Does Ireland Need a Military?

TheLoneGunmen

Since the end of the Troubles, the existence of the Irish military seems like an expensive anachronism - especially since the economy basically imploded in 2008. Wouldn't a French style Gendarmerie be more economically viable as well as efficient? What do we need a standing army for? To protect us against Ze Germans? Or the Russkies? We live in probably the safest part of the world - the UK on one side, and the US on the other.

Turbine

Yes.

Next question.

tricky D

It's a popular question today for some reason: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056452277

Liber8or

No, we don't need one. Are we looking to bring a greater voice to some sort of international negotiating table? Are we trying to create some sort of prestige by building up a pointless force? Are we willing to join NATO and therefore abandon our neutrality?

Ireland's military strategy has been to rely on the United Kingdom, and the greater international community. I don't see any immediate reason why this should change.

yermanoffthetv

If we didnt 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 Lisa?

syklops

Well the EOD(bomb) squad have been called out around 40(?) times this year alone to dispose of viable devices, plus, a number of chemicals which became unstable in schools and colleges, so I am guessing we need them.

We need search and rescue.

Floods, forest fires, snow, etc we used various Infantry units. So we need them too.

So, er, yeah, is the short answer.

That said, I would like a re-structuring.

Poccington

Liber8or wrote: »

Are we willing to join NATO and therefore abandon our neutrality?

We abandoned our neutrality quite some time ago lad.

One example, ISAF.

flutered

for what

Liber8or

Poccington wrote: »

We abandoned our neutrality quite some time ago lad.

One example, ISAF.

Hmm, interesting this hasn't received much attention in the Irish media. Given the very anti-war status (especially with Iraq and Afghanistan) in this country, I am surprised the media hasn't made a storm out of this.

Then again, it says current troop contribution as 7. What is their role and what are they doing?

To return to the question though; we do not need an army, as we have no immediate threats to our interests, and don't actively seek an international role apart from Peacekeeping missions which involve observation, reports and presence.

Poccington

Liber8or wrote: »

Hmm, interesting this hasn't received much attention in the Irish media. Given the very anti-war status (especially with Iraq and Afghanistan) in this country, I am surprised the media hasn't made a storm out of this.

Then again, it says current troop contribution as 7. What is their role and what are they doing?

To return to the question though; we do not need an army, as we have no immediate threats to our interests, and don't actively seek an international role apart from Peacekeeping missions which involve observation, reports and presence.

They're working in the Counter-IED Cell, in it's Ops Section and it's Analysis Section, Strategic Comms, ISAF Planning Cell, Theatre-Force Protection and ISAF Joint Ops Centre.

Lads who were in Kosovo during the riots, in Timor, in the Leb, in Somalia or in the Congo would disagree that those missions involved nothing more than observation and reports. Each of those missions I named above all had trouble kick off during them. Some of them resulting in the deaths of Irish troops.

xflyer

syklops wrote: »

Well the EOD(bomb) squad have been called out around 40(?) times this year alone to dispose of viable devices, plus, a number of chemicals which became unstable in schools and colleges, so I am guessing we need them.

That's a need but it could be done by another specialised paramilitary unit.

We need search and rescue.

That's long since civilianised.

Floods, forest fires, snow, etc we used various Infantry units. So we need them too.

Civil Defence, Fire Brigade etc. The army falls into the nice to have category.

So, er, yeah, is the short answer.

That said, I would like a re-structuring.

Agreed but will it happen?

Milk & Honey

Liber8or wrote: »

we have no immediate threats to our interests,

When we have an immediate threat to our interests what would we do? Armies cannot be made overnight. Building up a level of training and experience takes years.
Ireland has gained much internationally by taking part in peacekeeping missions. Closing down our military would cost us much in terms of goodwill.
besides the external threats there are always the internal ones. Nature abhors a vacuum. Paramilitary groups would emerge and equip themselves to carry out coups d'etat.

Liber8or

Poccington wrote: »

They're working in the Counter-IED Cell, in it's Ops Section and it's Analysis Section, Strategic Comms, ISAF Planning Cell, Theatre-Force Protection and ISAF Joint Ops Centre.

Lads who were in Kosovo during the riots, in Timor, in the Leb, in Somalia or in the Congo would disagree that those missions involved nothing more than observation and reports. Each of those missions I named above all had trouble kick off during them. Some of them resulting in the deaths of Irish troops.

With regards to the peace keeping missions, they were given specific mandates to observe. Irish troops died because of political entanglements as to what exactly they could do. Nevertheless, neutrality implies abstaining from conflict, Ireland and her current army has not actively engaged in offensive warfare. Nor have we defended ourselves from an outside aggressor. In terms of ISAF, we would need specific details as to what exactly that force is doing. If they are simply monitoring and reporting activity which may undermine civilian security, then there is very little difference between that and the Lebanon.

It comes down to context, mandate and activity. Once we understand these three things, then we can attempt to work out if neutrality is being breached.

However, I say this in the strictest sense of what neutrality is. Ireland's version is somewhat skewed dating back as far as the Second World War. I know this, but for the purposes of this thread, what benefit would Ireland gain from leaving neutrality in an official capacity?

Liber8or

Milk & Honey wrote: »

When we have an immediate threat to our interests what would we do? Armies cannot be made overnight. Building up a level of training and experience takes years.
Ireland has gained much internationally by taking part in peacekeeping missions. Closing down our military would cost us much in terms of goodwill.
besides the external threats there are always the internal ones. Nature abhors a vacuum. Paramilitary groups would emerge and equip themselves to carry out coups d'etat.

Point being, we don't have external interests. Our interests are contained on this island which is under no threat from any state - at least not openly anyway. Also, I am not saying we should close down our military. I fully support our peace keeping forces (despite my grievances with understanding how effective intervention can possibly be today), it is a force which promotes stability and a presence designed to compel belligerents back to the negotiating table.

Internal threats to Ireland (I have only been out of the country for a couple of months - the place must have changed a lot..) ofcourse can be possible, but as I said, I support the Irish Army as it stands right now and it would be more than capable to meet any such challenge, should one occur.

Milk & Honey

Liber8or wrote: »

Point being, we don't have external interests.

Internal threats to Ireland (I have only been out of the country for a couple of months - the place must have changed a lot..) ofcourse can be possible, but as I said, I support the Irish Army as it stands right now and it would be more than capable to meet any such challenge, should one occur.

We certainly do have external interests. We are members of the EU and UN as well as the Council of Europe and other international bodies. We are a nation which has an extremely open economywhich means we do a lot of importing and exporting. International relations are very important.
By the time a threat manifests itself it would be too late to create a military.
Do you cancel the flood risk on your house insurance during the summer because there is no sign of bad weather? The windy day is not the day for thatching.

Liber8or

Milk & Honey wrote: »

We certainly do have external interests. We are members of the EU and UN as well as the Council of Europe and other international bodies. We are a nation which has an extremely open economywhich means we do a lot of importing and exporting. International relations are very important.
By the time a threat manifests itself it would be too late to create a military.
Do you cancel the flood risk on your house insurance during the summer because there is no sign of bad weather? The windy day is not the day for thatching.

We are obviously not that concerned with the E.U since we rejected the Lisbon Treaty for undermining our neutrality clause (amongst other things). As for the U.N, our contribution lies with Peace Keeping forces - we have no interest in joining some sort of coalition to actively remove some threat to the international system.
Our economy can not sustain an active military. We are struggling to pay for schools and adequate hospital facilities, how exactly would a military force be paid for? And further, how could a military force yield us some sort of financial benefit?

Besides the strategic nightmare it would be to even defend this country, talk of creating an active force is even more frightening.

Ireland having some sort of capable force is a romantic dream, it is a nice idea in the traditional sense of things, but financially and politically speaking it would be a completely ridiculous idea.

Milk & Honey

Liber8or wrote: »

We are obviously not that concerned with the E.U since we rejected the Lisbon Treaty for undermining our neutrality clause (amongst other things). As for the U.N, our contribution lies with Peace Keeping forces - we have no interest in joining some sort of coalition to actively remove some threat to the international system.
Our economy can not sustain an active military. We are struggling to pay for schools and adequate hospital facilities, how exactly would a military force be paid for? And further, how could a military force yield us some sort of financial benefit?

Besides the strategic nightmare it would be to even defend this country, talk of creating an active force is even more frightening.

Ireland having some sort of capable force is a romantic dream, it is a nice idea in the traditional sense of things, but financially and politically speaking it would be a completely ridiculous idea.

How is a peacekeeping force to be maintained in the field if there is no military? Having peacekeepers gives access to influential powers. That helps trade. having peacekeeping forces has been of enormous benefit. Since accession to the UN Irish governments have appreciated the importance of peacekeeping.
We are still members of the EU and just because a referendum was at one time rejected does not mean that we do not want the economic benefits membership brings.
There are still illegal armies on the island of Ireland. If they thought they could get away with it they would take over the state. what then of the schools and hospitals?

Liber8or

Milk & Honey wrote: »

How is a peacekeeping force to be maintained in the field if there is no military? Having peacekeepers gives access to influential powers. That helps trade. having peacekeeping forces has been of enormous benefit. Since accession to the UN Irish governments have appreciated the importance of peacekeeping.
We are still members of the EU and just because a referendum was at one time rejected does not mean that we do not want the economic benefits membership brings.
There are still illegal armies on the island of Ireland. If they thought they could get away with it they would take over the state. what then of the schools and hospitals?

Our limited military coordinates peace keeping efforts, in conjunction with the U.N and other contributing peace keeping forces. Peace keeping forces have not "enormously" benefited our trade capabilities. I would like to see such evidence to backup this claim.
I will agree that Irish governments appreciate our peace keeping forces, it is a limited but noticed contribution to the international community.

Also, you are coming across under the interpretation that I am against the peace keeping forces and the Irish Army. I have said no such thing. I am very happy with the current state of the army, its ability and its presence. However, I am against us dropping neutrality and building up a formidable force that could invade a small country, which is what seems to be debated in this thread.

We have an army. It is doing a fine job. It does NOT need to be expanded or increased in size - never mind the international restrictions over what a neutral state can retain, Ireland would struggle to finance and find political backing for having such a large army... And even if we did, we are a strategic nightmare to defend!

If you want some sort of grand army, perhaps you should start a thread suggesting Ireland builds a large navy task force! Strategically, that would make more sense before an expanding army...

Milk & Honey

Liber8or wrote: »

Our limited However, I am against us dropping neutrality and building up a formidable force that could invade a small country, which is what seems to be debated in this thread.


If you want some sort of grand army, perhaps you should start a thread suggesting Ireland builds a large navy task force! Strategically, that would make more sense before an expanding army...

This thread started off as do we need an army at all, not what size of an army we should have. It is impossible to put a price on influence and good relations. It is simply not possible to say what deal or access resulted. On a global level it is certainly the case that trade develops from contacts.

Maybe_Memories

It's not necessarily that we NEED a military, but as George Orwell said;
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

Raging_Ninja

Liber8or wrote: »

Our limited military coordinates peace keeping efforts, in conjunction with the U.N and other contributing peace keeping forces. Peace keeping forces have not "enormously" benefited our trade capabilities. I would like to see such evidence to backup this claim.
I will agree that Irish governments appreciate our peace keeping forces, it is a limited but noticed contribution to the international community.

Also, you are coming across under the interpretation that I am against the peace keeping forces and the Irish Army. I have said no such thing. I am very happy with the current state of the army, its ability and its presence. However, I am against us dropping neutrality and building up a formidable force that could invade a small country, which is what seems to be debated in this thread.

We have an army. It is doing a fine job. It does NOT need to be expanded or increased in size - never mind the international restrictions over what a neutral state can retain, Ireland would struggle to finance and find political backing for having such a large army... And even if we did, we are a strategic nightmare to defend!

If you want some sort of grand army, perhaps you should start a thread suggesting Ireland builds a large navy task force! Strategically, that would make more sense before an expanding army...

Please make up your mind. Your first post says we don't need an army, and now you're saying we should have one but not to expand it.

Manic Moran

Liber8or wrote: »

We have an army. It is doing a fine job. It does NOT need to be expanded or increased in size - never mind the international restrictions over what a neutral state can retain

I'm curious, what 'international restrictions' exist over what a neutral state can retain, in your mind?

I mean, if Switzerland can have 225 main battle tanks or Sweden some 200 fast jets and almost many submarines as Ireland has in its entire Navy, there doesn't seem to be a practical limitation before you hit the budget.

Indeed, there is an international restriction over the -minimum- a neutral state is required to have in order to have its neutrality observed. Hence the Irish crash purchase of MTBs during 'The Emergency'

NTM

Liber8or

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

Please make up your mind. Your first post says we don't need an army, and now you're saying we should have one but not to expand it.

I was under the assumption that the OP was referring to a more effective military, a bigger one, with a greater spectrum. Afterall, we already have a military force, so I thought he was intimating development of this force. Hence why I said "Are we looking to bring a GREATER voice"... Sorry, if that wasn't clear.

Zambia

This thread makes me sad.

If Ireland can no longer afford a Military at all then its come to the stage when it can no longer afford to be a state.

If you need to discuss this then you need to discuss re-joining the UK. This is due to the clear implication we cannot look after ourselves in fact we cant even be arsed trying.

Milk & Honey

Liber8or wrote: »

I was under the assumption that the OP was referring to a more effective military, a bigger one, with a greater spectrum. Afterall, we already have a military force, so I thought he was intimating development of this force. Hence why I said "Are we looking to bring a GREATER voice"... Sorry, if that wasn't clear.

Th o/p said nothing of the kind. It was perfectly clear.

Liber8or

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Th o/p said nothing of the kind. It was perfectly clear.

My mistake then, but most of my answers have been in response to the thread diverting into whether or not we are neutral...

Milk & Honey

Liber8or wrote: »

My mistake then, but most of my answers have been in response to the thread diverting into whether or not we are neutral...

If the thread diverted it was you who diverted it or attempted to divert it.

Liber8or

Milk & Honey wrote: »

If the thread diverted it was you who diverted it or attempted to divert it.

Actually no, it was not me. It was Poccington with the following:

We abandoned our neutrality quite some time ago lad.

One example, ISAF.

Not that I have anything against what Poccington said (a good topic to discuss), but it seems you are playing the game of semantics. You will nitpick any detail of what I say just so you can be unreservedly right. Therefore, time for me to leave this thread as I see its limited potential for debate.

twinytwo

Liber8or wrote: »

Our limited military coordinates peace keeping efforts, in conjunction with the U.N and other contributing peace keeping forces. Peace keeping forces have not "enormously" benefited our trade capabilities. I would like to see such evidence to backup this claim.
I will agree that Irish governments appreciate our peace keeping forces, it is a limited but noticed contribution to the international community.

Also, you are coming across under the interpretation that I am against the peace keeping forces and the Irish Army. I have said no such thing. I am very happy with the current state of the army, its ability and its presence. However, I am against us dropping neutrality and building up a formidable force that could invade a small country, which is what seems to be debated in this thread.

We have an army. It is doing a fine job. It does NOT need to be expanded or increased in size - never mind the international restrictions over what a neutral state can retain, Ireland would struggle to finance and find political backing for having such a large army... And even if we did, we are a strategic nightmare to defend!

If you want some sort of grand army, perhaps you should start a thread suggesting Ireland builds a large navy task force! Strategically, that would make more sense before an expanding army...

you should know that neither neutrality or democracy actually exist.

Milk & Honey

Liber8or wrote: »

Actually no, it was not me. It was Poccington with the following:



Not that I have anything against what Poccington said (a good topic to discuss), but it seems you are playing the game of semantics. You will nitpick any detail of what I say just so you can be unreservedly right. Therefore, time for me to leave this thread as I see its limited potential for debate.

Nothing related to your later contributions. At least you have recognised your limited ability to debate.

eire-kp

Yes Ireland needs a military.
What are real issues that it could make a difference to?

More money for a proper fleet of cutters etc for the navy/customs because lets face it smuggling/drugs is the only thing that is and will be invading this island for the foreseeable future.

hippyrod

198 EOD Callouts in 2010; dealing with 48 potentially lethal viable IEDs in addition to conventional munitions, explosives, RPGs and dangerous chemicalsOver 2,100 CIT operations in 2010, in addition to 174 high security prisoner escorts. Over 2,000 troops deployed on security during the 2011 VIP visits. The Army secures the State’s Vital Installations 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. These include the State’s High Security Prison in Portlaoise, the Central Bank, Government Buildings and Aras an UachtarainThe Naval Service was centrally involved in the interdiction of approximately €1.6bn worth of drugs at sea in the last 4 years.the Defence Forces have unbroken service in the cause of peace on over 70 UN or UN approved missions since 1958. Since that time, over 63,000 individual tours of duty have been completed to some of the most hostile regions of the world, protecting some of the most vulnerable people on the planet l;osing 85 members in the process.69 Air Ambulance Missions in 2010, often involving the transportation of critically ill patients between medical facilities in Ireland and the UK for vital life-saving treatment. Air Corps pilots are the only helicopter pilots in the state with the capability of flying with Night Vision Goggles (NVGs).Or during the snow of 2010/2011, almost 3,500 personnel and 1,100 vehicles were deployed on Aid to the Civil Authority Operations. Many of these operations involved the transportation of health care workers and patients, This was as of the 7th september 2011

Manic Moran

hippyrod wrote: »

198 EOD Callouts in 2010; dealing with 48 potentially lethal viable IEDs in addition to conventional munitions, explosives, RPGs and dangerous chemicalsOver 2,100 CIT operations in 2010, in addition to 174 high security prisoner escorts. Over 2,000 troops deployed on security during the 2011 VIP visits. The Army secures the State’s Vital Installations 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. These include the State’s High Security Prison in Portlaoise, the Central Bank, Government Buildings and Aras an UachtarainThe Naval Service was centrally involved in the interdiction of approximately €1.6bn worth of drugs at sea in the last 4 years.the Defence Forces have unbroken service in the cause of peace on over 70 UN or UN approved missions since 1958. Since that time, over 63,000 individual tours of duty have been completed to some of the most hostile regions of the world, protecting some of the most vulnerable people on the planet l;osing 85 members in the process.69 Air Ambulance Missions in 2010, often involving the transportation of critically ill patients between medical facilities in Ireland and the UK for vital life-saving treatment. Air Corps pilots are the only helicopter pilots in the state with the capability of flying with Night Vision Goggles (NVGs).Or during the snow of 2010/2011, almost 3,500 personnel and 1,100 vehicles were deployed on Aid to the Civil Authority Operations. Many of these operations involved the transportation of health care workers and patients, This was as of the 7th september 2011

In fairness none bar one of those are military functions in many countries.

Here in the US, the police have bomb squads, cash is escorted by Treasury Dept, the Dept of Corrections does prison guard duty, the Marshall Service prisoner transport, Fort Knox by Mint Police, drug interception by the Coast Guard, air ambulance by private contractors who have learned to use NVG, and the State Transportation Agencies clear the snow. Flood control is the purview of the Corps of Engineers, but that is mainly staffed by civilians. About the only exception is the use of military forces in cases of extreme necessity, such as the LA riots or Katrina.

The military has, and should only have, one purpose: The execution, or threat of execution, of maximum violence on the behalf of the State. To attain by force or threat of force that which cannot be obtained by more civilized means. This is why soldiers and not Peace Corps get sent to places like Chad, Congo or Lebanon. Anything else is simply a matter of finding something for the soldiers to do while waiting for the call to go somewhere with their guns.

The question is if the State needs the capability to carry out such military missions. I submit it does. Everything else is just gravy.

NTM

johngalway

Manic Moran wrote: »

Fort Knox by Mint Police

Polo or Silver?

syklops

Manic Moran wrote: »

In fairness none bar one of those are military functions in many countries.

Here in the US, the police have bomb squads, cash is escorted by Treasury Dept, the Dept of Corrections does prison guard duty, the Marshall Service prisoner transport, Fort Knox by Mint Police, drug interception by the Coast Guard, air ambulance by private contractors who have learned to use NVG, and the State Transportation Agencies clear the snow. Flood control is the purview of the Corps of Engineers, but that is mainly staffed by civilians. About the only exception is the use of military forces in cases of extreme necessity, such as the LA riots or Katrina.

The military has, and should only have, one purpose: The execution, or threat of execution, of maximum violence on the behalf of the State. To attain by force or threat of force that which cannot be obtained by more civilized means. This is why soldiers and not Peace Corps get sent to places like Chad, Congo or Lebanon. Anything else is simply a matter of finding something for the soldiers to do while waiting for the call to go somewhere with their guns.

The question is if the State needs the capability to carry out such military missions. I submit it does. Everything else is just gravy.

NTM

Your argument would carry more weight if you had used a much smaller country in your example. The US has over 300 million citizens and has one of if not the largest defence budgets in the world. With that kind of money, and that number of citizens, it makes sense to have specialist teams for different roles, like the Marshal Service for guarding prisoners etc.

However, here in Ireland, we have a population of 6 Million, one fiftieth of that of the United States. We have one Military College and one Police Academy. There are 71 law enforcement academies in Texas alone.

With such a small population it makes financial sense to have one army which is used for situations like transporting prisoners and cash. It would cost a lot more money to have specialist organisations for the different roles, each with a different HQ, and a different uniform, and different headed paper. We have enough quangos as it is.

Morpheus

Liber8or wrote: »

Nevertheless, neutrality implies abstaining from conflict, Ireland and her current army has not actively engaged in offensive warfare.

It comes down to context, mandate and activity. Once we understand these three things, then we can attempt to work out if neutrality is being breached.

However, I say this in the strictest sense of what neutrality is. Ireland's version is somewhat skewed dating back as far as the Second World War. I know this, but for the purposes of this thread, what benefit would Ireland gain from leaving neutrality in an official capacity?

Without being a smart ar$e, read the constitution please.

WE ARE NOT A NEUTRAL STATE
we never have been and hopefully never will be.

Let me spell it out for you, we cannot fiscally afford the ramped up defence forces which we would require in order to BE a constitutionally neutral state.

The closest definition that you will get is that we have a defence / foreign policy of non involvement on a case by case basis regulated under the triple lock mechanism.

We are part of the NATO PFP

our constitution neither mentions that we as a nation are neutral, indeed i believe that word doesnt even come up in the text.

Im sorry, its just a pet peeve I have when I see people use the word neutral in relation to ireland as its usually MIS-used.


as for Ireland and her current army not actively engaging in offensive warfare... if by offensive you mean that no element of our defence forces have ever deliberately attacked a belligerent? what about the battle for the tunnel in the congo? We deliberately attacked an enemy position and we took casualties but we also carried the enemy position and won the small battle.There may only be one offensive action... recorded anyway, nevertheless this WAS an offensive operation albeit under a UN mandate. Thats not taking into account the armys offensive actions during the civil war against the IRA.

xflyer

I agree with NTM, far too much of the Defence Force's roles are essentially civilian in nature. Hippyrod's list demonstrates admirably the kind of muddled thinking that exists in this country as to to role of the army and naval service.

Part of the problem are the sacred cows we like to keep and the myths well like to tell ourselves. Like our 'honourable' neutrality, (completely agree with Morpheus BTW) and our unarmed police force. I can't imagine any other country with a long running and ongoing insurgent activity and an active dangerous drug gang culture keeping it's police force unarmed and using the army on the streets to guard things like cash escorts and prisoners. All those IEDs the army are defusing are drug gang related remember.

Then there's flood/fire/snow etc situations. Largely that involves boots on the ground with shovels. Anything more requires specialist training. I seem to remember an outfit called Civil Defence, a mostly voluntary organisation trained specifically for those very situations? Exactly why is the army needed at all when there is a specialist organisation recruited for the purpose already in existence? Using soldiers to put out fires or fill sandbags with their shovels is not exactly cost efficent or a worthy use of well trained soldiers.

The air ambulance missions flown by the Air Corps are all very worthy but again point to a need for a specialist operation not one using military helicopters with a few add ons.

The worst thing about all this is that the 'Defence Forces' are simply not equipped defend the country at any level.

We do need an army. But what kind of army? A catch all organisation to do all the dirty jobs no one else can or will do. Or a credible military force that can stand alongside any other in Europe?

You know there's something wrong when people can ask 'Why do we need an army?'. I doubt if you would hear that question in any country in Europe or anywhere else for that matter.

Gee Bag

Morphéus wrote: »

WE ARE NOT A NEUTRAL STATE

It depends on how you define neutrality. You are right in saying that neutrality is not mentioned in the constitution. Our constitution dates from 1937, so it was probably fairly prudent not to hamstring ourselves. Being neutral did nothing to save Holland or Belgium.

Constitutional neutrality is not the only basis for neutrality. Japan is constitutionally neutral, but it has a large military/self defence force and has a bilateral defence treaty with the USA.

Nor does neutrality have to be of the heavily armed variety like Sweden or Finland. Cost Rica is a neutral state with no military.

Our version of neutrality is based on the principle that we are not a member of any defensive alliance. You could argue that membership of PFP negates this. However, pretty much every non-NATO country in Europe and the former Soviet Union is a member (if memory serves only Cyprus is not). Even the Swiss are members.

I don't think you can say definitivley that we are not neutral. Like a lot of other divisive issues (eg. abortion, nuclear power etc.) we sit firmly on the fence.

However, I would suspect that if there was a referendum on making us constitutionally neutral it would be passed.

Morpheus

Id sincerely hope it wouldn't be passed. It would affect international treaties etc that we have with other countries. Imagine the repercussions if we suddenly under our constitution had to forbid the US from using Shannon... thats just one glaring example. The US would be peeved and quite rightly many patriotic US firms could justifiably pull out of ireland. It would put paid to the meagre arms industry we have and increase restrictions on trade where components and software made by our high tech sector in Irish manufacturing plants and firms are used as 3rd party parts in offensive weaponry and equipment by other states... this is of course just my own humble opinion and all hypothesis and conjecture...

Non-alignment - is the implementation of neutralism by avoiding military alliances... thats as close to neutral as we are therefore I would disagree and say that definitively no we are not neutral, we are rather a non-aligned state.

twinytwo

syklops wrote: »

Your argument would carry more weight if you had used a much smaller country in your example. The US has over 300 million citizens and has one of if not the largest defence budgets in the world. With that kind of money, and that number of citizens, it makes sense to have specialist teams for different roles, like the Marshal Service for guarding prisoners etc.

However, here in Ireland, we have a population of 6 Million, one fiftieth of that of the United States. We have one Military College and one Police Academy. There are 71 law enforcement academies in Texas alone.

With such a small population it makes financial sense to have one army which is used for situations like transporting prisoners and cash. It would cost a lot more money to have specialist organisations for the different roles, each with a different HQ, and a different uniform, and different headed paper. We have enough quangos as it is.

largest by a country mile, the entire eu together dosent ever come close

Gee Bag

Morphéus wrote: »

Id sincerely hope it wouldn't be passed. It would affect international treaties etc that we have with other countries. Imagine the repercussions if we suddenly under our constitution had to forbid the US from using Shannon... thats just one glaring example. The US would be peeved and quite rightly many patriotic US firms could justifiably pull out of ireland. It would put paid to the meagre arms industry we have and increase restrictions on trade where components and software made by our high tech sector in Irish manufacturing plants and firms are used as 3rd party parts in offensive weaponry and equipment by other states... this is of course just my own humble opinion and all hypothesis and conjecture...

Non-alignment - is the implementation of neutralism by avoiding military alliances... thats as close to neutral as we are therefore I would disagree and say that definitively no we are not neutral, we are rather a non-aligned state.

I don't think the US would really care if they were not allowed use Shannon anymore. It would be a minor irritation at most.

As for US companies pulling out of Ireland because of it I think that would be very unlikely. The tax incentives here are too good. At the end of the day it's about dollars.

I don't think it would neccessarily inhibit arms sales, the Swiss sell sig sauer guns worldwide (and swiss army knives!) among other weapons.

I think our version of neutrality is muddled, its an Irish solution to an Irish problem. That said, I think our position is just as valid as that of any other neutral country. Japan, Sweden, Finland, Austria, etc. even Malta all have a version of neutrality based on their own unique circumstances and history.

Costa Rica is probably the only (proper) country that could be considerd Neutral.

Manic Moran

Your argument would carry more weight if you had used a much smaller country in your example.

Well, I live in the US so it was a simple comparison. Let's go smaller, like the Netherlands, where the police have a bomb squad, the waters have a coast guard, or the Custodial Institutions Directorate has prison guards which carry guns.

I also spent almost half an hour trying to figure out what the devil the Luxembourg Army does with its 400 people when they're not partaking in their overseas missions. Beyond ' provide assistance in cases of major unrest and national disaster' there its nothing in their domestic mission statement roles about ' aid to the civil power.' Indeed, I didn't think that a country as small as luxembourg even needed an air ambulance role, but it turns out that there is a civilian group called Luxembourg Air Rescue which operates a fleet of five helicopters and two fixed wing air ambulances.

NTM

Raging_Ninja

Manic Moran wrote: »

Indeed, I didn't think that a country as small as luxembourg even needed an air ambulance role, but it turns out that there is a civilian group called Luxembourg Air Rescue which operates a fleet of five helicopters and two fixed wing air ambulances.

NTM

Maybe to get their own citizens to specialist centres in Germany or France?

Bagenal

syklops wrote: »

Your argument would carry more weight if you had used a much smaller country in your example. The US has over 300 million citizens and has one of if not the largest defence budgets in the world. With that kind of money, and that number of citizens, it makes sense to have specialist teams for different roles, like the Marshal Service for guarding prisoners etc.

However, here in Ireland, we have a population of 6 Million, one fiftieth of that of the United States. We have one Military College and one Police Academy. There are 71 law enforcement academies in Texas alone.

With such a small population it makes financial sense to have one army which is used for situations like transporting prisoners and cash. It would cost a lot more money to have specialist organisations for the different roles, each with a different HQ, and a different uniform, and different headed paper. We have enough quangos as it is.

In my opinion this bit (bolded & underlined) hit the nail on the head. One Defence Force with a command structure & properly trained. Would people rather see gung ho armed private security firms doing some of the jobs the Irish Military do?????? Regardless of which option is prefered (Army/seperate state organisations for each sector/ armed private security) premises would be required as bases, manpower & training, equipment such as weapons & vehicles, would the costs be any less?????

Kat1170

Manic Moran wrote: »

In fairness none bar one of those are military functions in many countries.

Here in the US, the police have bomb squads, cash is escorted by Treasury Dept, the Dept of Corrections does prison guard duty, the Marshall Service prisoner transport, Fort Knox by Mint Police, drug interception by the Coast Guard, air ambulance by private contractors who have learned to use NVG, and the State Transportation Agencies clear the snow. Flood control is the purview of the Corps of Engineers, but that is mainly staffed by civilians.

None of the above do these jobs for free. The OP was do we need/can we afford an army in these financially troubled times. If we can get someone to do all the above jobs for free, then sure, get rid of the army. Personally I can't see it happening :rolleyes:

OS119

Kat1170 wrote: »

None of the above do these jobs for free. The OP was do we need/can we afford an army in these financially troubled times. If we can get someone to do all the above jobs for free, then sure, get rid of the army. Personally I can't see it happening :rolleyes:

the Army costs money being an army - the guy doing CIT isn't just trained and equipped to do CIT, he's trained and equipped to undertake high intensity warfare - and that costs a shitload more than being trained and equipped to do CIT.

its the same for all of the ATCP functions that are trotted out to justify the army's survival - while the Army can easily do them, it does them at vastly greater cost than just employing someone to do the job in the first place.

an analogy i once saw summed it up perfectly - you can use a $300m F-22A to transport the US's entire armoury of AIM-120 air-to-air missiles from Florida to Oregan 6 at a time, but its a bloody expensive way of doing it.

xflyer

Bagenal wrote: »

In my opinion this bit (bolded & underlined) hit the nail on the head. One Defence Force with a command structure & properly trained. Would people rather see gung ho armed private security firms doing some of the jobs the Irish Military do?????? Regardless of which option is prefered (Army/seperate state organisations for each sector/ armed private security) premises would be required as bases, manpower & training, equipment such as weapons & vehicles, would the costs be any less?????

Who are these gung ho private security firms? What's wrong with properly trained non gung ho government security units with specialist training? Most countries have them. The average policeman in any country in Europe routinely carry guns. Many countries have specialist para military armed units with specific roles to carry out.

Only in Ireland do we have the notion that guns are only for the military. That's there's something scary about the average cop carrying a gun. Indeed in many countries, private security guards in certain situations routinely carry guns. No one lies awake at night worrying about it.

Again we have the muddled thinking. We all go on holiday in Spain or France. They all carry guns. Is that scary? Probably for us Irish, even though seeing Irish soldiers standing outside a bank carrying assault rifles normal?

I tell you what the French and Spanish would find scary, seeing armed troops on the streets doing the jobs policia local normally find routine.

The other day I was walking down shop street in Galway with my two toddler sons. I came across an cash truck surrounded by armed soldiers carrying Steyrs. I was disturbed, my boys wondered what was going on and you could see confused tourists looking at the scene. It was ridiculously out of context. Unarmed Gardai made it worse.

The only place you would see something similar would be in some South American banana republic.

Manic Moran

Kat1170 wrote: »

None of the above do these jobs for free. The OP was do we need/can we afford an army in these financially troubled times. If we can get someone to do all the above jobs for free, then sure, get rid of the army. Personally I can't see it happening :rolleyes:

What OS said.

The guy doing Cash in Transit escort isn't only trained and paid to do CiT tasks or keep people from breaking out of prisons. He's also trained and paid to call indirect fire, provide the medium recon role, close with and destroy the enemy on the high-intensity battlefield.

How much does it cost to train an MRV gunner? 30mm ammo costs about $80 a round. Assuming an MRV gunner shoots about as many rounds in a single gunnery as I do in a Bradley, that's $8,000 in ammunition, not counting the maintenance cost of the vehicle. This sounds something like it would pay for a CiT escort guard for a month or two if that guard didn't have to be capable of gunning an MRV on his off-day.

How much does it cost to set up a training exercise involving a helicopter, only to have the helicopter diverted at the last minute to an air ambulance mission leaving the soldiers on the ground twiddling their thumbs?

I guess there's also the question of what happens to all those ATCP missions if the Army actually got called up to do... <gasp>... Army tasks.

NTM

Zambia

Victoria has a population of 4-6 Million

Private firms transport cash Armed
Private firms transport prisoners unarmed
The CFA (Country Fire Authority) fight bushfires - Largely Volunteer Force
The SES (State emergency Service) - Handle floods,Storms,etc Largely Volunteer Force
The coast is patroled by the Navy but that's federal.

I am for the keeping of the Military but as a Military. Neutrality is far to OT a path for me to comment on.

savagecabbages

I think having a military means different things to different people. There is a perception that Ireland doesn't posses an effective military to carry out traditional military duties. i.e. an invasion/attack by another state.

Our military has several secondary missions which it performs quite well, but most of these could be considered policing/civil defense/coast guard roles. Personally I'd rather the defense forces were allowed focus on their primary roles, with some of the secondary ones farmed out to other organisations.

trendyvicar

Maybe_Memories wrote: »

It's not necessarily that we NEED a military, but as George Orwell said;
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

I thought that was Gusty Spence?