Does Ireland Need a Military?

Skeewa

Leonidas BL wrote: »

better axe him that

so Leonidas your saying that your not wearing any trousers?????? Sums you up!!!! The question was do we need a military and the answer is NO!!!!! and could it be replaced with a more cost effective and more efficient body i.e. a paramilitary police force and the answer is YES!!!! I have not heard one intelligent argument for keeping the DF... "What if" defence is no defence at all.... To be honest I'm getting bored of you airsoft nerds.... The reality is your crap and you know it!!!!:D:D So long bitches!!!!!:D:D

syklops

Skeewa wrote: »

so Leonidas your saying that your not wearing any trousers?????? Sums you up!!!! The question was do we need a military and the answer is NO!!!!! and could it be replaced with a more cost effective and more efficient body i.e. a paramilitary police force and the answer is YES!!!! I have not heard one intelligent argument for keeping the DF... "What if" defence is no defence at all.... To be honest I'm getting bored of you airsoft nerds.... The reality is your crap and you know it!!!!:D:D So long bitches!!!!!:D:D

Added to ignore list. There is no point trying to engage with someone like this.

goldie fish

syklops wrote: »

Added to ignore list. There is no point trying to engage with someone like this.

+1

Morpheus

+1

IGNORE = SKEEWA

and suddenly the world became a more peaceful place....

OS119

Morphéus wrote: »

+1

IGNORE = SKEEWA

and suddenly the world became a more peaceful place....

he's gone thank fcuk.

perhaps what would move this thread onwards would be for people who oppose this 'abolish the Army' idea to put forward why they think that, what realistic current/future threats they believe the Army can fend off, and what realistic current/furure threats they think may appear that the Army/DF might have a problem with, and how to rectify those defficiencies.

one of the reasons that this issue has got so far is that the DF, and those who support it in its current giuse, have completely failed to engage the strategic issues seriously and provide logical, coherant answers to the questions people are asking, and its all just degenerated into bar fights about this or that allowance - and they have, imv, lost the arguments because they've ceded the substantive territory to the other side.

syklops

Alright I'll bite.

The threat of Republican/loyalist violence. Admittedly, things have quietened down, but things could flare up very quickly, and so I think it is prudent to have some men with guns around the place just in case.

Leonidas BL

syklops wrote: »

Alright I'll bite.

The threat of Republican/loyalist violence. Admittedly, things have quietened down, but things could flare up very quickly, and so I think it is prudent to have some men with guns around the place just in case.

Yes and the fact that the DF will always respond in emergencys or natural disasters like flooding on a moments notice.

trendyvicar

syklops wrote: »

Alright I'll bite.

The threat of Republican/loyalist violence. Admittedly, things have quietened down, but things could flare up very quickly, and so I think it is prudent to have some men with guns around the place just in case.

So that they can add to the carnage.

syklops

trendyvicar wrote: »

So that they can add to the carnage.

Care to elaborate?

Bagenal

In my opinion no DF = greater threat from the likes of CIRA & their associates. There is also the possibility of criminal gangs becoming so powerful that the civil authorities would not be able to deal with them. The argurment of having a beefed up Garda force is fine but if they were to be armed/trained/equipped to the same levels of the DF then I fail to see where the savings are + the fact that members of An Garda Siochanna are paid overtime & other allowances that members of the DF are'nt entitled to.
Also I suspect there would need to be major leglislative & possibly constitutional changes needed to transfer the role of the DF to other forces.

trendyvicar

syklops wrote: »

Care to elaborate?

Just being facetious.

Dissident Republicans are no threat to The Irish State or it's people for the simple reason they want Republican opinion to swing behind them, not turn against them. Off course, they may well be looking to obtain arms, explosives, and cash, but a well organised police backed by the right powers can cope with this. They are Northern Ireland's problem, not The Republic's.

Loyalists are absolutely no threat to The Republic at the moment and would only become a problem if there was any move towards Irish unity. In such a case, the level of the threat would depend on the nature of NI society at that time. If NI society had developed towards a normal integrated community then a close border poll would lead to Irish unity with low levels of conflict (if any) - easily handled by an expanded police force. If, on the other hand, NI society remained polarised, then any border poll would require at least 70% support to break Loyalist resolve and ease a united Ireland with minimal trouble (akin to dissident violence now). This scenario could also be handled by an expanded and well trained police. A united Ireland opposed by a good majority of Unionists would inevitably lead to a replay of 'the troubles' in reverse and would require 80 000 Irish soldiers and police for about twenty years (declining to about half that number). Obviously, any Irish Government indulging in such a policy would need certifying, but stranger things have happened.

OS119

Bagenal wrote: »

In my opinion no DF = greater threat from the likes of CIRA & their associates. There is also the possibility of criminal gangs becoming so powerful that the civil authorities would not be able to deal with them. The argurment of having a beefed up Garda force is fine but if they were to be armed/trained/equipped to the same levels of the DF then I fail to see where the savings are + the fact that members of An Garda Siochanna are paid overtime & other allowances that members of the DF are'nt entitled to.
Also I suspect there would need to be major leglislative & possibly constitutional changes needed to transfer the role of the DF to other forces.

i'm not sure why - the ERU use firearms, and when the Army deploy in an ATCA role they do so in support of the Gardai - so how would not using soldiers and just using more armed Gardai possibly be a constitutional issue?

when people - sane people - talk about scrapping the Army and recruiting Gardai instead, they don't mean on a 1:1 basis, simply because only a small proportion of the Army is employed in a law enforcement/support role at any one time - so if you scrap 8,500 soldiers, you don't need to replace them with 8,500 new Gards, you just need to replace those working on law enforcement and support tasks on a 1:1 basis. i suggested a figure in the region of 1000 to 1500, all of whom would be trained to AFO/SFO level - if you take shift patterns, leave etc into account you could safely bet on having 100 to 150 of these armed Gardai available at any one time, with a surge capacity somewhere in the 400 - 800 region.

deterance is an issue, but imv more of a cosmetic one than a real one - simply because i can't imagine that at any stage the state would sanction the use of the heavy weapons for which one keeps an Army, rather than a civil police force, against terrorist/insurgent groups - and i imagine that those groups have come to the same veiw.

Bagenal

On the news at RTE tele at 1 today the Army fire service is on standby in Roscommon because of a dispute between the council & firefighters. I do realise that they will be only called upon if the fire services of neighbouring counties cannot cope or if there is a major incident. I'm sure the people of Roscommon would be glad of their help if they are needed which it wont hopefully. Who would provide the cover in similar situations if there was no Defence Forces? If the answer is to be the Civil Defence then why are they not doing it in Roscommon?

OS119

Bagenal wrote: »

...Who would provide the cover in similar situations if there was no Defence Forces? ....

the same commercially available firefighting companies who get hired whenever the FBU in the UK go on strike?

who would you rather turned up when your house is on fire - a bunch of trained firefighters with modern firefighting equipment who are wearing a slighty different uniform to the ones you normally see, or half a dozen infantry soldiers with buckets?

Bagenal

..........or half a dozen infantry soldiers with buckets?

I would suggest you do some research. I hope you dont take offence, none is intended.

OS119

Bagenal wrote: »

I would suggest you do some research. I hope you dont take offence, none is intended.

i've had the misfortune of doing the task - OP FRESCO in 2002 - we were able to deploy a very small force of professional/trained firefighters, some with modern equipment and some that had been stolen from a WW2 museum, but 80+% of the FRESCO force was completely untrained (we could point hoses, and knew not to put water on electrical or liquid fuel fires, but that was it) blokes in Landy's and 4 tonners with water hoses, exstinguishers and buckets.

you would not have wanted us to turn up at a housefire, because you'd be fcuked.

its quite possible that the DF could professionally cover one small towns firefighting needs, but not for long, and not without impacting on other capabilities - like shipboard firefighting, or cover at Baldonnell.

Avgas

Where you've brought this OS119 is interesting.....the obvious threat and the one we may be able to handle is INTERNAL........in fact well over half of all wars fought since WW2 have been internal (albeit some with Cold War external meddling).

So the hard nosed reason any state needs an army is internal security threats which are of a nature, intensity and purpose which is beyond the scope of civilian police, armed or unarmed.

In fact, for most low-intensity counter-terror work the DF is more or less irrelevant.......it can be handled by detectives in various states of armed preparedness. The most effective weapons remain 50 euro notes, cameras, recording devices and informers. Pirhanas and AUGs are more or less pointless for defeating the COKEs...who (and their like) remain SERIOUS THREATS THAT SHOULD NOT BE EVERY UNDERESTIMATED...especially now.

The logic of the DF is for a 'nightmare scenario' where wider civil order has broken down or an open insurgency might be attempted-both now seem about as realistic as the plots on RTE's Fair City. But who knows what awaits us?

In Scotland they seem likely to have a referendum in 2014 or 2015. The ballot may ask voters if they want full independence or just more devolution (or both). The sensible money is on the latter being passed not the former. But you never know, and in the long term, if Scotland were to leave the UK what spillover effects would that have on Northern Ireland? Maybe none, but maybe the collapse of the entire UK (constitutionally I mean) could have very negative and sudden effects.....leading NI protestants to get very scared and very aggressive....it would make for an interesting marching season no?

A lot of maybes (and its the EU and the Euozone that look set to bust, much less the UK)...but that sort of scenario is why you would be paying to have a capacity to mobilize a significant quantity of infantry..........assuming the UN or EU would turn up is wishful thinking.

It is also an argument for taking our reserves seriously, and not has been suggested elsewhere disbanding them.

OS119

Avgas, i have more than a little sympathy for that argument, and the logic is obvious for all to see.

my issue is not with the principle, but more with the implementation: if we accept that the DF (the Army really, but anyway...) is there for the 'doomsday' scenario - a 'Troubles 2.0' with some switching of the characters - then we should ask whether it is either organised for such a task, or equipped for it, trained for it or manned for it.

we could ask about the DF's preparedness for an IED onslought.

we could ask about the DF's mobility.

we could ask about the DF's ISTAR capability and institutional attitudes.

we could ask about the wisdom of having a force designed to combat widespeard civil unrest/terrorism/insurgency living in its own homes in the community.

we could ask about the DF's - and Gardai and civil governments - intelligence gathering capabilities.

we could ask about other peoples experiences in this matter, find out what kind of resources they had to use to attempt to put a lid on the situation - and contrast that with the resouces available to this 'doomsday' force.

we could ask about the DF being used day-to-day in a ATCA/Law Enforcement role, and wonder who will fill in for them when the Army is mobilised to fight an insurgency.

you can see where i'm going with this - my view is that the DF is so far from being the force that could deal with the doomsday scenario that its both a waste of time having it in its current role, and dangerous in that those outside the DF community (politicians particularly) are basing their decisions on having a safety net that in truth won't stretch anything like far enough and has big holes in it.

blowing in the wind

No we don't need a Defence Forces! (Joke) - Let symphatetic Ireland unfree, celtic shirt wearers protect our beautiful island!

Etiopia has an army for god's sake!
Every country needs some sort of defence - Let it be good or bad, It's prime and that's they way it is!

The work that our defence forces does (I served for 10 years) is simply courageous and done with great passion and pride both at home and oversea's..
This is the long debated topic, that some bitter (i'd imagine) person want's to have a crack at the easy target within the public sector, Ie, The Defence Forces.

We have one of the best trained and best equipped (for it's size and operations) defence forces in the world, so i don't see why we can't just respect them and live with the fact that this beautiful island has had armies since and before Strongbow's entry!

There is also only one Army in this country and that is óghlaigh Na Eireann (Irish Defence Forces!)

Avgas

From OS119: Avgas, i have more than a little sympathy for that argument, and the logic is obvious for all to see.

my issue is not with the principle, but more with the implementation: if we accept that the DF (the Army really, but anyway...) is there for the 'doomsday' scenario - a 'Troubles 2.0' with some switching of the characters - then we should ask whether it is either organised for such a task, or equipped for it, trained for it or manned for it.

we could ask about the DF's preparedness for an IED onslought.


I'll just engage with the above seeing as you brought it up.

You need to be more specific. Do you mean IEDs overseas in places like the Leb, Chad, etc.? which should now be accepted as a risk in any expeditionary context whether bog standard UN observation or actual full-on peace-enforcing which in theory we could be involved in....

Or do you mean culvert bombs along the A34 Clones road?

As regards domestic possible ‘doomsday’ scenarios the risk from IEDs on metalled roads which is the norm throughout NI and Ireland (although sometimes it does not feel like that), is much less, and the scope to employ the tactic is systematically reduced...true there are those bloody culverts......but the recce and intel job becomes easier.....one reason why the Portuguese spent so much time and money building roads in Mozambique in the 1960s.......the IED threat is not at all new........

I think where in the past observers might have got away with Pajero/Landrover solutions.......something like the RG32M will have to be made available for that........as routine....

But also a proper capability level 4 protection is needed...so a proper heavier MRAP should be invested in or else the Pirhana’s modified to meet NATO level 4 protection [I don’t know how viable that is...cost/technically possible...]

I think because the IED plague is such an important trend money should be set aside to build up over a decade or about-a force of at least two dozen (24-30) level 4 protected vehicles...which would provide the nucleus of a reasonably protected convoy system........

If we were serious we would also empower a variety of units to begin experiments with modifying existing or older vehicles to deliver another 2-3 dozen improvised MRAPs which might realistically meet the NATO level 2-3 standards.as part of a fleet for a domestic contingency.....these could be modified existing trucks...for example might the ACMAT VLRA trucks now used for towing artillery not be better employed as modified desert suitable yellow-pack MRAPs?;)

......also I’ve made the point that tracked vehicles while not better protected from mines than MRAPs do enjoy an ability to go off road much more systematically and easily...and thus you can ...if you rigorously use GPS/GIS terrain mapping and recording...you can use them as an asset to avoid likely ambush sites and repeat routes.......

.....so what are the handful of BV206s doing deployed in a rather notional air defence role and what of the glorious Scorpions...I’ve posted before about how these could be customized as paddy carriers...which is how they used them in the Falklands...we should and could keep a small pool of tracked vehicles for deployment......where their off road abilities could well save lives if used properly......

There is a signals role here as well. We need to get into the world of jammers...[maybe we have?].....and that can be partly done through relatively low cost improvs...which could be a pet project for the Field CIS coys.....give them a small budget and see what madness they concoct......after all this is how the IEDs bombers would do it...Google it and then experiment a bit......also things like mechanical rollers can be improvised in-house with fairly small amounts of money.........

The air corps has a huge potential role here as well. In order to provide some level of convoy protection, overwatch, and related aerial anti-IED we urgently need some kind of UAV......something bigger than the Orbiter....but something cheap and cheerful enough......failing that there could be a study on modifying the PC-9M for some type of line-scanning road monitoring capability? If that fails get some low cost aircraft and begin using these as support types.....we need to begin planning for an air corps that can go overseas to support the army in anything like Chad or Liberia, if the threat or context makes it sensible...for cost reasons these will have to be either UAVs or low cost aircraft.......or existing types used in new ways to justify their existence.......

SEE: http://www2.l-3com.com/wescam/pdf/media/idr_sept2010%20reprint-2pp.pdf

Finally as many of you will know, the US have the bespoke organization JIEDDO..https://www.jieddo.dod.mil/
.......which is designed to provide leadership and break log-jams....why do we not have an identifiable structure like this...however small.... that does a much humbler and cheaper version of what they do?....There should be a small unit clearly identified and responsible for working on all aspects of the IED threat.....[or is there?]...we may not have the money to throw at fancy MRAP programmes but we can be organized and say....build on HUMINT strengths which we may have......it should also be something that is progressing outside the prep for Battalions going overseas for PK.....anti-IED needs to be mainstreamed........

A usual rant.

TheLoneGunmen

blowing in the wind wrote: »

This is the long debated topic, that some bitter (i'd imagine) person want's to have a crack at the easy target within the public sector, Ie, The Defence Forces.

Care to elaborate? I started this thread in the context of a (largely) democratic state attempting to re-evaluate it's priorities in the wake of the economic collapse. I have been content to listen to a wide variety of opinions, many of which seem well informed. But your assertion that a well-trained and heavilly armed group of people are an "easy target" is ludicrous. If schools, hospitals, the unemployed, mothers, the civil service, capital expenditure and every other sector in society have to take a hit in the budget, why shouldn't the military too? Especially since most of what they currently do can be done by other agencies, and the rest is of debateable importance.

An armed gendarmerie, of say 2500 men could well take care of any risk from the IRA (in any of it's manifestations), as well as doing CIT and any other such functions. They could be responsible for drug enforcement, counter-terrorism and organised crime operations, leaving the Gardai to concentrate on ordinary crimes such as non gang related murders, white collar and computer crimes, burglaries, fraud, etc. This would cost a fraction of what the Army does currently.

The argument that the army would be of any significant use during an invasion is doubtful. Any invasion would likely be by a major world power with vast resources in terms of weapons, man-power and industrial capacity. No level of expenditure by the government could prevent such an invasion, and in fact any actions by the Irish Army during, or following an invasion would in all liklihood precipitate a disproportionate and crushing response from the occupiers - see the Nazi response to the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich, for instance. The best thing the Irish Army could do would be to do nothing, and wait for some other world power to liberate us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heydrich

tweedledee

Seriously Milk & Honey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!A coup d'etat???hahahahahahahaa, thanks for the comedy, I nearly fell off my chair after I read that :):)
Irish people taking part in a coup d'etat!!!!!!!!! for Gods sake getting an Irish person up off their behind to go and protest is IMPOSSIBLE let alone take over a country, hahahhahahaa that just cracked me up. I think I just wet myself hahahahahaha.
Ohh personally I think our defence forces should be scrapped. For such a small unit it costs the taxpayer a fortune. Navy should be structured like a Coast Guard, Air Corps is just a training school for Aer Lingus and Ryanair, apart from bomb disposal I can't see any benefit to IRELAND by having an extremely well paid but pointless military. NO one is going to invade Ireland for Gods sake, we are well able ourselves to destroy this place if we want to.

tweedledee

The days of armies invading the west are loooooooong gone, financial assault is how they do it now, thats happining as we speak, Germany trying to make Europe into a federal state, by financial methods.
Scrap the Air Corps and Army and increase the Gardai, create a bigger armed response unit in the Gardai like another poster said.
Army though will never be dumped. Too many well healed and well connected elite with vested interests in both Defence Force itself and Cadet College.The amount of back scratching that goes on to get Cadetships is not funny.

TheLoneGunmen

tweedledee wrote: »

The days of armies invading the west are loooooooong gone, financial assault is how they do it now, thats happining as we speak, Germany trying to make Europe into a federal state, by financial methods.

Agreed. But we can't blame the Germans for the monumental foul-up that was the "Celtic Tiger", and the bank bailouts that inevitibly followed. We should be grateful that they pulled us out of the fire, and prevented the collapse of the state. Who do you blame when it's our own fault, collectively speaking? We don't even have the British to blame anymore...

Leonidas BL

Lets build up our military and invade iceland and greenland and steal all there oil :P

tweedledee

This is waaaaay off topic but I agree with you,its not the Germans fault, I never said it was, but their aim is a federal state of Europe. Irish people are 100% to blame for the current woes, not anybody else, we always feck up our own affaires and blame somebody else, its the Irish way, never accept responsibility, deny everything. But Army is still a pointless waste of my taxes.

TheLoneGunmen

A waste of taxes and man-power that could be put to better use. I've no problem with a federal Europe, as long as it becomes more democratic and transparent - I've always seen myself as being European.

goldie fish

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

A waste of taxes and man-power that could be put to better use. I've no problem with a federal Europe, as long as it becomes more democratic and transparent - I've always seen myself as being European.

What "better" use do you suggest?
Please tell me where the less than $0.9bn a year we spend on the DF should go?

Morpheus

very good....

i have VERY little time to reply, but here are my muddled thoughts on the SH*TE ive read here from some very misguided and ill informed people.

so first of all disband the MOST efficiently run department in govt? which has a budget of 0.9Bn?

one that should be in fact, held up as an example of a value for money solution in how to run a civil service, to ALL of its other over-budget monster siblings?

then let the likes of the HSE (FINANCIAL BLACK HOLE!!!) and dept of justice and Dept of marine , recruit thousands MORE staff at their HIGHER wage rates, to do the work that the army already do for much lower paid staff?

EVEN when you take allowances etc into account?

and THEN to top it ALL off, these extra staff, hired at a higher cost to the tax payer,

to do the same work as someone who was already in place,

will f**k off and join a UNION so that when the govt tells them to go clean the snow off your door step
or to go over seas in a policing role with the UN
or to head up to donegal and storm a terrorist building,
or to remove the few hundred bombs from our streets each year,

that they can turn around, flip the bird, wave their UNITE flag and ask for MORE cash??

(in case you werent aware, the army cannot join a union and actually cannot strike like the HSE etc everytime someone changes the ink in their biros.)

ha!

im now the one falling off my seat!

Cardinal Richelieu

Morphéus wrote: »

very good....

i have VERY little time to reply, but here are my muddled thoughts on the SH*TE ive read here from some very misguided and ill informed people.

so first of all disband the MOST efficiently run department in govt? which has a budget of 0.9Bn?

one that should be in fact, held up as an example of a value for money solution in how to run a civil service, to ALL of its other over-budget monster siblings?

then let the likes of the HSE (FINANCIAL BLACK HOLE!!!) and dept of justice and Dept of marine , recruit thousands MORE staff at their HIGHER wage rates, to do the work that the army already do for much lower paid staff?

EVEN when you take allowances etc into account?

and THEN to top it ALL off, these extra staff, hired at a higher cost to the tax payer,

!

How soon can the army take over running the HSE?:D

Bagenal

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

How soon can the army take over running the HSE?:D

The DF has its faults but I hazard a guess they couldnt do any worse in the management of the HSE than the in situ management.

I would'nt knock the frontline staff of the HSE, its the burden of the management they bear that I have issue with.

TheLoneGunmen

goldie fish wrote: »

What "better" use do you suggest?
Please tell me where the less than $0.9bn a year we spend on the DF should go?

Eh, schools, hospitals, policing, not cutting the social welfare budget...

badgerbaiter

Who would fill sand bags n carry away granny when it floods?

Leonidas BL

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

Eh, schools, hospitals, policing, not cutting the social welfare budget...

0.9bn!
Dont they seem to give more than that monthly to banks and bond holders???

TheLoneGunmen

Leonidas BL wrote: »

0.9bn!
Dont they seem to give more than that monthly to banks and bond holders???

One waste of money does not mitigate another.

Leonidas BL

One is providing a service, the other isnt..

TheLoneGunmen

Leonidas BL wrote: »

One is providing a service, the other isnt..

This goes back to my original point - it could be done more efficiently and cheaper by a Gendarmerie. Why does Ireland need MBTs, and heavy artillery? Defence is the only department that does nothing most of the time. Bomb disposal could easily be carried out by said gendarmerie, and clearing roads of snow by the local authorities and civil defence.

Geekness1234

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

This goes back to my original point - it could be done more efficiently and cheaper by a Gendarmerie. Why does Ireland need MBTs, and heavy artillery? Defence is the only department that does nothing most of the time. Bomb disposal could easily be carried out by said gendarmerie, and clearing roads of snow by the local authorities and civil defence.

Ireland,as far as I know has not got MBTs.I'd like proof please.

TheLoneGunmen

Geekness1234 wrote: »

Ireland,as far as I know has not got MBTs.I'd like proof please.

Well, whether they are heavy or light is irrelevant to my argument - why does ireland need any tanks or artillery?

Geekness1234

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

Well, whether they are heavy or light is irrelevant to my argument - why does ireland need any tanks or artillery?

Because tanks provide cover against heavy weapons (50 calibre MGs etc) and technicals.Without that there would be a lot more casualties.
Artillery works against practically everything and are the backbone of every modern army.They aren't called the "kings of battle" for nothing.

Geekness1234

Leonidas BL wrote: »

One is providing a service, the other isnt..

So you're saying that the civilians in Chad aren't happy that there might be a chance at peace in there country?
Eastern Timor,Somalia,The Congo and the Lebenon are just a few to name whose civilians lives have been made that bit better by DF personnel.
Not forgetting the ISAF personnel who have been saved by DF know-how.

goldie fish

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

Eh, schools, hospitals, policing, not cutting the social welfare budget...

0.9bn would be like throwing a cup of water on a bucket of sawdust.

TheLoneGunmen

Geekness1234 wrote: »

Because tanks provide cover against heavy weapons (50 calibre MGs etc) and technicals.Without that there would be a lot more casualties.

Who has 50 cal MGs? They are pretty useless (as well as expensive) for most criminal (and terrorist) purposes - are you going to rob a bank with one and make a quick getaway? If I wanted to take out a politician, I would use a sniper's rifle, not a 50 cal cannon.

Geekness1234 wrote: »

"kings of battle"

Battle against whom?

TheLoneGunmen

goldie fish wrote: »

0.9bn would be like throwing a cup of water on a bucket of sawdust.

It would still provide more value for money.

Geekness1234

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

Who has 50 cal MGs? They are pretty useless (as well as expensive) for most criminal (and terrorist) purposes - are you going to rob a bank with one and make a quick getaway? If I wanted to take out a politician, I would use a sniper's rifle, not a 50 cal cannon.



Battle against whom?

What about deployments overseas like all the ones I've mentioned above?They all use them as they are relatively easy to use.
Robbing a bank or killing a poltician would bring you to the attention of the Gardaí or special branch,not the DF.
There called the "kings of battle" because there is currently nothing that can withstand a hit from them.
Maybe to battle against the multiple rebel organisations in Africa?

TheLoneGunmen

Geekness1234 wrote: »

What about deployments overseas like all the ones I've mentioned above?They all use them as they are relatively easy to use.
Robbing a bank or killing a poltician would bring you to the attention of the Gardaí or special branch,not the DF.
There called the "kings of battle" because there is currently nothing that can withstand a hit from them.
Maybe to battle against the multiple rebel organisations in Africa?

Why should we as a nation be blowing our limited resources on some third-world s**t hole, when we can barely balance our budget? So the army can become target practice for Hezbollah or the IDF? Let's get our own house in order first, I say!

OS119

Geekness1234 wrote: »

Ireland,as far as I know has not got MBTs.I'd like proof please.

yup, Ireland does not have MBT's. it does however have Artillery, it does have Heavy Mortars, it does have point defence SAM's, it does have CVR(T) - a little tracked reece vehicle that looks like a tank - and it does have 80-odd MOWAG armoured personel carriers.

quite why it bothers with such equipment (and the cost involved in keeping it) is rather a mystery - little of such equipment would be useful/usable in a doomsday scenario of NI (in whoevers keeping it was at the time) turning into Bosnia2.0, none of it would provide more than a speed bump for any foreign power that had the ability and intention to occupy Irish territory, and very little of it is taken on overseas peacekeeping missions.

so why bother?

Cork boy 55

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.

OK

What would you do?

non-aligned country 4.5 million people

lets say
Your the Minister for defence for the next 10 years
You have to spend in the region of
1 Billion min 2 billion max euro
How would you organise the DF?


in 2010 it was 1 billion euros or 1.35 billion dollars
62 Ireland 1,354,000,000 0.6%http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Leonidas BL

Geekness1234 wrote: »

So you're saying that the civilians in Chad aren't happy that there might be a chance at peace in there country?
Eastern Timor,Somalia,The Congo and the Lebenon are just a few to name whose civilians lives have been made that bit better by DF personnel.
Not forgetting the ISAF personnel who have been saved by DF know-how.

You have takin me up wrong, im saying the army provides a service and the bankers/bond holders dont...

OS119

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

...How would you organise the DF?...

firstly you make decisions about the threat axis, then design your capability around that axis.

the external threat is Maritime in nature - so that means ASW, mine-hunting, counter-smuggling, and Anti-Shipping - aircraft are the most efficient way of covering those tasks over such a large area, so we would concentrate on a Long Range Maritime Patrol Aircraft with those capabilities, as well as OPV's with ASW and Mine-hunting capabilities.

the Internal threat is terrorism - best countered by policemen. policemen with firearms as neccessary, but policemen none the less.

so yes, i'd still ditch the Army, use some of its funding on a new, stronger Gardai, and the remainder on a maritime defence force with the capability to defend the country's borders - which are wet, not dry.