish Military do?????? Regardless of which option is prefered (Army/seperate state organisations for each sector/ armed private security) premises would be required as bases, manpower & training, equipment such as weapons & vehicles, would the costs be any less?????

Kat1170

Manic Moran wrote: »

In fairness none bar one of those are military functions in many countries.

Here in the US, the police have bomb squads, cash is escorted by Treasury Dept, the Dept of Corrections does prison guard duty, the Marshall Service prisoner transport, Fort Knox by Mint Police, drug interception by the Coast Guard, air ambulance by private contractors who have learned to use NVG, and the State Transportation Agencies clear the snow. Flood control is the purview of the Corps of Engineers, but that is mainly staffed by civilians.

None of the above do these jobs for free. The OP was do we need/can we afford an army in these financially troubled times. If we can get someone to do all the above jobs for free, then sure, get rid of the army. Personally I can't see it happening :rolleyes:

OS119

Kat1170 wrote: »

None of the above do these jobs for free. The OP was do we need/can we afford an army in these financially troubled times. If we can get someone to do all the above jobs for free, then sure, get rid of the army. Personally I can't see it happening :rolleyes:

the Army costs money being an army - the guy doing CIT isn't just trained and equipped to do CIT, he's trained and equipped to undertake high intensity warfare - and that costs a shitload more than being trained and equipped to do CIT.

its the same for all of the ATCP functions that are trotted out to justify the army's survival - while the Army can easily do them, it does them at vastly greater cost than just employing someone to do the job in the first place.

an analogy i once saw summed it up perfectly - you can use a $300m F-22A to transport the US's entire armoury of AIM-120 air-to-air missiles from Florida to Oregan 6 at a time, but its a bloody expensive way of doing it.

xflyer

Bagenal wrote: »

In my opinion this bit (bolded & underlined) hit the nail on the head. One Defence Force with a command structure & properly trained. Would people rather see gung ho armed private security firms doing some of the jobs the Irish Military do?????? Regardless of which option is prefered (Army/seperate state organisations for each sector/ armed private security) premises would be required as bases, manpower & training, equipment such as weapons & vehicles, would the costs be any less?????

Who are these gung ho private security firms? What's wrong with properly trained non gung ho government security units with specialist training? Most countries have them. The average policeman in any country in Europe routinely carry guns. Many countries have specialist para military armed units with specific roles to carry out.

Only in Ireland do we have the notion that guns are only for the military. That's there's something scary about the average cop carrying a gun. Indeed in many countries, private security guards in certain situations routinely carry guns. No one lies awake at night worrying about it.

Again we have the muddled thinking. We all go on holiday in Spain or France. They all carry guns. Is that scary? Probably for us Irish, even though seeing Irish soldiers standing outside a bank carrying assault rifles normal?

I tell you what the French and Spanish would find scary, seeing armed troops on the streets doing the jobs policia local normally find routine.

The other day I was walking down shop street in Galway with my two toddler sons. I came across an cash truck surrounded by armed soldiers carrying Steyrs. I was disturbed, my boys wondered what was going on and you could see confused tourists looking at the scene. It was ridiculously out of context. Unarmed Gardai made it worse.

The only place you would see something similar would be in some South American banana republic.

Manic Moran

Kat1170 wrote: »

None of the above do these jobs for free. The OP was do we need/can we afford an army in these financially troubled times. If we can get someone to do all the above jobs for free, then sure, get rid of the army. Personally I can't see it happening :rolleyes:

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.

How much does it cost to train an MRV gunner? 30mm ammo costs about $80 a round. Assuming an MRV gunner shoots about as many rounds in a single gunnery as I do in a Bradley, that's $8,000 in ammunition, not counting the maintenance cost of the vehicle. This sounds something like it would pay for a CiT escort guard for a month or two if that guard didn't have to be capable of gunning an MRV on his off-day.

How much does it cost to set up a training exercise involving a helicopter, only to have the helicopter diverted at the last minute to an air ambulance mission leaving the soldiers on the ground twiddling their thumbs?

I guess there's also the question of what happens to all those ATCP missions if the Army actually got called up to do... <gasp>... Army tasks.

NTM

Zambia

Victoria has a population of 4-6 Million

Private firms transport cash Armed
Private firms transport prisoners unarmed
The CFA (Country Fire Authority) fight bushfires - Largely Volunteer Force
The SES (State emergency Service) - Handle floods,Storms,etc Largely Volunteer Force
The coast is patroled by the Navy but that's federal.

I am for the keeping of the Military but as a Military. Neutrality is far to OT a path for me to comment on.

savagecabbages

I think having a military means different things to different people. There is a perception that Ireland doesn't posses an effective military to carry out traditional military duties. i.e. an invasion/attack by another state.

Our military has several secondary missions which it performs quite well, but most of these could be considered policing/civil defense/coast guard roles. Personally I'd rather the defense forces were allowed focus on their primary roles, with some of the secondary ones farmed out to other organisations.

trendyvicar

Maybe_Memories wrote: »

It's not necessarily that we NEED a military, but as George Orwell said;
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

I thought that was Gusty Spence?

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.