Why does Ireland need a military/army?

marketty

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Not to mention the vital role the Irish army play in tormenting fat feckers on Operation Transformation. Truly tax payers money well spent.

The Defence Forces bills Operation Transformation for their time

Milk & Honey

Sindri wrote: »

Britain is our closest ally. Churchill wanted Ireland for our tactical importance and to negate any advantage the Nazi's may have gotten if they successfully invaded.

Any country that has Ireland could so serious damage to the Eastern Seaboard of the United Sates. And it would have a tactical advantage over the North Atlantic and the West of Europe.

Britain or America would never allow that.

That's why the Yanks and Churchill were so pissed with us not joining the war.

Exactly, they were going to invade us if it suited them. Not exactly friendly protectors are they? How neutral are we? Had they invaded, we would have resisted, tying down large numbers of their troops. many of the Irishmen in the British forces would have deserted or possibly committed acts of sabotage against them. They didn't invade because of the damage which would have been caused to themselves.
The Germans didn't invade because of the supply line problem. It would still be an issue but not a major one.

losthorizon

LordSutch wrote: »

We don't need an army now, neither did we during the 2nd World War. We are 'de facto' always going to be protected by Great Britain & their (our) proper highly equipped army with Irish regiments.

Maybe they might have moved back in during WW2 except we had an army? I'm not saying they would have but who knows? We licked them once why not again? Hand to Hand fighting against an Irish army in Dublin in 1940 I wouldnt fancy that, would you?

johnr1

The last time this thread was done was only two months ago. It ran to approx 40 pages over 3-4 days. I started it.
I was all for disbanding them.

Conclusions seemed to be :

There are very good, very dedicated, highly trained people in the Defence Forces.

Much of their work is done abroad, the direct cost of these operations does not fall on the Irish state. However the cost of training soldiers to this level obviously does.

The Irish defence forces are highly respected worldwide.

There is GROSS abuse of public money in the defence forces. Archaic practices, Senoir officers on truly ridiculous pay levels, trained soldiers waiting on them hand and foot, silver service, personal dresser/clothes assistants etc.

This was confirmed to me by a serving soldier.

He also told me that most of the young lads with families in his unit are on family income support - this indicates VERY low rates of pay.

My own personal view is that the bullsh1t practices should be stopped, the land army size reduced, and the money saved spent on our Navy who are a joke given the size of our Coastal waters, and the DAILY THEFT from us of our fish stocks by the Spanish among others.


.

BrokenArrows

No country needs a standing army until they actually need them!!

It takes years to train and setup an army. If we disbanded the army then anyone could just come in and take over.

If we didn't have an army "the King of England could just walk in here any time he wants, and start shoving you around. Do you want that? Huh? Do you?" - Homer Simpson

LordSutch

losthorizon wrote: »

Maybe they might have moved back in during WW2 except we had an army? I'm not saying they would have but who knows? We licked them once why not again? Hand to Hand fighting against an Irish army in Dublin in 1940 I wouldnt fancy that, would you?

Who did we lick? and I am not sure what you mean by hand to hand fighting (in Dublin) in 1940.

luckyfrank

The brits should be our army, they have a proper army irish people join it anyways, it would save money

Praetorian Saighdiuir

luckyfrank wrote: »

The brits should be our army, they have a proper army irish people join it anyways, it would save money

What an idiotic statement to make. How much money will it save luckyfrank?

Explosions in the Sky

This thread should be closed as should any of these threads that start up again, they are worse than "people on the dole are scumbags" and the "recession" threads :cool:

Terrontress

Explosions in the Sky wrote: »

OP if the army bomb squad was non existent there would be alot dead people this year and last

Bomb squads tend to be using military expertise in a civilian environment. There is no reason why the Gardaí should not perform that function if soldiers are trained primarily with domestic bombs in mind. If they are trained for military purposes and assist the government by using that training then it is easier to justify.

The Metropolitan Police in London has its own bomb squad.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Terrontress wrote: »

Bomb squads tend to be using military expertise in a civilian environment. There is no reason why the Gardaí should not perform that function if soldiers are trained primarily with domestic bombs in mind. If they are trained for military purposes and assist the government by using that training then it is easier to justify.

The Metropolitan Police in London has its own bomb squad.

True, but the costings to the state would not be the same. I would imagine more money would have to be spent to retrain AGS for this role and also additional equipment and all that goes along with it. It's not just bomb technicians that go to the scene, security is also dispatched. Therefore not only requiring AGS bomb technicians but then you need to have a squad of armed AGS on standby. Then you have to train and arm more AGS, thus costing the state more money. Not to include any allowances accrued by AGS for performing this duty.

Terrontress

benwavner wrote: »

Terrontress wrote: »

Bomb squads tend to be using military expertise in a civilian environment. There is no reason why the Gardaí should not perform that function if soldiers are trained primarily with domestic bombs in mind. If they are trained for military purposes and assist the government by using that training then it is easier to justify.

The Metropolitan Police in London has its own bomb squad.

True, but the costings to the state would not be the same. I would imagine more money would have to be spent to retrain AGS for this role and also additional equipment and all that goes along with it. It's not just bomb technicians that go to the scene, security is also dispatched. Therefore not only requiring AGS bomb technicians but then you need to have a squad of armed AGS on standby. Then you have to train and arm more AGS, thus costing the state more money. Not to include any allowances accrued by AGS for performing this duty.

Well, the allowances with AGS is always the $64,000 question, which is roughly what a Garda gets paid for doing things like cleaning their shoes. I joke.

Anyway, if the Gardaí were given the role from the off and the training were to be provided in-house then it would not be retraining. And there are already squads of heavily armed AGS on standby.

I presume that where there is requirement for bomb disposal, there is usually a criminal investigation carried out by AGS which would point to the whole issue being a civilian one rather than military. Same with cash escort.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Terrontress wrote: »

Well, the allowances with AGS is always the $64,000 question, which is roughly what a Garda gets paid for doing things like cleaning their shoes. I joke.

Anyway, if the Gardaí were given the role from the off and the training were to be provided in-house then it would not be retraining. And there are already squads of heavily armed AGS on standby.

I presume that where there is requirement for bomb disposal, there is usually a criminal investigation carried out by AGS which would point to the whole issue being a civilian one rather than military. Same with cash escort.

What you are saying does make sense as a whole. Logistically the switchover should not be laborious or complicated. My point is, if AGS is to take over this role....it will cost the tax payer more money. New equiptment will be bought, and there is a load of equiptment needed. The troops in the Ord Corps who do the job are sent to different countries to learn their trade as well as the expertise back home. Unfortunatey we have had an internal security threat here from "organisations" but they have enabled us to masters in our craft.

AGS has not got the decades of expertise as the DF does, you dont just throw that away because technically the bomb squad should be an AGS asset. It was only announced recently that 1/3 of the armed AGS are to be scalled back because the state cannot afford new weapons/training and equiptment for AGS. They are overstreatched as it is, so where is the security going to come from?

In regards to cash escorts. With the amount of tiger kidnappings and cash van raids that go on, not one military one has been compromised. I doubt any AGS ones have either but If I were to have a crack at a cash escort I know which one I would go for.......and its not the one with assault rifles.

Johnny Foreigner

bb1234567 wrote: »

The government is trying to find ways to cut back so why not scrap the army, I'm sure it costs a lot to run and maintain.We dont even have an airforce/submarines/missiles etc so its not like wed even be able to deal with a full on attack from another big country like England,Germany or China almost any country really, we'd be defeated within a day or two maybe less.
And since the IRA have given up their campaign we now have even less of a reason to retain an army. The only reason we need one is to help out with the UN, but we could pull out our army and maybe pull our weight by supplying the UN with a specialised garda force instead, that way we wouldnt need to maintain barracks around the country and that would be a better use of manpower and resources. I know we already have a problem with unemployment and this wont help, but maybe make the soldiers that didnt make into the specialised garda force for the UN normal gardai, we definitely do need a few more gardai patrolling our streets. That way unemployment wont go down but the government wont have to pay near as much to maintain an army thats of no use to us.

The Army are needed to protect cash deliveries to and from banks.
They also patrol the seas around Ireland to intercept drug smugglers.

LordSutch

Johnny Foreigner wrote: »

The Army are needed to protect cash deliveries to and from banks.

Surely an armed police escort would protect cash deliveries to & from banks?

Johnny Foreigner wrote: »

They also patrol the seas around Ireland to intercept drug smugglers.

Should 'the army' be patrolling the seas? What about the Irish coast guard/navy?

2 stroke

Our government will increasingly need the army to protect them from their loyal subjects.

Johnny Foreigner

Terrontress wrote: »

Bomb squads tend to be using military expertise in a civilian environment. There is no reason why the Gardaí should not perform that function if soldiers are trained primarily with domestic bombs in mind. If they are trained for military purposes and assist the government by using that training then it is easier to justify.

The Metropolitan Police in London has its own bomb squad.

London has a greater population than the whole of Ireland.
One cannot compare the Metropolitan Police with Garda Siochana.
They deal with different volumes of crimes.
With regard to bomb disposal, the same applies. Where these security alerts happen more frequently, you can justify the expense. For example, bomb disposal units are more needed in Northern Ireland by the PSNI, than they are needed by Garda Siohana in the Republic of Ireland.
Different Police services have different needs.

gigino

LordSutch wrote: »

We don't need an army now, neither did we during the 2nd World War. We are 'de facto' always going to be protected by Great Britain & their (our) proper highly equipped army with Irish regiments.

Well said. We sheltered under the UK's umbrella during WW2, the cold war etc and let them fight it / do the dirty work ( with individuals volunteering from Ireland ).

Batsy

bb1234567 wrote: »

The government is trying to find ways to cut back so why not scrap the army, I'm sure it costs a lot to run and maintain.We dont even have an airforce/submarines/missiles etc so its not like wed even be able to deal with a full on attack from another big country like England,Germany or China almost any country really, we'd be defeated within a day or two maybe less.

There's no chance of Ireland being attacked by England any time soon. There is no such thing as a sovereign state known as England. You may as well argue that Ireland may get attacked by Rhode Island.

Johnny Foreigner

LordSutch wrote: »

Surely an armed police escort would protect cash deliveries to & from banks?

Should 'the army' be patrolling the seas? What about the Irish coast guard/navy?

The Army's largest aid to the civil power role is its cash-in-transit escorts, with over 2000 missions carried out every year. All large shipments of cash within the State have been provided with armed military escorts since 1978. The Army have the capacity to do so, Garda Siochana have not.

While most missions undertaken by the Naval Service are in Irish waters, on occasion longer missions are undertaken in support of Irish forces serving with the United Nations, representing Ireland, or in support of Irish trade missions.
The Naval Service support the Army as part of the Irish Defence Forces. The Irish Coast Guards perform a different function.

flanders1979

Someone has to keep the ancient sport of throwing horseshoes going

Batsy

Originally Posted by LordSutch
We don't need an army now, neither did we during the 2nd World War. We are 'de facto' always going to be protected by Great Britain & their (our) proper highly equipped army with Irish regiments.

The British Army is the army of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not that of the Republic of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland has its own, second rate, army.

And the UK is under no obligation to defend the Republic. If the Republic is under threat of invasion from a foreign power then the UK could well leave Ireland to fight its own battles unless the UK itself is under threat.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

gigino wrote: »

Well said. We sheltered under the UK's umbrella during WW2, the cold war etc and let them fight it / do the dirty work ( with individuals volunteering from Ireland ).

Typical "sure why cant someone else do it" attitude.

If you are irish, which i am not sure, have a bit of pride in yourself and your country. Just because we are broke and subject to the whims of Europe. It is now more than ever important to hold on to what we have and not to run ourselves down with typical pessimism.

gigino

benwavner wrote: »

Typical "sure why cant someone else do it" attitude.

If you are irish, which i am not sure, have a bit of pride in yourself and your country. Just because we are broke and subject to the whims of Europe. It is now more than ever important to hold on to what we have and not to run ourselves down with typical pessimism.

No need to be personal. I'm not say what we should do now or in the future. I'm merely saying we as a country sheltered behind others in the past / let them do the dirty work. We have a history of wanting the spoils of the free world, let others fight the war against communism, the war fagainst terrorism etc but want to do little in return

bb1234567

Batsy wrote: »

There's no chance of Ireland being attacked by England any time soon. There is no such thing as a sovereign state known as England. You may as well argue that Ireland may get attacked by Rhode Island.

I know theres no chance we'll be attacked by them, England was just an example. What I meant is that a country that size or with that size population could easily overpower us, not that they will.

Batsy

bb1234567 wrote: »

I know theres no chance we'll be attacked by them, England was just an example. What I meant is that a country that size or with that size population could easily overpower us, not that they will.

Ireland can't get attacked by England. England isn't a country. England has about as much chance of atatcking Ireland as Connecticut, Alberta or New South Wales have.

paddyandy

We need more Guns in the Power of the State on this Island than others have outside the power of the state . Simple enough equation .

Doc Ruby

gigino wrote: »

Well said. We sheltered under the UK's umbrella during WW2, the cold war etc and let them fight it / do the dirty work ( with individuals volunteering from Ireland ).

gigino wrote: »

No need to be personal. I'm not say what we should do now or in the future. I'm merely saying we as a country sheltered behind others in the past / let them do the dirty work. We have a history of wanting the spoils of the free world, let others fight the war against communism, the war fagainst terrorism etc but want to do little in return

What's this "we" thing laddie. Its well known that both you and LordSutch are unionist loyalists from the north.

Milk & Honey

johnr1 wrote: »

There is GROSS abuse of public money in the defence forces. Archaic practices, Senoir officers on truly ridiculous pay levels, trained soldiers waiting on them hand and foot, silver service, personal dresser/clothes assistants etc.

This was confirmed to me by a serving soldier.

He also told me that most of the young lads with families in his unit are on family income support - this indicates VERY low rates of pay.

.

That is a joke. Officers pay is linked to civil service grades. There are only about 12 generals or equivalent. Most of them earn about the same as an assistant secretary in a government department. If they live in military housing they have an orderly. Most do not.
Most senior officers do not reach General level until they are in their 50s and they have to retire between the ages of 61 and 63. The vast bulk of their career is spent in the lower ranks on very ordinary salaries. Soldiers pay is bad. they cannot strike and force pay increases like others in the public service. Neither can officers. Apart from a handful who get a few years in a very senior rank most earn very little. The commanding officer of a major army barracks such as Collins Barracks, Cork earns less than the headmaster of a secondary school.

Mance Rayder

gigino wrote: »

No need to be personal. I'm not say what we should do now or in the future. I'm merely saying we as a country sheltered behind others in the past / let them do the dirty work. We have a history of wanting the spoils of the free world, let others fight the war against communism, the war fagainst terrorism etc but want to do little in return

War Against communism? Why it was the Communists who helped save Europe from the fascists don't you know? War against terrorism??? The only terrorist organisation here are the IRA who last time I checked were Republicans.

So who is fighting the terrorists to protect us?
Who is fighting the Communists?
Which communists?
Our Labour party are communists, are you aware they have infiltrated our government?

Richard

Batsy wrote: »

The British Army is the army of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not that of the Republic of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland has its own, second rate, army.

And the UK is under no obligation to defend the Republic. If the Republic is under threat of invasion from a foreign power then the UK could well leave Ireland to fight its own battles unless the UK itself is under threat.

Any invasion of the republic of Ireland would be a direct threat to the UK. Not just Northern Ireland, but Great Britain as well.

And that's assuming that the republic would ever be invaded or attacked on purpose. There could be a potential wide-scale attack on Western Europe by some hostile force. In that case, the UK would be under threat as well.

As for terrorist attacks, the Irish Army and Garda can deal with these, by they from Irish terrorists or Islamic ones.

Terrontress

benwavner wrote: »

In regards to cash escorts. With the amount of tiger kidnappings and cash van raids that go on, not one military one has been compromised. I doubt any AGS ones have either but If I were to have a crack at a cash escort I know which one I would go for.......and its not the one with assault rifles.

It doesn't make it appropriate. You could have armed soldiers doing the security checks at the airport and it would undoubtedly improve security but it is a civil role and should therefore be undertaken by AGS or civilian agencies.

I am sure we could think of numerous situations where a green jeep with tooled up soldiers would help but, to my mind, a soldier's role should be primarily military. Where you have something predictable such as gaol security, cash transit, escorting prisoners; it should be done by a police force. Obviously where there is flooding, unexpected snow, rioting etc the PDF should help out as it is nor predictable.

There is a thread on Emergency Services forum talking about the excellence of the Garda Emeregency Response Unit but it would appear to me that the defence forces are doing a lot of the tough work that their counterparts elsewhere are doing.

The show Coppers which was on last Monday had English police shadowing cash in transit vans.

Terrontress

Johnny Foreigner wrote: »

Terrontress wrote: »

Bomb squads tend to be using military expertise in a civilian environment. There is no reason why the Gardaí should not perform that function if soldiers are trained primarily with domestic bombs in mind. If they are trained for military purposes and assist the government by using that training then it is easier to justify.

The Metropolitan Police in London has its own bomb squad.

London has a greater population than the whole of Ireland.
One cannot compare the Metropolitan Police with Garda Siochana.
They deal with different volumes of crimes.
With regard to bomb disposal, the same applies. Where these security alerts happen more frequently, you can justify the expense. For example, bomb disposal units are more needed in Northern Ireland by the PSNI, than they are needed by Garda Siohana in the Republic of Ireland.
Different Police services have different needs.

Of course they deal with different volumes of crimes but I'd wager that there are different numbers of personnel in the Met compared to AGS.

Your point would be valid if they had exactly the same resources.

KeithAFC

Batsy wrote: »

The British Army is the army of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not that of the Republic of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland has its own, second rate, army.

And the UK is under no obligation to defend the Republic. If the Republic is under threat of invasion from a foreign power then the UK could well leave Ireland to fight its own battles unless the UK itself is under threat.

Absolutely. The Irish Republic would deserve no protection from the UK.

Terrontress

KeithAFC wrote: »

Batsy wrote: »

The British Army is the army of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not that of the Republic of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland has its own, second rate, army.

And the UK is under no obligation to defend the Republic. If the Republic is under threat of invasion from a foreign power then the UK could well leave Ireland to fight its own battles unless the UK itself is under threat.

Absolutely. The Irish Republic would deserve no protection from the UK.

Of course they would. They are the closest EU state to the Republic, have a common travel area, have lent them bucketloads of money and share a land border.

tfitzgerald

KeithAFC wrote: »

Absolutely. The Irish Republic would deserve no protection from the UK.

Why not ? A lot of Irish people have given their life for the crown . Now I know in recent years the north if Ireland has given a lot of grief to the U K and the Brits would get rid Of the place if they could . But I still think the would help out the south . Are'nt we all good friends now . One last thing I don't think that we need an army

Peetrik

Richard Hillman wrote: »

To prevent any coup attempts

This would be the biggest reason for scrapping the army IMO, much greater than any financial incentive

Explosions in the Sky

My eyes please close this thread .....:D

Doc Ruby

Terrontress wrote: »

Of course they would. They are the closest EU state to the Republic, have a common travel area, have lent them bucketloads of money and share a land border.

Does anyone really care? Nobody would be insane enough to try and invade an EU country.

Capt'n Midnight

luckyfrank wrote: »

The brits should be our army, they have a proper army irish people join it anyways, it would save money

Nope.

costs money to run an army, sooner or later they'd ask us for a "purely nominal contribution" towards that cost, and we'd have to say yes.

Capt'n Midnight

gigino wrote: »

Well said. We sheltered under the UK's umbrella during WW2, the cold war etc and let them fight it / do the dirty work ( with individuals volunteering from Ireland ).

No one born since the end of the war of Independence would have been 18 years old when WWII started.

Yes we handed control of shipping arrangements to the UK, but that was mainly so we wouldn't be competing for the same stuff and pushing up the open market price.

Cold War ?
We were making money off the Russians with the Shannon stop over for flights to Cuba and beyond and importing good Russian Oil. Don't forget we were also exporting beef to Iran / Iraq / Libya.

Capt'n Midnight

CiscoStudent wrote: »

The only terrorist organisation here are the IRA who last time I checked were Republicans.

They and their ilk alone are a reason to keep an army as insurance against escalation.

Capt'n Midnight

Sindri wrote: »

I think we may have an obligation towards the U.N. with peace keeping missions.

Like being contractually obliged.

Actually don't we make money from the UN ?

Terrontress

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Terrontress wrote: »

Of course they would. They are the closest EU state to the Republic, have a common travel area, have lent them bucketloads of money and share a land border.

Does anyone really care? Nobody would be insane enough to try and invade an EU country.

Firstly, can I say that my post was in reaction to Keith AFC saying that Ireland does not deserve the UK's assistance, not saying it is likely to happen although I am sure the department of defence has risk-assessed it.

But given that you have made your post:

There have been quite a few country leaders described as insane:

Idi Amin, Muammar Gadaffi, Sadam Hussein, Kim Jong Il off the top of my head.

I know we are not within reach of them but what if Argentina invaded to prove a point about grabbing an island off the coast of the UK?

Doc Ruby

Terrontress wrote: »

I know we are not within reach of them but what if Argentina invaded to prove a point about grabbing an island off the coast of the UK?

An invasion isn't like piling into a few boats and rowing till you hit a shore.

There are logistics, preparations, intelligence gathering, training and massing forces, munition import and manufacturing, transporting those forces across two oceans, establishing bridgeheads, maintaining supply lines, and a whole lot more. All of this would be noticed well in advance and almost certainly result in preventative action being taken by the "world police".

Even if that were not the case, Argentina by dint of a lack of aircraft carriers wouldn't be able to use its air force, so any invasion would be a foregone conclusion.

As if all that wasn't enough, there is no way that Germany, France or the UK are going to let an EU member state get invaded at this stage of the game, regardless of whether or not there are mutual defence treaties. And two of those three are nuclear armed. In fact I'm sure the continental powers would be only delighted to have a crack at anyone foolish enough to attempt it, unless that someone was the US of course.

After the Argentinians were sent to a richly deserved grave at the bottom, Ireland would be tut-tutted over and strongly advised to beef up its defence forces, and we would.

If, hypothetically, every country on earth vanished except Ireland and Argentina, then we might have a problem, but that doesn't change the reality.

The reality is that Ireland is under no threat of invasion from anyone.

If Ireland was under legitimate threat of invasion, we could most certainly roll out significant military resources given a few years to buy them in and train people up. But we aren't so our military reflects the political realities. If those change, so will we. Until then it would just be a waste of money.

It should go without saying that were these other countries to remove their own armed forces or allow a fellow EU member state to become occupied, the results for the EU would not be beneficial overall, to put it mildly. Less so the UK, maybe Keith has a point, but really, who cares?

marketty

We'd hammer Argentina sure didnt we teach their navy everything they know

dr.fuzzenstein

marketty wrote: »

We'd hammer Argentina sure didnt we teach their navy everything they know

Them's fightin' words!:p

Capt'n Midnight

Doc Ruby wrote: »

An invasion isn't like piling into a few boats and rowing till you hit a shore.

You need a LOT of ships
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_naval_forces_in_the_Falklands_War

included were
3 Ocean liners
8 Ferries
25 Tankers
7 Freighters
4 container ships

Today's Royal Navy has just 19 Destroyers and Frigates.
They sent 24 to the Falklands.


Argentina could have based more planes on the Islands if they had improved the runway at Stanley. Instead the jets had to come from the mainland and so didn't have much fuel for more than a very short time in the combat area.

[armchair]Having the fast jets operating from Stanley would have meant that the Argentinian Air Force would have been much more effective and this could have easily tipped the balance.[/armchair]

audidiesel

Yes IMO its blatently obvious that we need an army.

In this country generally when theres something that no one knows who deals with on a small scale, the guards get the call. But if its on a larger scale (flooding, snow, etc) the army is usually called in and does a teriffic job generally speaking.

Having read through the entire post to date, i havent seen a single point to genuinely make me think we dont need them.

Reading the post's about amalgamating certain aspects of the army into the guards or joining them. Thats a very bad idea. Countries keep these seperate for good reasons. There's a huge difference between gardai and the army trying to clear a protest or prevent social unrest. The army does a fantastic job as a backup/aid to civilian forces and should be commended for this.

Oh and to any members of the armed forces reading this, keep up the good work

Manic Moran

The sole function of the military is to do bad things to bad people.

All the other functions that the Army tends to do routinely can all be carried out by other organizations. However, only the Army can carry out organized violence on behalf of the State and be good at it. If you believe that the State will never need a body capable of dealing with violent incidents at the maximum possible level, either for domestic use such as defense against foreign aggression, or for foreign policy reasons such as peace keeping or peace enforcing, and bearing in mind that if you change your mind it will take years, maybe decades to rebuild a professional military without a core, then you can be justifiably in the 'disband' camp. If there is any doubt at all, however, you are in the 'keep' camp.

NTM