Does Ireland Need a Military?

AlmightyCushion

I agree. The thread was good and raised some good points. Obviously a lot of gibberish got posted over the past couple of pages but if it stays on topic then it will be an interesting thread.

Owryan

Fiatach wrote: »

Owryan wrote: »

Funnily enough that could be said about you, stop believing in ****e nd get real. the brits are welcome to the north

Stop believing in Irish Independence? Your going to have to try a bit harder than that im afraid. I wont follow 'croppy lie down' commands by spineless Irish. Any Irishman who says a foreign British government, unelected anywhere in Ireland, is welcome to part of their national territory is a bona fide Quisling.

I maybe wrong but dont the good people of Northern Ireland get to elect their own representatives ? In something callled........whats that word im looking for......oh yeah an ............ election .

How can a british government be foreign in its own land ?

Owryan

Firstly sorry for letting shinner bot drag me into his lala land .

As to the subject of the thread , of course we need an army , it may not be as big and well equipped as some people might like and it might not be seen as something we need by other people but it fulfills a role and does it well.

My own opinion is that it foesnt do enough to keep in the public eye and all too often it s only publicity is when it is being used as a back up to the councils during bsd weather. I think people see the army out shovelling snow/ helping with floods and dont see what they do the rest of the year , hence the comments about the "army doing nothing all day ".

Army deafness, fat/old soldiers and similar stories are still what many people think of when they hear the words "irish army" not how it has evolved into a very well respected proffessional force that has a lot going for it .

Manic Moran

Unfortunately, I don't have the time today or tomorrow for weeding.

Fine, if you can resist the urge to feed the troll, I'll leave it open.

Avgas

And back we go to the question of not just why we need an Irish DF...but how it should look given the fact that we’re broke.....

OS119 helpfully suggested that there are a number of core missions

Aid to Civil Power/Internal Security which ranges from bog standard and sapping CIT to the much less likely but possible, Bosnia 2.0 on the Bogside (i.e. a renewed N.I crisis akin to August 1969) and some kind of surge capability therefore to screen the border and perhaps in extremis even intervene. This is bread and butter.

Overseas peacekeeping-and we’ve limited this to a Battalion size equivalent AFAIK, with a smallish Coy sized commitment to the EU RRF.

A more notional mission in the event of a wider Atlantic conflict, involving NATO and Russia-World War 3 scenario updated to the here and now. Such a conflict would create spillover effects at a minimum-we would need to monitor our coasts, and it may lead to a demand by NATO for the use of Shannon (in the same way that Iceland was respectfully occupied by the Allies in WW2). Whatever people think, any NATO request for ‘use of Shannon or passage rights, etc.’ would be very likely granted. So in fact it would not likely come to a situation of repelling a NATO amphibious task force...which is just as well because we couldn’t.

Can I make a number of observations?

Why not organize the DF around these missions...with dedicated commands or corps...instead of the generic infantry, artillery, cavalry corps nonsense......which has no operational significance (it is important maybe for training, etc.).
A Garda Support Corps; A Peace-Keeping Corps; A Marine Corps?

The really important mission is the internal security/aid to civil power, and this requires special units such as the ARW, but also the potential to be able to deploy a significant quantity of light infantry. Therefore, the large size of our land forces, relative to our air and naval forces, is not actually irrational or dumb, although I think its never been planned that way.

The only cost effective way to prepare for a Bosnia 2.0 contingency is through a reserve infantry battalion system that is high quality-rather than simply cull our 3 brigade structure down to 1 or 2 brigades should we not consider 3 brigades...but with good quality reserve battalions?

We have struggled and managed to deploy battalion effective units to overseas PK missions in Liberia and Chad. The DF deserves praise for those missions (we’ll gloss over the trip to Eritrea....) BUT in future should we not give up the charade that we can afford to deploy and resource properly semi or whole battalions.....a more sensible decision would be to have a pool of 3-4 expeditionary coy level formations that could offer niche capabilities.....the USMC have developed ideas around enhanced company level operations and capability.....

The simplest way to deal with the marine contingency mission would be to simply join NATO. However, I don’t think there would be much support for that, so its probably not worth pursuing. However, there are some fairly cheap ways that a greater “marine security capability” could be created:

Surplus Pelagic Trawlers within the Irish fleet that are today more or less overfishing could be de-commissioned, some of their allowance could be reallocated to smaller fishermen which would be fairer, and the naval service get a useful capacity-the money goes to the fisherman, we get a somewhat useful boat ; a dedicated ARW marine Squadron or sub-formation could be established. Over time some decent assets could be drip procured-for example if new S92s appear as part of a commercial SAR contract, the aer-corps could perhaps buy 1 or 2 ‘grey’ S92 and co-hangar and service them commercially with the SAR contractor?

Future procurement, which will be minimal, could then be matched to the extent that they fit well with these missions, and note the hierarchy in missions.

For example, OS119 suggested we could splurge and buy some Minimi LMGs and designated marksman rifles....I would say we spend more on 40mm grenade systems...because these could be more useful in many potential and likely ACP/PK scenarios.....

Just the usual random ideas to get the thread re-booted!

alanmcqueen

Dutch Chief of Staff discussing the case for maintaining a military force..

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2011/12/ted-talks-dutch-general-peter-van-uhm.html

TheLoneGunmen

alanmcqueen wrote: »

Dutch Chief of Staff discussing the case for maintaining a military force..

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2011/12/ted-talks-dutch-general-peter-van-uhm.html

Fine words. Almost convincing. Except for one thing - Ireland is not Holland. Holland is far wealthier and has a larger cake to share around. If Ireland was situated in a different, more dangerous part of the world there would be a case for maintaining a standing army. But we are surrounded by NATO, with the seas as an effective barrier to any hostile attention. The biggest threats to Ireland are organised crime, and a few tiny paramilitary groups with insignificant support from society. A gendarmerie, properly equiped could easily take care of these threats.

I agree that the state always has the right to monopolise the use of force to maintain social order, the question is how to do so in the most efficient way possible, delivering the greatest value for money. As such the rest of the speech is nothing more than special pleading from a special interest group, and constitutes propaganda.

Interesting use of the "No True Scotsman" argument, by the way.;)

neilled

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

Fine words. Almost convincing. Except for one thing - Ireland is not Holland. Holland is far wealthier and has a larger cake to share around.

The dutch have a large and well armed military. Ireland does not have anything near in comparison in defence spending. P

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

If Ireland was situated in a different, more dangerous part of the world there would be a case for maintaining a standing army. But we are surrounded by NATO, with the seas as an effective barrier to any hostile attention.

Take a look at efforts to rebuild armed forces in post conflict environments - it takes years and decades to build a competent NCO and Officer Corps to run a military, even more so these days with the high tech nature of the beast. If you wanted to build one from nothing in the event of highly destabilised circumstances in the future, it would take you years. Ireland thought it would have the time to mobilize and acquire the men and equipment it needed for the last two serious challenges to the sovereignty of the state - and was found badly wanting when they both kicked off "out of nowhere," these being "the emergency" aka the second world war to the rest of the world and the "troubles". The Irish state was targeted for invasion by both allied and axis during the second world war - it didn't happen because circumstances didn't suit either side, but both would have it it had been in their interests. The states sovereignty was also threatened during the troubles as it was unable to fulfil one of the basic principles of westphalian sovereignty - the ability to control its borders and the paramilitry groups that operated within it and launched attacks on a neighbouring state. Indeed these groups did not recognise the authority or legitimacy of the state (they only started doing so because they believe that limited recognition would bring them close to fulfilling their goals) and saw its servants as traitors at worst and misguided/duped at best.

Ireland was also extensively mapped by the soviet military during the cold war, indeed from an article in the DF review a few years ago, i seem to remember that the soviets would have had better maps of Ireland than Irish forces in the event they wanted to use Ireland for a staging operation against NATO.

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

The biggest threats to Ireland are organised crime, and a few tiny paramilitary groups with insignificant support from society. A gendarmerie, properly equiped could easily take care of these threats.

Thats a very sweeping statement and to me a fairly meaningless statement. Law enforcement and the breaking up of criminal elements involved in drugs, theft, money and fuel laundering and specialising in the use of varying levels violence are two very different things. Different tools for different jobs. The fact that the threat risk is benign does not mean it cannot increase in future, again armies exist to defend the apparatus of the state. Generally they are the only group who can be called upon to do the jobs that others cannot/will not or are incapable of doing. Ask a military to try something and generally they'll give it their best go whilst whoever is supposed to be doing it is on strike/called in sick etc.

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

I agree that the state always has the right to monopolise the use of force to maintain social order, the question is how to do so in the most efficient way possible, delivering the greatest value for money. As such the rest of the speech is nothing more than special pleading from a special interest group, and constitutes propaganda.

Interesting use of the "No True Scotsman" argument, by the way.;)

The state must maintain a monopoly on violence, but it also should have the ability to project this violence externally in defence of its external interests or citizens abroad. These interests fall under the banner of collective security obligations that arise or that are undertake to acquire political kudos or bargaining power.

I particularly like the work "Sheep Wolves and Sheepdogs" by Lt Col Grossman, however I find the realist school of international relations the most convincing reason to keep armed forces - no matter what state it is applied to.

TheLoneGunmen

neilled wrote: »

The state must maintain a monopoly on violence, but it also should have the ability to project this violence externally in defence of its external interests or citizens abroad.

Ever hear of Mossad? They do an excellent job of protecting Israeli interests, at only $350M a year - a lot less than the €1Bn a year the Irish DF costs. A good piece of intel, and a Glock 9mm can be more valuable than a batallion of regular army soldiers in many cases. The lack of a standing military does not mean the state is toothless, just that it has been rationalised.

dodgydes

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

Ever hear of Mossad? They do an excellent job of protecting Israeli interests, at only $350M a year - a lot less than the €1Bn a year the Irish DF costs. A good piece of intel, and a Glock 9mm can be more valuable than a batallion of regular army soldiers in many cases. The lack of a standing military does not mean the state is toothless, just that it has been rationalised.

Our Mossad has a budget of E1m. (Irish Secret service)

TheLoneGunmen

dodgydes wrote: »

Our Mossad has a budget of E1m. (Irish Secret service)

G2 could be made a stand alone agency, with a much larger budget (obviously we wouldn't need as big an agency as Mossad), or it could be absorbed by the new Gendarmerie as a sub-section. This choice would depend on the needs of the state.

Owryan

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

neilled wrote: »

The state must maintain a monopoly on violence, but it also should have the ability to project this violence externally in defence of its external interests or citizens abroad.

Ever hear of Mossad? They do an excellent job of protecting Israeli interests, at only $350M a year - a lot less than the €1Bn a year the Irish DF costs. A good piece of intel, and a Glock 9mm can be more valuable than a batallion of regular army soldiers in many cases. The lack of a standing military does not mean the state is toothless, just that it has been rationalised.

I dont get your arguement , israel has one hell of a powerful army, all backed up by the u.s. . Mossad is only one part of their defence/intellegence network.

TheLoneGunmen

Owryan wrote: »

I dont get your arguement , israel has one hell of a powerful army, all backed up by the u.s. . Mossad is only one part of their defence/intellegence network.

Probably their most important part. But Israel needs its defence forces, due to the nature of the neighbourhood it is situated in. Ireland could do quite well with a smaller agency (than Mossad) alongside the Gendarmerie, without the need for an army.

Owryan

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

Owryan wrote: »

I dont get your arguement , israel has one hell of a powerful army, all backed up by the u.s. . Mossad is only one part of their defence/intellegence network.

Probably their most important part. But Israel needs its defence forces, due to the nature of the neighbourhood it is situated in. Ireland could do quite well with a smaller agency (than Mossad) alongside the Gendarmerie, without the need for an army.

Ah get you now, when I read it first it appeared you were suggesting israel dont have an army.

I understand your thinking behind a gendarmerie but the level of public disquiet at increasing the numbers of armed gardai would surely only be more vocal if the army and an garda were merged. .

No one is suggesting we will be invaded in the short term but having a df that is well regarded in the world of peacekeeping is a good thing and something we should be proud of. By all means reduce it a size reflecting its place in both the state and internationally but as was done before any savings achieved should be ploughed back into it as new equipment or infrastucture.

Its my own belief we should retain it and not disband it but at least we re able to have a reasonable discussion about it .

Molloys Clondalkin

Owryan wrote: »

if the army and an garda were merged. .

.

Ya know that isnt such a bad idea.

goldie fish

Molloys Clondalkin wrote: »

Ya know that isnt such a bad idea.

As long as you have no clue whatsoever what either organisation actually does.

:rolleyes:

Owryan

Molloys Clondalkin wrote: »

Owryan wrote: »

if the army and an garda were merged. .

.

Ya know that isnt such a bad idea.

i

I never suggested they should. Soldiering and policing are two v different skills

Molloys Clondalkin

think about it there would be no shortage of manpower and plenty of barracks could be turned into jails :P







But seriously give the army some policing powers things like checkpoints that the overtime ban the police have wouldnt matter they dont have to be standing with a styer but the extra help couldnt hurt.

Poccington

Avgas wrote: »

We have struggled and managed to deploy battalion effective units to overseas PK missions in Liberia and Chad. The DF deserves praise for those missions (we’ll gloss over the trip to Eritrea....) BUT in future should we not give up the charade that we can afford to deploy and resource properly semi or whole battalions.....a more sensible decision would be to have a pool of 3-4 expeditionary coy level formations that could offer niche capabilities.....the USMC have developed ideas around enhanced company level operations and capability.....

Something along the lines of what we currenty do with our ISTAR Coy in the Battlegroups?

Albeit, a more deployable Coy, rather than the current "The world is ending, send the Battlegroup" idea that the EU has put together.

OS119

Poccington wrote: »

...rather than the current "The world is ending, send the Battlegroup" idea that the EU has put together.

its off topic - though perhaps not - but does anyone really believe that if any of the contributing states were faced with a 'world ending' scenario, one that really, really threatened their national security - they'd trust an organ of the EU to deal with it?

i worked on the EUBG concept in Brussels (secondment from PJHQ), and i'm kind of proud of them (i've never been asked to build a new Army, before or since!), but i'm convinced they are for second order problems at best - anything serious and i'd bet a go on my wife that those involved would be running for NATO...

Avgas

Agreed on EU battlegroups.....wasn't there a brief 'oh sh#t' moment during the early phase of the Libya thing when somebody political at EU senior level suggested deploying the Battlegroup on call there in some kind of Hum Zone role....and then they looked at it again without having drunk Belgian beer in quantity and sensibly left it with NATO people...

But yes reinforced Coys.....is what I had in mind.....the niche role may well be quite different from what other people imagine....I think to offer an ISTAR Coy these days may require a spend the Irish taxpayer doesn't have...we have the guts on one B plus standard one maybe..........but..one vital capacity is training local indigenous forces...could be AU military or something else......US have been seriously looking at developing an Expeditionary Training Corps to win to COIN wars...that abound and reduce their footprint.....

Something similar in an EU context would be useful and might be deployed in a more routine way...preventative rather than reactive...to states at risk....ie. Macedonia. Moldovia...(or Belgium itself....:D)....nearer home....you name it.

OS119

i wouldn't disagree with anything you've written, however one issue leaps to mind.

what is the the Irish Army for?

what appears to be happening here is that people are scrabbling around trying to find any justifaction/raison d'tre - internal security, humanitarian intervention, nation-building - for the Army that does not involve defending the Republic of Ireland (or its interests) against an armed aggressor.

Avgas makes an excellent suggestion that there are lots of ****holes emerging democracies on Europes periphery that need long term help building law-abiding, professional military (police?) forces, and that Ireland might be pretty good at that - it avoids the political problems of more 'kinetic' roles, it does a job that needs doing and contributes to European security, and it keeps the Army employed. however, after 10 years of this kind of role, what would the Army look like - if it becomes confingured for this role (and all organisations morph themselves around their current task) - would it be able to jump back into an All Arms Brigade capable of high-intensity warfare if required?

after 10 years of that role - and not a lot else - would the IA still be a product that other states would want to replicate: would it have become an organisation who'se only real skill was training other people how to train other people, not a professional, disciplined, 'hard' army who that had a side-line in training others how to be a professional, disciplined 'hard' army?

everyone knows the impact that a succession of evermore demanding PK/PE operations have had on the IA - its got harder, smarter, more lethal, and more mobile - without that continuing spur, it will atrophy into a flabby, slow, hide-bound, introspective and unadventurous organisation, and i'd suggest that such a 'teacher' isn't going to teach anyone much about anything.

Poccington

OS119 wrote: »

its off topic - though perhaps not - but does anyone really believe that if any of the contributing states were faced with a 'world ending' scenario, one that really, really threatened their national security - they'd trust an organ of the EU to deal with it?

i worked on the EUBG concept in Brussels (secondment from PJHQ), and i'm kind of proud of them (i've never been asked to build a new Army, before or since!), but i'm convinced they are for second order problems at best - anything serious and i'd bet a go on my wife that those involved would be running for NATO...

Don't get me wrong, I'm serving in the EUBG now and I'm quite happy being there.

However, I agree with your train of thought. I can't see the EUBG ever being deployed purely because if things got to the stage where people were thinking of deploying it, there's a good chance that they've gotten a lot worse than what the EU could deal with.

Avgas

OS119 wrote: »

what is the the Irish Army for?

To defend the Irish state from external or internal, organized or irregular, armed aggression or subversion, as far as is practicable given our means, and according to the recognized standards of the rules of war.

Providing collective security via UN or EU ops is one way of preventing wider conflicts which harm our trading relationships in a globalized world, or preventing geographically proximate conflicts escalating.

what appears to be happening here is that people are scrabbling around trying to find any justifaction/raison d'tre - internal security, humanitarian intervention, nation-building - for the Army that does not involve defending the Republic of Ireland (or its interests) against an armed aggressor.


No, I've made the point we need a residual territorial defence capability for our own Island...this is focused on spillover from a renewed NI conflict, which is quite possible if not actually likely. Overseas PK is cognate with this mission. Any Irish DF that can deploy to say Macedonia or South Sudan and deal with IEDS and usefully train locals can transfer some of those skills if God forbid Bosnia 2.0 kicked off after the Marching season 2027 or something. There is a link.


however, after 10 years of this kind of role, what would the Army look like - if it becomes confingured for this role (and all organisations morph themselves around their current task) - would it be able to jump back into an All Arms Brigade capable of high-intensity warfare if required?



No it wouldn't, but then neither can we do carrier group attacks and or aerial interceptions-these are capabilities we don't have the money or threat to justify. We can field a small DF that is an excellent light infantry force that can deliver PK and COIN niche abilities. If we are attacked by NATO any combined arms brigade would be pretty useless and a nice target. Our residual national defence would fall back on some type of asymmetric warfare.



after 10 years of that role - and not a lot else - would the IA still be a product that other states would want to replicate: would it have become an organisation who'se only real skill was training other people how to train other people, not a professional, disciplined, 'hard' army who that had a side-line in training others how to be a professional, disciplined 'hard' army?


Many states want their army to deliver internal security and win any COIN fight. They have no money or expectation to deliver any wider role. Indeed getting instruction from the big armies may in some ways be a poor institutional and cultural fit....trying to turn the Macedonian army into a more BA structure may not be what they need or want....although I'm sure BA instruction would be pretty outstanding....... There is a school of thought that the ABCA armies are becoming 'jack of all trades master of none' and are riven by tensions between proper war-figthers and COIN small war winners.....maybe an Irish army that is focused on the latter, and at that a specific doctrinal approach to COIN-PK would be very useful.




everyone knows the impact that a succession of evermore demanding PK/PE operations have had on the IA - its got harder, smarter, more lethal, and more mobile - without that continuing spur, it will atrophy into a flabby, slow, hide-bound, introspective and unadventurous organisation, and i'd suggest that such a 'teacher' isn't going to teach anyone much about anything.

You would be teaching them primacy of civil power and policing-military are there to aid not dominate.
You would be teaching them to improvise in the absence of great gobs of tech and choppers which we and most states cannot afford. Think Mules not Chinooks.
You would be teaching them a clear, negotiated and robust political strategy is required before any supporting military efforts have any chance of working in a Pk/COIN context.
You would be teaching them a mixed menu of IED (which is why its so important our EOD community get to travel and observe extensively).
You would be teaching them not to cut ears off dead people. And hopefully not alive ones either.
You would be teaching not to do what NATO and the ABCA armies did in Astan.
You would be teaching them HUMINT is more important than real time UAV video feed (which we can't afford anyhow), but even if collecting HUMINT is actually easy enough, analysis of it and the difference it makes might be more tricky/marginal than is realized.

Just a few ideas.

Avgas

OS119 wrote: »

what is the the Irish Army for?

To defend the Irish state from external or internal, organized or irregular, armed aggression or subversion, as far as is practicable given our means, and according to the recognized standards of the rules of war.

Providing collective security via UN or EU ops is one way of preventing wider conflicts which harm our trading relationships in a globalized world, or preventing geographically proximate conflicts escalating.

what appears to be happening here is that people are scrabbling around trying to find any justifaction/raison d'tre - internal security, humanitarian intervention, nation-building - for the Army that does not involve defending the Republic of Ireland (or its interests) against an armed aggressor.


No, I've made the point we need a residual territorial defence capability for our own Island...this is focused on spillover from a renewed NI conflict, which is quite possible if not actually likely. Overseas PK is cognate with this mission. Any Irish DF that can deploy to say Macedonia or South Sudan and deal with IEDS and usefully train locals can transfer some of those skills if God forbid Bosnia 2.0 kicked off after the Marching season 2027 or something. There is a link.


however, after 10 years of this kind of role, what would the Army look like - if it becomes confingured for this role (and all organisations morph themselves around their current task) - would it be able to jump back into an All Arms Brigade capable of high-intensity warfare if required?



No it wouldn't, but then neither can we do carrier group attacks and or aerial interceptions-these are capabilities we don't have the money or threat to justify. We can field a small DF that is an excellent light infantry force that can deliver PK and COIN niche abilities. If we are attacked by NATO any combined arms brigade would be pretty useless and a nice target. Our residual national defence would fall back on some type of asymmetric warfare.



after 10 years of that role - and not a lot else - would the IA still be a product that other states would want to replicate: would it have become an organisation who'se only real skill was training other people how to train other people, not a professional, disciplined, 'hard' army who that had a side-line in training others how to be a professional, disciplined 'hard' army?


Many states want their army to deliver internal security and win any COIN fight. They have no money or expectation to deliver any wider role. Indeed getting instruction from the big armies may in some ways be a poor institutional and cultural fit....trying to turn the Macedonian army into a more BA structure may not be what they need or want....although I'm sure BA instruction would be pretty outstanding....... There is a school of thought that the ABCA armies are becoming 'jack of all trades master of none' and are riven by tensions between proper war-figthers and COIN small war winners.....maybe an Irish army that is focused on the latter, and at that a specific doctrinal approach to COIN-PK would be very useful.




everyone knows the impact that a succession of evermore demanding PK/PE operations have had on the IA - its got harder, smarter, more lethal, and more mobile - without that continuing spur, it will atrophy into a flabby, slow, hide-bound, introspective and unadventurous organisation, and i'd suggest that such a 'teacher' isn't going to teach anyone much about anything.

You would be teaching them primacy of civil power and policing-military are there to aid not dominate.
You would be teaching them to improvise in the absence of great gobs or tech and choppers which we and most states cannot afford. Think Mules not Chinooks.
You would be teaching them a clear, negotiated and robust political strategy is required before any supporting military efforts have any chance of working in a Pk/COIN context.
You would be teaching them a mixed menu of IED (which is why its so important our EOD community get to travel and observe extensively).
You would be teaching them not to cut ears off dead people. And hopefully not alive ones either.
You would be teaching not to do what NATO and the ABCA armies did in Astan.
You would be teaching them HUMINT is more important than real time UAV video feed (which we can't afford anyhow), but even if collecting HUMINT is actually easy enough, analysis of it and the difference it makes might be more tricky/marginal than is realized.

Just a few ideas.

The Agogo

I'd like to think that we are keeping the army (and sending them on peace-keeping missions) in the eventuality that the Northern six counties are turned to the republic.

If this is to happen, I don't think Ireland could deal with the following loyalist violence that would ensue without a trained and experienced peace-keeping force.

As unlikely as it is to happen, a restructuring is definitely in order. Perhaps less artillery, and more ordnance disposal teams, reconnaissance aircraft, specialist tactical units, and an infantry with specialised skills

discus

The Agogo wrote: »

As unlikely as it is to happen, a restructuring is definitely in order. Perhaps less artillery, and more ordnance disposal teams, reconnaissance aircraft, specialist tactical units, and an infantry with specialised skills

Less artillery? We only have 81mm mortar and 105mm light gun. Remove them and we have an infantry army, with little or no instant support. Look how guns are used in Afghan to see how they'd be very necessary for fire support for patrols coming into contact.

SeanMcCarry

I believe Ireland needs to have an army but one that is in conjuction with the UN that if Ireland was under attack iy could get support from France, Britain,Germany etc rather than being out there by ourselfs

Poccington

discus wrote: »

Less artillery? We only have 81mm mortar and 105mm light gun. Remove them and we have an infantry army, with little or no instant support. Look how guns are used in Afghan to see how they'd be very necessary for fire support for patrols coming into contact.

We have 120mm Mortar's too.

The 105 is pointless since we don't deploy it Overseas for some odd reason.

Turbine

SeanMcCarry wrote: »

I believe Ireland needs to have an army but one that is in conjuction with the UN that if Ireland was under attack iy could get support from France, Britain,Germany etc rather than being out there by ourselfs

Not really sure what you mean here, but under the Lisbon Treaty, all EU member states have an obligation to step in and aid any member state that comes under attack. So in the unlikely event of Ireland being invaded/attacked, we'll have the full support of the EU.