Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Does Ireland need an army?

Options
12357…10

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    OS119
    Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    ...Despite all the current financial woes, ireland is still a relatively wealthy country and as such has a responsibility to the international community. The peacekeeping work is a basic fulfilment of this responsibility and it would damage Ireland's reputation if that was removed....

    i disagree with this in its assertion that only 'soldiers doing peacekeeping' is a way of Ireland doing good in the world/meeting its obligations for two reasons - firstly that the UN does not lack for soldiers trained and equipped to Irish standards and who are allowed to operate in the types of missions that the Irish Army is deployed on, and secondly that what the UN really needs is well trained policemen who governments allow to be seconded to 'nation building' UN missions.

    if we're really talking about keeping an Army of 8,500 in business to supply 500 not-really-needed troops to UNPK ops then something has gone very wrong indeed.

    far more valuable to the UN would be 500 well trained policemen, able both to bring order to chaos, and to train/develop the police/justice systems in countries that don't have them.

    the problem with the Army is that it is so out of kilter with the rest of Irelands defence posture - Ireland could field, for a short time, an all-arms Brigade battlegroup that could almost rival anything a NATO country could provide, yet Ireland could not clear a single mine from Cork harbour, or intercept a single strike aircraft flying over Dublin.

    personally, i would scrap the Army - i'd invest on the things Irelands defence actually needs, maritime and air power, and a vastly larger and more capable Gardai that can do all the 'aid to the civil power' tasks that everyone elses police forces do every day of the week, and use it to benefit the public in Ireland and abroad in the form of police aid in nation building.


  • Options
    #123
    Yitzhak Rabin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,225 ✭✭✭Yitzhak Rabin


    Poccington wrote: »
    I saw somewhere on here a while ago, think it might have been yekahS who posted it, that the Defence budget is either 800 million euro or just below it.

    Going from memory I think it was 730m or thereabouts for this year.

    I have a post with a few figures from the last time this topic reared its head.

    Edit: here it is, figures are for 2010 but 2011 figured would be similar, I just don't have access to them anymore.
    Our defence budget for last year was around 700 million. Sure its a lot, but in the grand scheme of things its a pittance of the budget. Disbanding our DF would be a purely a political ploy, and not a genuine effort to save money.

    The thing about an army is, its like an insurance policy. Its there for when something goes wrong in the country, then the army can fill the breach.

    A lot of the work the army does is something that you won't see. Anyone who has taken money out of the atm, the likelihood is, it was delivered there safely by the DF. Last year alone there were over 200 call outs of the EOD(Explosive Ordnance Disposal) teams. Of those call outs about 70 were viable devices. Thats a lot of peoples lives, and property that were potentially saved. Theres a constant armed presence in Portlaise prison where the countries most dangerous prisoners are contained.

    The navy alone has intercepted over 1.7 Billion worth of illegal drugs coming into the country. A huge amount of money is saved by the fishery protection offered by the DF. The Air corps provide an air ambulance service. Just last week two lives were saved by this service. Last year 80 air ambulance missions were carried out.

    Then overseas we provide invaluable support to troubled nations. We are recognised as an extremely professional and effective peace keeping force. Also, its worth noting that the UN pays the government for soldiers and equipment, so UN missions do not cost the state money, and allow our army to keep current and well practiced.

    During the last decade, or so called boom times, when the public sector as a whole swelled and spent extravagantly, the DF reduced its numbers, modernised its equipment (paid for by selling off properties) and reformed work practices. The DF is seen as a model organisation for its leading HR practices, care of personnel, reduction in waste, both financially and in literal terms. In the coming years if the public service is to reform, they could do well to look to the defence forces as a place to see how actual reform looks. The organisation is unrecognisable from 20 years ago. The money we do get, we spend very well. We are always in the bottom three for defence expenditure, yet we manage to be in the top 3 per capita for troops serving overseas.

    Also, I don't think the argument that other groups could fulfil the DF's roles better hold water. If you were to hand over the job to An Garda Síochana you would not save money. A member of the armed AGS units earns far far more than a soldier in the army. Also they do not have the benefit of a 6 decades of overseas service. Why bother adding bureaucracy and red tape by having 10 different organisations doing 10 different jobs, when the DF can do them all?

    Is there room to improve and provide even more value for money? Absolutely, and I guarantee that the DF will, as usual, be at the front of any public sector reform. One thing about the DF is when they are told to do something, they do it, as is evidenced by the fact that they are the only part of the public service who actually reformed through the benchmarking years.

    Is there a case to disband the army? I don't think so anyway...


  • Options
    #124
    Sunnyisland
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,562 ✭✭✭✭Sunnyisland


    OS119 wrote: »
    the problem with the Army is that it is so out of kilter with the rest of Irelands defence posture - Ireland could field, for a short time, an all-arms Brigade battlegroup that could almost rival anything a NATO country could provide, yet Ireland could not clear a single mine from Cork harbour, or intercept a single strike aircraft flying over Dublin.

    personally, i would scrap the Army - i'd invest on the things Irelands defence actually needs, maritime and air power, and a vastly larger and more capable Gardai that can do all the 'aid to the civil power' tasks that everyone elses police forces do every day of the week, and use it to benefit the public in Ireland and abroad in the form of police aid in nation building.


    THIS.


  • Options
    #125
    Delancey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,451 ✭✭✭Delancey


    Below taken from RTE Website today

    The Government is to publish a discussion paper early next year about the future role and organisation of the Defence Forces.



    After the 'Green' discussion paper is launched, the Government hopes there will be a full debate about defence issues leading to a new policy for the Defence Forces.


    This discussion will involve a reassessment of the personnel, equipment and facilities required for the next decade.
    Minister for Defence Alan Shatter said the discussion paper will act as a catalyst to ensure an appropriate level of debate on Defence and help the development of a new 'white' policy paper.
    Among the issues being examined is the current brigade structure of the army as well as the numbers and ranks required.
    Yesterday the closure of four more army posts was announced - bringing to 14 the number of barrack closures since 1998.
    Only 14 permanently occupied posts will now remain open.
    Membership of the Defence Forces now stands at about 9,500, the lowest since 1972 and down a thousand in the past decade.
    Mr Shatter recently told the Dail he believes that the current strength should be maintained.
    The first 'White' policy paper on Defence was issued in 2000 set out a strategy for a decade based 'the evolving national and international security environment.'
    It provided a framework for the ongoing management and reorganisation of the Defence Forces to ensure its continued participation in peacekeeping abroad and meeting the needs of on-island security.
    The Department of Defence said this evening that outcome of the Comprehensive Review of Expenditure tomorrow will determine the future resource envelope available for Defence. This will further inform the development of future defence policy.
    Members of the public and other interested parties will be given the opportunity to submit their views on Defence policy and provision.

    Labour councillor resigns from party
    A member of Clonmel Borough Council in Co Tipperary has resigned from the Labour Party.
    Councillor Gabrielle Egan said she does not feel comfortable with the decisions the party is making in Government.
    She lists the closure of St Michael's Unit in Clonmel and the Kickham Army Barracks, together with the possible reintroduction of third level fees, as among the reasons for her decision to leave the party.
    Cllr Egan has been a member of the Labour Party since 2006.
    Meanwhile, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources has said conclusions cannot be drawn from the resignation of Willie Penrose over the closure of Columb Barracks in Mullingar.
    Mr Penrose, the Labour TD for Longford/Westmeath, resigned yesterday as Minister of State for Housing and relinquished the party whip in opposition to the Government's decision to close the facility.
    Three other barracks in Cavan, Clonmel, and Castlebar are also to close, which the Government says would save up to €5m.
    Speaking on RTÉ's Morning Ireland, Minister Rabbitte said he hoped to see Mr Penrose back in the Labour Party


  • Options
    #126
    cursai
    Registered Users Posts: 2,915 ✭✭✭cursai


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

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

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

    Yes because we are still our own country.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    OS119
    Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    cursai wrote: »
    Yes because we are still our own country.

    lots of countries don't have an Army, Iceland - as an example - despite being a founding member of NATO.

    deciding whether to have an army or not is a decision based on the potential threats you face and your ability to defend against them and to secure your intests - it has no more to do with nationhood, pride or any other crap than my favourite food has on my choice of car ( Lamb and Spinach Bhuna, mushroom rice, Keema Naan and natural yoghurt - and a sky blue 2010 Ford Mondeo Estate LX, 2.0 TDCI if you're interested).


  • Options
    #128
    Overature
    Registered Users Posts: 908 ✭✭✭Overature


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    when the time comes to defend our nation the tax payer will be glad of an army


  • Options
    #129
    Delancey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,451 ✭✭✭Delancey


    Overature wrote: »
    when the time comes to defend our nation the tax payer will be glad of an army

    Defend the nation against whom or what exactly, Zombies ? Aliens ?


  • Options
    #130
    Overature
    Registered Users Posts: 908 ✭✭✭Overature


    Delancey wrote: »
    Defend the nation against whom or what exactly, Zombies ? Aliens ?

    some time in the future, maybe many year away when there is a threat from another country


  • Options
    #131
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    The thing with Switzerland is that they are slap-bang in the centre of a load of former warring enemies, it has a strategically significant location and then there's all that gold, financial power, and gleaming infrastructure.

    We're very different in that regard.

    Sweden as well.

    It would probably mean having a bigger FCA type force because the public here generally hates conscription. It'll probably get blamed on the EU so everybody wins.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    OS119 wrote: »
    lots of countries don't have an Army, Iceland - as an example - despite being a founding member of NATO.

    deciding whether to have an army or not is a decision based on the potential threats you face and your ability to defend against them and to secure your intests - it has no more to do with nationhood, pride or any other crap than my favourite food has on my choice of car ( Lamb and Spinach Bhuna, mushroom rice, Keema Naan and natural yoghurt - and a sky blue 2010 Ford Mondeo Estate LX, 2.0 TDCI if you're interested).

    They had links with the US until 06 I think, if anything happened. Don't know what the back up plans are now.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #133
    Delancey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,451 ✭✭✭Delancey


    Overature wrote: »
    some time in the future, maybe many year away when there is a threat from another country

    The whole point is that the Defence Forces are in no position to defend the country against another state - no Heavy Artillery , no Main Battle Tanks , no decent aircraft , no anti-submarine capability - the list of deficiencies is endless.
    It begs the question again - if they cannot defend the country just what are they here for ?
    Internal security ? Nothing a well-equipped Gendarmerie couldn't handle.

    It seems to be national policy to leave the PDF hopelessly ill-equipped and has been since the foundation of the state - I have no idea why that is the case but in the current crisis we need to ask uncomfortable and sometimes unpopular questions.


  • Options
    #134
    Evade
    Registered Users Posts: 6,753 ✭✭✭Evade


    yekahS wrote: »
    Also, I don't think the argument that other groups could fulfil the DF's roles better hold water.
    The major flaw with disbanding the DF as it stands now and having more specialist organisations take over is it would be far easier for the smaller separate organisations to get overwhelmed.

    Just as a hypothetical suppose the Army was disbanded and CIT duties were hand over to AGS who would then train and equip enough armed Gardaí to carry it out.

    Now suppose there is an increase in armed robbery on cash escorts and the size of each escort needed to be increased where would the additional trained personnel come from? Would you increase the hours the CIT Gardaí do and pay through the nose for overtime or hand out weapons to half trained Gardaí and hope it works out?

    If the same increase were required from the DF there is already a pool of potentially hundreds of trained personnel who could be pulled from less pressing duties on short notice.

    You could replace my CIT hypothetical with just about any other duty the DF carries out being handed out to another organisation get similar results.


  • Options
    #135
    Gareth2011
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Gareth2011


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    I presume you're not Irish - what wonderful land with a blemish-less history do you herald from then?

    Im Irish and I think he is right. The country is a kip, lovely scenery but thats it. The peoples opinion of this country have fallen well below standards since bertie, Fianna Fail, 5 fingers fingleton, developers, fitzpatrick to name a few have f**ked it up for everyone. Since all the bad budgets started people have been living in fear of what the budget is going to contain to screw them up some more I know I do. Begorra and all that :D


  • Options
    #136
    Gareth2011
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Gareth2011


    Overature wrote: »
    some time in the future, maybe many year away when there is a threat from another country


    And what are the army going to do? Run at them with spuds? Yes we have the standard as Styer rifle 5.56mm amongst a crap general purpose machine gun, few rocket launchers and few land vehicles. When I saw a few I mean no more than 500 if even. 500 vehicle and 9,500 troops is not nearly enough to stop britain invading never mind anyone else. Imagine britain invading us now? Sure their tornado's would have half the army dead within a few hours. We dont stand a chance against anyone so gwet rid of the army.


  • Options
    #137
    firemansam4
    Registered Users Posts: 1,700 ✭✭✭firemansam4


    I think the argument that we need an army to defend ourselves against attack in the future really doesn't hold water, there is no way the defense forces here could mount a real defense unless it was maybe from a very small nation, or helping against terrorist attacks. But the idea that we would be attacked imo is very far fetched.
    And if we ever were invaded, are best defense would come from a resistance, much like that of the french in WW2 or that of the IRA.
    I'm not saying we should entirely get rid of the Army as they do play some very important roles here.


  • Options
    #138
    Gareth2011
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Gareth2011


    firemansam4 wrote: »
    I think the argument that we need an army to defend ourselves against attack in the future really doesn't hold water, there is no way the defense forces here could mount a real defense unless it was maybe from a very small nation, or helping against terrorist attacks. But the idea that we would be attacked imo is very far fetched.
    And if we ever were invaded, are best defense would come from a resistance, much like that of the french in WW2 or that of the IRA.
    I'm not saying we should entirely get rid of the Army as they do play some very important roles here.


    Like allo allo? :D


  • Options
    #139
    caseyann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,941 ✭✭✭caseyann


    Ah yeah then the army have no jobs great thinking batman :rolleyes:

    And then a war breaks out and you are ****ting all over yourself in corner cursing there is no army.:p

    Ofc an army is needed.


  • Options
    #140
    Gareth2011
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Gareth2011


    Pamwe Chete wrote: »
    I'd cut an arm off to see the whole of Ireland napalmed.

    Yeah but Im saying eyes so you couldnt see and ears so you couldnt hear. Then your life wouldnt be worth living so you wouldn't have to worry about living or cutting off limbs to see Ireland napalmed :).


  • Options
    #141
    Delancey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,451 ✭✭✭Delancey


    Geez guys , what ever happened to '' Don't feed the trolls '' ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    the guy has been permabanned


  • Options
    #143
    Gareth2011
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Gareth2011


    Delancey wrote: »
    Geez guys , what ever happened to '' Don't feed the trolls '' ?


    :o


  • Options
    #144
    woodoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    I miss old pamwe that was great fun.


  • Options
    #145
    snafuk35
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 833 ✭✭✭snafuk35


    anymore wrote: »
    lets be honest, a small country with a few basic jet fighetrs would be utterly irrelevant and a waste of time - look at the lessons fron Libya and iraq. When pwoerful countries attack, aircraft from small countries are grounded. They would be an indulgence for us. Now helicpoters that fulfilll our various need would be more appropriate.
    In any event if we had jet fighters with trianed pilots, we would probably find we arere training pilots for the commercial sector with its more lucrative salaries. It is a no win situation.

    A fly past over O'Connell Street every Easter or November 11 or whenever the President is inaugrated?


  • Options
    #146
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    It wasn't so much feeding a troll as poking it with a long stick from outside it's cage. Fierce craic.


  • Options
    #147
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,280 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    K-9 wrote: »
    They had links with the US until 06 I think, if anything happened. Don't know what the back up plans are now.

    Iceland? They're part of NATO. They don't need their own military, they have military allies to help them.
    The whole point is that the Defence Forces are in no position to defend the country against another state - no Heavy Artillery , no Main Battle Tanks , no decent aircraft , no anti-submarine capability - the list of deficiencies is endless.
    It begs the question again - if they cannot defend the country just what are they here for ?

    Isn't that kindof like arguing that because the condition of the health service in Ireland is so poor, one may as well disband it and go with paramedics and foreign hospitals?

    That the Irish military has a limited ability to conduct its role due to the lack of funding doesn't strike me as being the fault of the military, and it certainly doesn't mean that the role has gone away.

    NTM


  • Options
    #148
    OS119
    Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    ...That the Irish military has a limited ability to conduct its role due to the lack of funding doesn't strike me as being the fault of the military, and it certainly doesn't mean that the role has gone away.

    NTM

    i agree with your premise, but if the DF are never going to be equipped to deal with the air or maritime threats that would cripple both the Army and the nations critical infrastructure, what is the point of keeping the Army?

    my view is that the IA is a fit, trained soldier armed with a large, sharp knife - unfortunately he exists on a battlefield where everyone else has .5 inch sniping rifles. the lack of maritme and air combat capability means that no one needs get within swinging range of him to degrade/kill him - they can just use maritime power to cut off his fuel, food, and ammunition, and air power to sit at 15,000ft and systematicly destroy his supply lines, his fighting vehicles, his artillery, and troops in the field - all at no cost to themselves.

    in this scenario, the IA has acheived nothing - it hasn't stopped the enemy - but it has meant that whatever the Army parks up next to while hiding from the enemy's air power is going to get whacked with dropped ordinance.

    if the body politic is genuinely serious about having a force that really can defend the Republic, then it needs to understand that the force needs to be able to secure its sea lines of communication against surface and submarine wafare, and secure its airspace against the air warfare capabilities of its potential enemies - otherwise, regardless of how good the land componant is, its all just a complete waste of time and money.


  • Options
    #149
    NinjaK
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 963 ✭✭✭NinjaK


    firemansam4 wrote: »
    I think the argument that we need an army to defend ourselves against attack in the future really doesn't hold water, there is no way the defense forces here could mount a real defense unless it was maybe from a very small nation, or helping against terrorist attacks. But the idea that we would be attacked imo is very far fetched.
    And if we ever were invaded, are best defense would come from a resistance, much like that of the french in WW2 or that of the IRA.
    I'm not saying we should entirely get rid of the Army as they do play some very important roles here.

    We were invaded for 1000 years, we should be the first people on earth with a strong army. Have you read any Irish history or are you even Irish?


  • Options
    #150
    belacqua_
    Registered Users Posts: 257 ✭✭belacqua_


    It's not invasion I'd be particularly concerned about, anyone that's lived through the troubles and has seen the army deployed as an aid to the civil power should have the sense to see that we need protecting from ourselves. Remove the Irish army and watch as a certain unofficial national army fills the vacuum.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    NinjaK wrote: »
    We were invaded for 1000 years, we should be the first people on earth with a strong army. Have you read any Irish history or are you even Irish?
    Not agreeing with the poster you're replying to but have you read any? I think you'll find Henry II was invited here and it wasn't 1000 years ago.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement