Does Ireland need an army?

Sunnyisland

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Then I shall tell my sister today that her husband has been skiving off when claiming he is on the army day off - as he has done once a year for the 19 years of their marriage. I'm sure she will be pleased to hear that.

And telling some one they hear voices is a tad insulting.

Guns and days off notwithstanding. I have yet to see a convincing argument for why we need to maintain such a large standing army, particularly when our navy is in relative terms so under resourced.[/QUOTE]


I agree with this.

Sunnyisland

yosser hughes wrote: »

Anyone know how much it costs to run the Army every year? I have heard Jill Kirby say it's around 1 billion!:eek:

1,27 billion for 2008

GDP 0.7%

Cant find any figures for later years, maybe one of our current members can enlighten us on how much it costs to keep our Army on standby.

Chuck Stone

K-9 wrote: »

Switzerland is as neutral as you get and has a big army.

Part of the point of neutrality is you don't rely on others for defence, say us just relying on the Brits. People like the idea of neutrality, not the reality.

Conscription could be a part of being truely neutral too, we don't like that type of thing usually.

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.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Then I shall tell my sister today that her husband has been skiving off when claiming he is on the army day off - as he has done once a year for the 19 years of their marriage. I'm sure she will be pleased to hear that.

OK we have a day off, yes I admit it.

We get a full day off when there's not a soul working in the entire defence forces.

In fact, its tomorrow.. We lock up all the loaded weapons (because we don't get paid for handling empty weapons after all) away, throw the lock on the gates and we all head off for a rest... Oh, time for this little whore > :rolleyes:

Do you not realize how the stupidity in what your posting?.

"the army day off", indeed :pac:

Fionn

this comes up every week it seems, anyway i'm not going to type it out again but quote a reply i left elsewhere on Boards.

Fionn wrote: »

..............
As regards the military, i realise that a lot of people have no clue about the military and consider it a waste of resources, all I can say to this, is that the military, who as i've already stated remain loyal to the Constitution and thereby the government and ultimately the people of Ireland, provide the authority to the legitimate democratically elected government of the State to govern without fear of intimidation or prejudice. The Defence Forces are also a symbol of our sovereignty and our strength, such as it is.

The old saying comes to mind; better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.............

not only do we need an army, i think every citizen should serve in that army for some duration.

marketty

I think it's gas when people suggest some sort of compulsory national service in Ireland, this is not something you can just bring in, in the countries where it exists there is a strong historical/cultural basis to back it up. When I see how little respect there is for the force we have currently or even for the idea of any kind of military in Ireland I doubt people would be happy to be pressed into any kind of 'militia'.
Let's bear in mind how many young people in Ireland feel entitled to a free third level education and then emigrate without contributing anything back to the country, do these sound like people who would give over their youth to national service?

Poccington

realies wrote: »

1,27 billion for 2008

GDP 0.7%

Cant find any figures for later years, maybe one of our current members can enlighten us on how much it costs to keep our Army on standby.

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.

PeterIanStaker

The real elephant in the room is the bloated inefficiency of the likes of the HSE, not some small, relatively cost-effective dept that is continually cut.

Also the fact that exorbitant pensions are being paid out to Fianna Failures that took away this country's economic soveregnity and consigned a generation to emigration, unemployment, suicide, despair and debt, surely that's a bigger issue than "disbanding the army" and in doing so putting them and their families on the dole?

Additionally, TD's salaries, perks and Mercs need to be drastically cut, the Seanad needs to be abolished, the overall nu,ber of TD's needs to be reduced by 20 - 25.

This government, no different than its predecessor, still appoint their friends to Quangos and State boards.

Ah sure why am I even bothering to write this.

The ordinary Irish person can fucking well die in the street so long as the bankers get paid back, isn't that it, isn't that, in military terms, the object of the exercise?

Kinski

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I would favour a system like the Swiss have:

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

Although I see no reason why women should be excluded from the compulsory component and I would question the wisdom of sending people home with their equipment - including weapons - as they do in Switzerland.

Apart from those two 'tweaks' I think it would make perfect sense for Ireland to drastically reduce the amount of professional soldiers we have and create a trained citizen's militia.

I have family in Switzerland; one tells me that occasionally a Swiss person will lose their head, grab their firearm, and go on a gun rampage. But the Swiss being the Swiss, a gun rampage means running out into the street and firing into the air!:D

But conscription? To hell with that.

OS119

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

...not some small, relatively cost-effective dept...

i think you've equated 'cost effective' and 'cheap'.

cheap certainly, but effective?

the Irish Defence Forces cannot defend Ireland against any country that has the capability to use any aircraft designed after the Spitfire to attack Irish political, military or economic infrastructure.

the Irish Defence Forces do not have the capability to defend Ireland against any Land or Sea based incursion onto Irish territory.

the Irish Defence Forces do not have the capabilty to protect Ireland against maritime warfare - it has no ability to break/disrupt a foreign naval blockade, or to protect Irish military or commercial shipping against submarines or mines.

what is so cost-effective about a defence force that can't defend against any military threat?

donegal11

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

The real elephant in the room is the bloated inefficiency of the likes of the HSE, not some small, relatively cost-effective dept that is continually cut.

Who's to say the army is not more inefficient? "cost-effective" what does that mean, effective at doing what exactly?

If you asked the public did they want a hospital or army barrack in their town guess what they would choose.

PeterIanStaker

donegal11 wrote: »

Who's to say the army is not more inefficient? "cost-effective" what does that mean, effective at doing what exactly?

If you asked the public did they want a hospital or army barrack in their town guess what they would choose.

Read the last paragraph of my post.

PeterIanStaker

OS119 wrote: »

i think you've equated 'cost effective' and 'cheap'.

cheap certainly, but effective?

the Irish Defence Forces cannot defend Ireland against any country that has the capability to use any aircraft designed after the Spitfire to attack Irish political, military or economic infrastructure.

the Irish Defence Forces do not have the capability to defend Ireland against any Land or Sea based incursion onto Irish territory.

the Irish Defence Forces do not have the capabilty to protect Ireland against maritime warfare - it has no ability to break/disrupt a foreign naval blockade, or to protect Irish military or commercial shipping against submarines or mines.

what is so cost-effective about a defence force that can't defend against any military threat?

Yes I should have written cheap, I know. But I'll also direct you towards the last paragraph of my post. The mission statement as it were. The reason why we're all here: financial cannon fodder.

arybvtcw0eolkf

OS119 wrote: »

the Irish Defence Forces cannot defend Ireland against any country that has the capability to use any aircraft designed after the Spitfire to attack Irish political, military or economic infrastructure.

I wonder how our PC9 would stand one on one against a Spitfire?.

Not winding you up, serious question (btw, I love your posts in the military forum).

donegal11

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

Read the last paragraph of my post.

A rant against bankers? and If you want the lifestyle and think it was that easy to become a TD or Senator why don't you run in the next election? I hate when people use the excuse of "look at how much TD's get paid". We have an 18billion deficit even if TD's where paid nothing and bondholder were never paid there would still have to be cuts.

HivemindXX

realies wrote: »

I have never said i was quoting them and there far from idiots with two of them having given there lifetime to serving in the defence forces,less of your condescending attitude there also your not very good at explaining why we need an 8000 army or whatever the figure is,when the majority of them do fcuk all everyday.

Pretty inconsistent aren't you? On the one had they have "given their lifetime to serving in the defence forces" but on the other they "do fcuk all every day".

Which is it? Or by some lucky happenstance are your people the only ones doing a good job while everyone they work with is a lazy fecker who does nothing and knows nothing?

Batsy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Other than the fact that, should Ireland ever need defending from a foreign power, it might prevent the British Army having to defend it.

Batsy

Judgement Day wrote: »

Ireland is a neutral country with no military commitments apart from UN peace keeping.

So? You never know when Ireland may need to defend itself against an aggressive foreign power.

Chuck Stone

Batsy wrote: »

So? You never know when Ireland may need to defend itself against an aggressive foreign power.

True. I've heard there are some particularly vicious hares living on uninhabited islands off the coast of Donegal.

I've softened my stance on total disbandment I have to say.

We need something for our beleaguered Govt. to be able to fall back on if other less malleable sectors of the state decide to hold us to ransom.

So, I stand down on disbandment, and say keep a leaner Army.

OS119

Isabella Incalculable Bridle wrote: »

I wonder how our PC9 would stand one on one against a Spitfire?.

Not winding you up, serious question (btw, I love your posts in the military forum).

why, thank you.

depends on the Spitfire - early model and the PC-9M would have it, later model with 20mm guns and an uprated Merlin or Griffon engine and the Spitfire could fly higher, faster and with heavier armament.

and that is somewhere between shocking and a fcuking disgrace....

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

OS119

Veles wrote: »

But you are not comparing like and like,the PC9 is a basic trainer aircraft in many other countries.the spitfire was a combat aircraft.

the PC-9M is a very advanced trainer aircraft - you learn to fly it just before you learn to fly Hawks, or Alpha Jets, or T-38's. none of which Ireland has. the aircraft also has, and this is the salient point and one always dragged out by ministers, a limited air-to-ground and air-to-air conbat capability.

can you tell me why you think people should learn to fly a fast (ish), manouverable, single seat-derived 'hot rod' before they move on to slow, unmanouverable multi-crewed, multi-engined operational aircraft?

anymore

Veles wrote: »

But you are not comparing like and like,the PC9 is a basic trainer aircraft in many other countries.the spitfire was a combat aircraft.

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.

Sunnyisland

Hivemind wrote: »

Pretty inconsistent aren't you? On the one had they have "given their lifetime to serving in the defence forces" but on the other they "do fcuk all every day".

Which is it? Or by some lucky happenstance are your people the only ones doing a good job while everyone they work with is a lazy fecker who does nothing and knows nothing?

That was said in the context of them being called idiots by another poster here, and yes they do fcuk all in the Army everyday now.They go in for 08.30 & finish at 16.30 or earlier,They might do a cash escort or prisoner escort once a week ? as there based in the curragh and once every three weeks they do 24 hour guard, They are now just biding there time for there pensions which they will have pretty soon.

Whats your opinion on the op question ?

Duke Leonal Felmet

NinjaK wrote: »

Dumb question. Its the same as asking does the UK need an army?
Now more than ever we need an army.

Dumb answer. You offer no explanation. Just meaningless statements.

PeterIanStaker

donegal11 wrote: »

A rant against bankers? and If you want the lifestyle and think it was that easy to become a TD or Senator why don't you run in the next election? I hate when people use the excuse of "look at how much TD's get paid". We have an 18billion deficit even if TD's where paid nothing and bondholder were never paid there would still have to be cuts.

Oh I'm so sorry. I really am. I've made a huge mistake. I'll never insult my political masters again by even insinuating they take a pay cut.

I'll just go along with all the other people here who would like to put another 10,500 people on the dole, in addition to the near quarter of a million that are on it already - sure a few thousand extra more won't make a difference.

A rant against bankers - haha don't make me laugh, you'd swear they didn't deserve it the way you're going on.

Fratton Fred

I thin OS has hit the nail on the head there.

The PC9s are ornamental/ceremonial and it would save a lot more money getting rid of them than it would laying off a few hundred squadies.

I think the defence force needs to be examined and reviewed, but disbanding it completely is madness.

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.

You also have the somewhat laughable defence policy of a supposedly neutral country having its neighbours chief of staff on speed dial in case of emergency.

Batsy

Chuck Stone wrote: »

True. I've heard there are some particularly vicious hares living on uninhabited islands off the coast of Donegal

It's very dangerous to assume that no country will possess a threat to your country in the near future.

The British fell into that trap in the 1930s and then WWII came along.

The Ten Year Rule was a British government guideline, first adopted in August 1919, that the armed forces should draft their estimates "on the assumption that the British Empire would not be engaged in any great war during the next ten years".

However, this rule went on for longer than ten years.

In 1928 Winston Churchill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, successfully urged the Cabinet to make the rule self-perpetuating and hence it was in force unless specifically countermanded. In 1931 the Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald wanted to abolish the Ten Year Rule because he thought it unjustified based on the international situation. This was bitterly opposed by the Foreign Secretary Arthur Henderson who succeeded in keeping the rule.

There were cuts in defence spending as a result of this rule, with defence spending going down from £766 million in 1919–20, to £189 million in 1921–22, to £102 million in 1932. In April 1931 the First Sea Lord, Sir Frederick Field, claimed in a report to the Committee of Imperial Defence that no port in the entire British Commonwealth was "adequately defended". He made it clear that the Royal Navy had declined not only in relative strength compared to other Great Powers but "owing to the operation of the “ten-year-decision” and the clamant need for economy, our absolute strength also has...been so diminished as to render the fleet incapable, in the event of war, of efficiently affording protection to our trade". Field also claimed that the navy was below the standard required for keeping open Britain's sea communications during wartime and that if the navy moved to the East to protect the Empire there would not be enough ships left in Home Waters to ensure the security of its trade and territory should a dispute arise with a European power.

The Ten Year Rule was abandoned by the Cabinet in March 1932 but this decision was countered with: "...this must not be taken to justify an expanding expenditure by the Defence Services without regard to the very serious financial and economic situation" which the country was in.

Then, later in the 1930s with the rise of Hitler's Germany, a sudden expansion of our armed forces was needed in case war broke out.

After the Munich Crisis in 1938, a serious effort was undertaken to expand the Army, including the doubling in size of the Territorial Army, helped by the reintroduction of conscription in April 1939. By mid-1939 the Army consisted of 230,000 Regulars and 453,000 Territorials and Reservists. Most Territorial formations were understrength and badly equipped. Even this army was dwarfed, yet again, by its continental counterparts. Yet this panicky expansion of the military, which was lagging behind its continental counterparts, would not have been needed if the Ten Year Rule not been introduced.

And now it's happening again. A group of retired admirals have called the planned decade long gap between the retirement of the Ark Royal and the coming into service of the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers a new '10-year rule'.

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

Chuck Stone

Batsy wrote: »

It's very dangerous to assume that no country will possess a threat to your country in the near future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Year_Rule

We're a wee bit different here though. Unlike the UK (and France ftm) we don't really have foreign 'interests' so we have no real need to project power.

Point taken though.

trendyvicar

The only time The Republic would need an army would be if it tried to absorb Ulster's Unionists against their will. In which case it would need about 80 000 soldiers and policemen reducing to about 40 000 over a thirty year period - in addition to current requirements. It might be cheaper to pay them to leave or else offer them each a good sized house with a couple of Irish servants.

The only other threat I can see, is if The UK State decides it needs living space (not as unlikely as some might imagine given current UK trends). In which case, I assume it would be back to shooting settlers in the back, as previous - regular army not required.

Apart from these two horrible scenarios, no, Ireland does not need an army.