Does Ireland need an army?

alanmcqueen

Musiconomist wrote: »

As an example, my friend told me that they recently (within the last year) ordered a load (I think between 10 and 20, though I could be wrong) of new radiation resistant armoured vehicles. They drilled through the plating to install communications arrays, which means that the equipment is no longer radiation resistant. Unbelievable, if it wasnt in Ireland. Bearing in mind that each of these vehicles cost over 1 million (taxpayer) euros.

Your friend is incorrect. CBR (Chem, Bio, Radiological) protected vehicles utilise an over-pressure system directed through special filters to prevent any ingress of a potential hazard. In short, the crew compartments have a slightly higher air pressure than ambient pressure outside the vehicle thus preventing any hazardous CBR agents entering through the holes that he described i.e. pressurised air inside is always trying to exit the vehicle. In addition, the air within the vehicles is filtered every few seconds providing a second safeguard against internal contamination. CBR protected vehicles are 'sealed' against CBR hazards, not 'plated'. I can only presume he was referring to the armour plate. Hope this helps;)

Quote: Where are all these hippies coming from?

:DLOL

OS119

dodgydes wrote: »

...I wonder how other 'neutral' countries justify their armies?

if we're talking about 'proper' armies (and no, i don't like the phrasing, and i'm not trying to get a rise) like Switzerland or Finland, they maintain a strong, multifaceted defence system because they believe that however benevolent the strategic situation is this year, it could be very different in 10 years. Switzerland is wedged between Germany and France, and Finland shares a land border with Russia - neither situation is likely to convince you of the likelyhood of the end of war.

you might think that a country that had been born in a war of independance, had a civil war, endured two four year naval blockades with the threat of invasion through one of them, lived next to a 30 year civil war, and that had sat for 50 years on the edge of what promised to be the most destructive war in history with the almost certain use of its territory by both sets of beligerents - and all in 100 years - might be a little less sanguine about the dangers of the world....

shadowninty

OS119 wrote: »

you might think that a country that had been born in a war of independance, had a civil war, endured two four year naval blockades with the threat of invasion through one of them, lived next to a 30 year civil war, and that had sat for 50 years on the edge of what promised to be the most destructive war in history with the almost certain use of its territory by both sets of beligerents - and all in 100 years - might be a little less sanguine about the dangers of the world....

Indeed, you would think that, but Ireland has followed a policy of pretend non-allignment and neutrality, in some odd hope of not getting nuked/invaded. We dont even have a few third or fourth generation fighter jets, and our government snubbed oppurtunities to buy second hand naval ships.

Delancey

No question that it has been the policy of successive Governments regardless of their political background to keep the Defence Forces starved of resources and the country utterly unable to defend itself.

Quite why this has been and continues to be Government policy I have no idea - any theories anyone ?

Sunnyisland

Delancey wrote: »

No question that it has been the policy of successive Governments regardless of their political background to keep the Defence Forces starved of resources and the country utterly unable to defend itself.

Quite why this has been and continues to be Government policy I have no idea - any theories anyone ?

IMO Other than we cant afford one This is mainly due to our successive Governments failures to treat our Defence forces seriously and with the threat from subversives greatly declined they see there is no need for one but are afraid to come out and say it publicly,and of course with the UK & US on either side of us the chances of us been attacked are very slim indeed.

caseyann

realies wrote: »

IMO Other than we cant afford one This is mainly due to our successive Governments failures to treat our Defence forces seriously and with the threat from subversives greatly declined they see there is no need for one but are afraid to come out and say it publicly,and of course with the UK & US on either side of us the chances of us been attacked are very slim indeed.

Chances of us being attacked because of both of those reasons is quite strong actually. lol

Judgement Day

caseyann wrote: »

Chances of us being attacked because of both of those reasons is quite strong actually. lol

What are you on about?

Sunnyisland

caseyann wrote: »

Chances of us being attacked because of both of those reasons is quite strong actually. lol

Casyann if any of these Countries decided to attack us in an all out war it wouldn't matter what sort of standing Army we had, it be back to guerrilla warfare for us.

psychward

realies wrote: »

Casyann if any of these Countries decided to attack us in an all out war it wouldn't matter what sort of standing Army we had, it be back to guerrilla warfare for us.

Yep so why waste money on boys toys. Any billions we spent would end up quickly vaporized exactly like little Georgia's billion dollar defense budget went up in smoke when faced with the Russians. Guerrilla warfare for defense plus some nukes giving us the possibility of an attacking capability and attack threat would be our best and only defense.

Gareth2011

realies wrote: »

Casyann if any of these Countries decided to attack us in an all out war it wouldn't matter what sort of standing Army we had, it be back to guerrilla warfare for us.

All the people in Ireland that like knifes and guns will be able to use them without repercussions I only have a pellet gun so I wouldnt be much use :P

Poccington

psychward wrote: »

Yep so why waste money on boys toys. Any billions we spent would end up quickly vaporized exactly like little Georgia's billion dollar defense budget went up in smoke when faced with the Russians. Guerrilla warfare for defense plus some nukes giving us the possibility of an attacking capability and attack threat would be our best and only defense.

You can't claim we waste money on "boys toys" and then say we need nukes within a few sentences. If Mowag's and RG32's are boys toys, nukes are an off the wall idea altogether.


I don't like the "Ah sure the Yanks and Brits will protect us" concept that so many people seem to embrace. The world is changing, we're nowhere near as liked or close to those countries as people seem to think. It's not as if, if we got invaded, the rest of the world is going to suddenly say "Ireland is being attacked, we've got to give them a dig out!".

Countries act in their own best interests, they'll show unity when it suits them. With them finishing up in Iraq, knee deep in A'Stan and one eye on the ever changing situation in the Middle East, the idea that Ireland is high up on the Yanks and Brits list of things to keep safe is laughable.

Poccington

Musiconomist wrote: »

As it turns out, I was mistaken about NATO paying Irish troops. Apologies to all for the misinformation.

Just out of curiosity, why would you think what I said about the vehicles being tampered with be a lie? The NATO thing was my mistake, but I dont have any cause to make up such a story.

I'm in a Unit which is making quite a bit of use out of those new vehicles. That story is a lie.

As for the laziness etc. I wish someone would get me into one of those Units that seem to be full of lazy people. I'm upto my tits in work these days.

Judgement Day

Poccington - a lot of what you say makes sense but there are enormous connections between the USA and Britain with Ireland and the very idea that they would leave the country at the mercy of some 'unlikely' foreign aggressor is laughable. Anyway the whole idea of Ireland being able to defend itself from a serious aggressor is also laughable. If Ireland is worried about its defence it would be best to invite the US to establish a base here with a few nukes. Back on topic, in my opinion the current army is surplus to the country's requirements and the manpower would be utilised to rejuvenate the Gardai.

meat bomb

What if people don't want to 'rejuvenate the guards'? How does the mentality and skillset of a soldier automatically lend itself to policing?

Judgement Day

meat bomb wrote: »

What if people don't want to 'rejuvenate the guards'? How does the mentality and skillset of a soldier automatically lend itself to policing?

Join the dole queue I suppose.

psychward

Poccington wrote: »

You can't claim we waste money on "boys toys" and then say we need nukes within a few sentences. If Mowag's and RG32's are boys toys, nukes are an off the wall idea altogether.

Yes I can say exactly that and I explained why already while highlighting the example of Georgia vs Russia and how futile their huge defense budget and foreign military aid was. All those other weapons wouldn't make any difference to defending Ireland.
However what could actually make a difference would be a few Nukes designed to be used. If Ireland was going to be raped, destroyed and enslaved for a few hundred years by some imperial power I would be quite happy to use them. War is supposed to be ''not nice'' by definition. If you're one of the peace at any price pacifist hippy crowd than I can see why you would be against nukes.

Judgement Day

psychward wrote: »

Yes I can say exactly that and I explained why already while highlighting the example of Georgia vs Russia and how futile their huge defense budget and foreign military aid was. All those other weapons wouldn't make any difference to defending Ireland.
However what could actually make a difference would be a few Nukes designed to be used. If Ireland was going to be raped, destroyed and enslaved for a few hundred years by some imperial power I would be quite happy to use them. War is supposed to be ''not nice'' by definition. If you're one of the peace at any price pacifist hippy crowd than I can see why you would be against nukes.

Assuming that this http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPT.shtml did not exist, and that you could buy your nukes in Harvey Norman, using them against any aggressor likely to attack Ireland would simply ensure the eradication of all life on the this island. Anyway, why can we not stick to the topic rather than these red herrings?

psychward

Judgement Day wrote: »

Assuming that this http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPT.shtml did not exist, and that you could buy your nukes in Harvey Norman, using them against any aggressor likely to attack Ireland would simply ensure the eradication of all life on the this island. Anyway, why can we not stick to the topic rather than these red herrings?

If someone is going to kill and destroy us , I want to take them with us. Plus you explode the things where it hurts them most ... on their territory, not on ours. Sure they will use theirs on us but that's why people are supposed to use them intelligently. There has to be a scenario upon when they should be used. If this is deterrent enough to prevent invasion then good. If it is not then that is the fault of the invader.
The question was do we need an army. You are introducing what you refer to as the red herring if you have a problem with the best possible way of punishing the enemy as this means that you must be against defending yourself because since similar to Georgias' predicament there is no other defense. It's not a red herring and it's not irrelevant for a sovereign people to openly discuss all possible options.

dodgydes

Judgement Day wrote: »

... in my opinion the current army is surplus to the country's requirements and the manpower would be utilised to rejuvenate the Gardai.

You are correct in what you say here.

The problem is that if you were to get rid of the army in its current form, you have no capability against any future threat which, in reality is more likely to be internal.
It takes time to build up an army, you can't just create one overnight when they are needed .
It is unfortunate that the current financial mess makes people consider that getting rid of an insurance policy is a good idea

shadowninty

psychward wrote: »

If someone is going to kill and destroy us , I want to take them with us. Plus you explode the things where it hurts them most ... on their territory, not on ours. Sure they will use theirs on us but that's why people are supposed to use them intelligently. There has to be a scenario upon when they should be used. If this is deterrent enough to prevent invasion then good. If it is not then that is the fault of the invader.
The question was do we need an army. You are introducing what you refer to as the red herring if you have a problem with the best possible way of punishing the enemy as this means that you must be against defending yourself because since similar to Georgias' predicament there is no other defense. It's not a red herring and it's not irrelevant for a sovereign people to openly discuss all possible options.

I dont see who could nuke us tbh, the UK and France would be sending their nukes their way if it came to it. How ludicrous. "Take them with us" :pac:

Judgement Day

dodgydes wrote: »

You are correct in what you say here.

The problem is that if you were to get rid of the army in its current form, you have no capability against any future threat which, in reality is more likely to be internal.
It takes time to build up an army, you can't just create one overnight when they are needed .
It is unfortunate that the current financial mess makes people consider that getting rid of an insurance policy is a good idea

Agreed, the threat is far more likely to be internal than external and who is more likely to have the intelligence on that threat than the Gardai? I never suggested that we do an Iraq type operation and dismiss the army, rather that they be subsumed into a new Garda force.

Sunnyisland

dodgydes wrote: »

You are correct in what you say here.

The problem is that if you were to get rid of the army in its current form, you have no capability against any future threat which, in reality is more likely to be internal.
It takes time to build up an army, you can't just create one overnight when they are needed .
It is unfortunate that the current financial mess makes people consider that getting rid of an insurance policy is a good idea

It would be much more efficient in having a police/army force than the current separate organisations.At the height of the troubles there were (afaik)15000 soldiers, since then every successive government have brought the numbers down so its nothing to do with the current crisis as it has been happening for a long time,With modern technology there is more of an effort going into a quality defence force than quantity.

blahfckingblah

I havn't read much of this thread but yes i think we do need an army for cases like riots like those we saw in london this year and which lets face it are very likely with the mixture of austerity and the potential collapse of the euro etc.
Border protection against the likes of smuggling drugs, guns, oil and potential threats like bombings etc. (lets face it there is still potential for trouble)
They also come in handy in times of disaster and can provide a good service with an abundance of resources.
as far as i know they also protect the fisheries?

DublinWriter

Of course we need an Army, who else will collect the bins when the corpo goes out on strike?

Sunnyisland

blahfckingblah wrote: »

I havn't read much of this thread but yes i think we do need an army for cases like riots like those we saw in london this year and which lets face it are very likely with the mixture of austerity and the potential collapse of the euro etc.
Border protection against the likes of smuggling drugs, guns, oil and potential threats like bombings etc. (lets face it there is still potential for trouble)
They also come in handy in times of disaster and can provide a good service with an abundance of resources.
as far as i know they also protect the fisheries?

This is what I posted earlier....We could save a large amount of money if we would abolish the Army and the Department of Defence with it - and be as peaceful and neutral as we always pretend to be.The Navel service and the Aer corps could be amalgamated into a new and strengthened Coast guard, which could also have some land-based units. It should be governed by a restored dept of the marine, which should also get responsibility for Fishing and Natural Resources. And finally we could have an even better Police force maybe even a paramilitary force. So in my opinion we dont need an Army as in the one we have now,

shadowninty

realies wrote: »

With modern technology there is more of an effort going into a quality defence force than quantity.

But, is the problem that we have neither quality in equipment, nor quantity in equipment? :pac:

psychward

shadowninty wrote: »

I dont see who could nuke us tbh, the UK and France would be sending their nukes their way if it came to it. How ludicrous. "Take them with us" :pac:

me neither.; however if we're going to cut back our army we should at least have some kind of deterrent and be respected as having the balls to use it. Nobody knows what the world will be like in 100 or 200 years from now with resources running out and populations increasing. Empires rise and fall. The EU could last 500 years or as long as the Roman empire and then enter world war 3 or world war 5 between an Islamic USSR due to demographics or using demographics in another way... a new version of the USSR dominated by a huge Chinese immigrant population displacing or probably merging with ethnic Russians who are not reproducing enough after 2 world wars in between. Crazy stuff and the world is just at an early stage. We have a few billion years before the sun will start to run out of energy to either create a perfect world or blow it all up :pac: Such time makes the next 500 years look like nothing...

trendyvicar

Judgement Day wrote: »

Poccington - a lot of what you say makes sense but there are enormous connections between the USA and Britain with Ireland and the very idea that they would leave the country at the mercy of some 'unlikely' foreign aggressor is laughable. Anyway the whole idea of Ireland being able to defend itself from a serious aggressor is also laughable. If Ireland is worried about its defence it would be best to invite the US to establish a base here with a few nukes. Back on topic, in my opinion the current army is surplus to the country's requirements and the manpower would be utilised to rejuvenate the Gardai.

I think you're fooling yourself there. The UK State has had nothing but bad experiences with The Irish during 'the troubles' and there's little warmth for The Irish amongst The UK people generally apart from a large amount of condescension - the 'flurry knox' syndrome. There's no chance of The UK bailing out The Irish unless it was in the direct interest of The UK State to do so. Most UK people would probably laugh as Ireland sank.

As for The Yanks, they'd only get involved if there was something in it for them. If you thought a British occupation was bad, wait till you experience The Americans.

No, I'm afraid The Irish Republic is on it's own, which is exactly what it claimed it wanted.

The good news is that there is little in Ireland that anyone would actually want, so no need for a tiny army that never sees combat.

dodgydes

psychward wrote: »

me neither.; however if we're going to cut back our army we should at least have some kind of deterrent and be respected as having the balls to use it. Nobody knows what the world will be like in 100 or 200 years from now with resources running out and populations increasing. Empires rise and fall. The EU could last 500 years or as long as the Roman empire and then enter world war 3 or world war 5 between an Islamic USSR due to demographics or using demographics in another way... a new version of the USSR dominated by a huge Chinese immigrant population displacing or probably merging with ethnic Russians who are not reproducing enough after 2 world wars in between. Crazy stuff and the world is just at an early stage. We have a few billion years before the sun will start to run out of energy to either create a perfect world or blow it all up :pac: Such time makes the next 500 years look like nothing...

Appropriate username you have there:)

psychward

dodgydes wrote: »

Appropriate username you have there:)

Thankyou kindly sir