Should Ireland have a better equipped Navy and Air Force?

comongethappy

Jawgap wrote: »

The obvious question - why?

Why not?

A state should have the means to defend its citizens.

Otherwise why pretend to bother at all?

aindriu80

Jawgap wrote: »

The obvious question - why?

To bring us to some kind of respectable standard. European defence spending on average is 1.55% of GDP.

Jawgap

comongethappy wrote: »

Why not?

A state should have the means to defend its citizens.

Otherwise why pretend to bother at all?

From whom or what do we need defending from?

I'm intrigued when people say we need a bigger, better defence force but then never say who they should be used to defend against.

I agree we need a decent sized force to maintain the contingency that an effective military gives a country and I agree the best way for the military to maintain its capability is to participate in activities consistent with our foreign policy such as UN peace keeping / peace enforcement / observer missions.

Beyond that what evidence is there that the PDF / RDF is too small, insufficiently equipped or lacking in capability to meet our existing needs?

The argument that we should spend more just because others do is a bit weak.

And if we're going to spend a bit more on defence, bumping salaries so we don't have military personnel on FIS would be an excellent start - and something that should be done anyway.

comongethappy

Jawgap wrote: »

From whom or what do we need defending from?

What does it matter?

If every country knew The who/when/what/if for every conflict before it happened, there would be very little war throughout history.

Either be capable of national defence, or not.
If not, then be honest about it and save the taxpayer the budget as it currently is.

roadsmart

Why not just get rid of the army and put the resources into a combined naval airforce? We have no need of an army but fishing incursions and drug activity need to be policed.

Jawgap

comongethappy wrote: »

What does it matter?

If every country knew The who/when/what/if for every conflict before it happened, there would be very little war throughout history.

Either be capable of national defence, or not.
If not, then be honest about it and save the taxpayer the budget as it currently is.

We will never be capable of a national defence - the military in small countries is more about providing aid to the civil power, providing contingencies in emergency situations and supporting limited foreign policy aims.

We will never be able to generate or maintain enough military power to deter a potential aggressor, repel an attack or neutralise an existential threat.

But, we don't need to because we live in a part of the world where no one wants to hurt us and where we face no such threats. That could change though if/when the Jocks get independence.......

The only argument I can see for expanding defence spending is if we were to join NATO - and we don't need to join, and there is no appetite for joining.

We could do with spending a bit more just to have better kit, but the rationale for that is to ensure the defence forces have good kit, not to mount a national defence.

Jawgap

roadsmart wrote: »

Why not just get rid of the army and put the resources into a combined naval airforce? We have no need of an army but fishing incursions and drug activity need to be policed.

As per above - militaries are as much about contingency as anything else. It's handy having several thousand men and women who are skilled and experienced at getting to places quickly and dealing with problems no one thought could happen.

aindriu80

Ireland doesn't need an army but it doesn't mean we shouldn't have one.

Since we do have one we can contribute to UN peacekeeping missions which are really worthwhile and help the trouble spots around the world. It almost means we don't have to immediately go to our nearest neighbour cap in hand anytime anything goes wrong with our country.

In saying that we don't have the heavy pieces that other countries our size have as part of their defence forces like warships, jets and tanks. When you take defence as a whole you include them as they act as a deterrent and enables your forces to properly enter into any scenario.

Ireland had the bailout so any talk of increasing defence spending is probably illogical but anything that helps Ireland act independently is really worth it.

roadsmart

Jawgap wrote: »

As per above - militaries are as much about contingency as anything else. It's handy having several thousand men and women who are skilled and experienced at getting to places quickly and dealing with problems no one thought could happen.

So... Just in case? I'm not sure of the cost of our army, but surely it's wasted money, as they don't have much of a role domestically. Those millions could make a hell of a difference to our coastal patrols, which IMO would be far more pertinent to our country.

riffmongous

What basis does the idea of a deterrent really have though? We dont need to be a part of NATO to benefit from it due to our position next to one of its most powerful members. Anyone who wants to get to us would have to go through NATO first and if that happens no realistic Irish force would ever be able to function as a deterrent. I just don't buy it.

I think the smuggling/fishing prevention idea has more potential, but are ships the most efficient way to do it?

Jawgap

roadsmart wrote: »

So... Just in case? I'm not sure of the cost of our army, but surely it's wasted money, as they don't have much of a role domestically. Those millions could make a hell of a difference to our coastal patrols, which IMO would be far more pertinent to our country.

Maybe have a chat with the people in Limerick or Athlone or any one of a dozen towns hit by the post-Christmas storms.

No, those millions couldn't. Most drugs trafficked into the country come in through 'regular' shipping - not yachts landing in the middle of the night on the west or south-west coast.

roadsmart

Jawgap wrote: »

Maybe have a chat with the people in Limerick or Athlone or any one of a dozen towns hit by the post-Christmas storms.

No, those millions couldn't. Most drugs trafficked into the country come in through 'regular' shipping - not yachts landing in the middle of the night on the west or south-west coast.

With respect, any group of volunteers could assist in bad times, fac, civil defence,and as far as the method of drug importation, that's just your opinion. I'm not getting at anyone, I'm genuinely curious as to why we have a huge cost of an army when it seems to me that there really is no need for one, and the funds could be used to massive effect elsewhere. It's a thought that often crossed my mind and when I saw this thread I thought it would be the right place to ask.

roadsmart

riffmongous wrote: »

but are ships the most efficient way to do it?

That's probably another thread altogether, but I think air patrols would have to feature highly.

mikehn

What would be wrong in havimg a paramilitary police for in liu of the army along the lines of the Spanish model.
That would enable us to meet UN requirements and provide some much needed back up for our hard pressed gardai.
I sure the isolated countryfolk would welcome the potential of mobile armed officers with the power of arrest, it might give some of these travelling gangs the odd sleepless night.
I feel that the army as it stands would not be capable of defending the country against a determined invasion, with todays technology it would be virtually immobilised before an enemy foot arrived on Irish soil so it is a resource thats not fit for purpose,so why not use it to defend the citizens in a different way i.e defend them against the steadily rising robberies and assaults ??

Jawgap

roadsmart wrote: »

With respect, any group of volunteers could assist in bad times, fac, civil defence,and as far as the method of drug importation, that's just your opinion. I'm not getting at anyone, I'm genuinely curious as to why we have a huge cost of an army when it seems to me that there really is no need for one, and the funds could be used to massive effect elsewhere. It's a thought that often crossed my mind and when I saw this thread I thought it would be the right place to ask.

No they couldn't. With the army you're talking about physically able, task-oriented, trained personnel who are capable of handling themselves in difficult stressful situations. Civil defence cannot be deployed on a national basis, rapidly and into crisis situations.

As for drug importation, you're right it's just an opinion, but it's an informed opinion.

I think the article in the Irish Times at the weekend demonstrated that 'huge' cost and the PDF are not two things you'll see in the same sentence any time soon.

......and if you think the modestly sized military we have is expensive, it's a lot more expensive not to have one.

roadsmart

I'm sure a much, much smaller part time organisation could do the same thing.
I'm not sure what it costs to run our army, but the defence budget for 2013 was 901 million euro. Given that the army is by far the biggest group, let's conservatively say their spend was 500 million. IMO that would be far better spent elsewhere rather than on employing a huge group of people with very little gain for the country. Like, what do they actually do? I'm genuinely curious.
And I'm puzzled as to how it could possibly be more expensive NOT to have the army.

Jawgap

roadsmart wrote: »

I'm sure a much, much smaller part time organisation could do the same thing.
I'm not sure what it costs to run our army, but the defence budget for 2013 was 901 million euro. Given that the army is by far the biggest group, let's conservatively say their spend was 500 million. IMO that would be far better spent elsewhere rather than on employing a huge group of people with very little gain for the country. Like, what do they actually do? I'm genuinely curious.
And I'm puzzled as to how it could possibly be more expensive NOT to have the army.

Hmmm......let me see, such a secret organisation.......it could be difficult to find out what they do........what a pity they don't have a website, or publish an annual report, or a magazine.......or a twitter feed.......or a Facebook page........

Jawgap

roadsmart wrote: »

I'm sure a much, much smaller part time organisation could do the same thing.
I'm not sure what it costs to run our army, but the defence budget for 2013 was 901 million euro. Given that the army is by far the biggest group, let's conservatively say their spend was 500 million. IMO that would be far better spent elsewhere rather than on employing a huge group of people with very little gain for the country. Like, what do they actually do? I'm genuinely curious.
And I'm puzzled as to how it could possibly be more expensive NOT to have the army.

Just curious, but would you expect these part-time volunteers to do IED work?

roadsmart

Jawgap wrote: »

Hmmm......let me see, such a secret organisation.......it could be difficult to find out what they do........what a pity they don't have a website, or publish an annual report, or a magazine.......or a twitter feed.......or a Facebook page........

I'm sorry, but I don't know anything about them, that's why I asked. I am genuinely curious as to what, if any function they have day to day domestically. No need for the silliness, but hey, if it makes you feel better.

Jawgap wrote: »

Just curious, but would you expect these part-time volunteers to do IED work?

Easy enough to keep specialist units, or form one in the civil powers.

I'd still like to know how it would be more expensive not to have an army?

Xios

roadsmart wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I don't know anything about them, that's why I asked. I am genuinely curious as to what, if any function they have day to day domestically. No need for the silliness, but hey, if it makes you feel better.




Easy enough to keep specialist units, or form one in the civil powers.

I'd still like to know how it would be more expensive not to have an army?

He was mocking you for being lazy, which you are. Look up the information yourself, or better yet, click here

roadsmart

Xios wrote: »

He was mocking you for being lazy, which you are. Look up the information yourself, or better yet, click here

It appears to me that he was trying to be sarcastic in order to cover the fact that he couldn't answer my questions or back up his statement. Calling me lazy because I ask a question is just stupid and doesn't really deserve a reply.

Growler!!!

roadsmart wrote: »

It appears to me that he was trying to be sarcastic in order to cover the fact that he couldn't answer my questions or back up his statement. Calling me lazy because I ask a question is just stupid and doesn't really deserve a reply.

But, did you find the answer to your question in the link provided?

roadsmart

Growler!!! wrote: »

But, did you find the answer to your question in the link provided?

It's very hard to find ANY answers here, but from what I can see so far they have no domestic role anymore.

Frosty McSnowballs

roadsmart wrote: »

It's very hard to find ANY answers here, but from what I can see so far they have no domestic role anymore.

Ah grand so, off to the dole they go, hi ho, hi ho, it's off to the dole they go.

Jawgap

roadsmart wrote: »

It appears to me that he was trying to be sarcastic in order to cover the fact that he couldn't answer my questions or back up his statement. Calling me lazy because I ask a question is just stupid and doesn't really deserve a reply.

Only because it was a bit of a silly question, that is easily answered.

According to the Dept of Defence the Government’s policy for defence is aimed at ensuring that the following requirements are met:

To maintain a military force structure that provides a basis for responding to any major change in Ireland’s strategic circumstances in the medium to long term, as well as demonstrating an appropriate commitment to national defence.

Can't do that without an army, unless you can guarantee we've seen the last of the threat posed by subversives.....

To maintain a military force structure capable of responding to requests to provide aid to the civil power and in that context, contributing to the prevention of security challenges from abroad including terrorism and
arms smuggling.

I suppose the ERU could do some of this, but they can't be deployed outside the state and I can't seem them developing a maritime role.

To fulfil Ireland’s international and regional responsibilities arising from
membership of the UN by providing a range of military capabilities that can
effectively be employed to participate in a broad range of multinational peace support and humanitarian relief operations.

Again we need infantry capability to shoulder a lot of this work, or else we need to go away and re-write both our defence and foreign policies and accept a much lesser role in the world. At the moment we punch way above our weight.

To demonstrate Ireland’s commitment to European security by
having a suitable range of military capabilities that can be used to make appropriate contributions to regional security missions authorised by the
UN.”

See the response immediately above this.

In addition, the White Paper outlined the Government’s decision to utilise Defence capabilities to deliver a broad range of other services, which maximises the value for money accrued from Defence capabilities.

These include provision of a Fishery Protection Service, the provision of an Air Ambulance Service to the HSE and the provision of support to the civil authorities across a wide range of contingencies, including assistance to
local authorities during severe weather crises such as flooding.

Naval Service, Air Corps and Army......

Jawgap

roadsmart wrote: »

It's very hard to find ANY answers here, but from what I can see so far they have no domestic role anymore.

That's grand, then.

I suppose those IEDs will just disarm themselves........the boys in Midlands Prison can all head off (sure they're all innocent anyway) and those that stay behind will be fine as long as they promise to play nice with everyone and not have their friends making any unexpected visits.

The cash-in-transit and explosive escort gigs were a waste of time anyway, sure no one every tired to nick one which demonstrates the lads were just scratching their arses while posing with the guns....

And sure won't the fuel and power facilities be grand too - and the Central Bank, and the Dail.....we can get someone like G4S to look after them. I believe they did a great job at the London Olympics........

cruasder777

Jawgap wrote: »

That's grand, then.

I suppose those IEDs will just disarm themselves........the boys in Midlands Prison can all head off (sure they're all innocent anyway) and those that stay behind will be fine as long as they promise to play nice with everyone and not have their friends making any unexpected visits.

The cash-in-transit and explosive escort gigs were a waste of time anyway, sure no one every tired to nick one which demonstrates the lads were just scratching their arses while posing with the guns....

And sure won't the fuel and power facilities be grand too - and the Central Bank, and the Dail.....we can get someone like G4S to look after them. I believe they did a great job at the London Olympics........

Actually while not disputing the need for an army, all the above in most other countries are done by private civilian companies or the Police.

IED stuff in most countries inc the USA is done by Police IED depts, who are ex military.

In the north CIT is done by civilian companies, modern tracker devices,and other security devices mean CIT boxes aren't worth the risk of stealing. They self destruct if stolen and put DNA coded dye over people and the money, destroying it.


The Olympics is not being held in Ireland, so its a moot point. Nor do you need the army to guard prisons, in the north civilians guard the prisons .

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

Actually while not disputing the need for an army, all the above in most other countries are done by private civilian companies or the Police.

IED stuff in most countries inc the USA is done by Police IED depts, who are ex military.

In the north CIT is done by civilian companies, modern tracker devices,and other security devices mean CIT boxes aren't worth the risk of stealing. They self destruct if stolen and put DNA coded dye over people and the money, destroying it.


The Olympics is not being held in Ireland, so its a moot point. Nor do you need the army to guard prisons, in the north civilians guard the prisons .

your point is moot (and btw, I wasn't suggesting the army guard the Olympics - just pointing out how G4S had to be bailed out at the last minute by the Army in the UK, despite having years to prepare for one event).

The issue I was responding to above was not whether the (Irish) army should do this work or not, it was in answer to this.....

roadsmart wrote: »

It's very hard to find ANY answers here, but from what I can see so far they have no domestic role anymore.

Whether they should or shouldn't be doing the jobs outlined is another question altogether - but they still have a domestic role.

cruasder777

How can my point be moot, Im pointing out the error in stating you need a military to do the above tasks, you dont.

Why are troops guarding prisons and escorting CIT vans in this day and age ?


Infact, escorting CIT vans in civilian vehicles with no turrets or armour or is potentially very dangerous, if they were ever ambushed by a well armed foe.

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

How can my point be moot, Im pointing out the error in stating you need a military to do the above tasks, you dont.

Why are troops guarding prisons and escorting CIT vans in this day and age ?


Infact, escorting CIT vans in civilian vehicles with no turrets or armour or is potentially very dangerous, if they were ever ambushed by a well armed foe.

Look regardless of whether they should or shouldn't the point was made they don't have a domestic role when it is quite clear that they do. I never said the military had to do that work or denied that there are other (even better) alternatives - I was just pointing out that in Ireland that work is done by the Army.

Now, you can go ahead and argue that other countries do it differently; that there is no need for what they do; or that they should be doing something else - but it is clear (to me anyway) that they do have a tangible, measurable role......

......so pointing out that other countries etc do it differently is moot as it doesn't detract from the fact that the army have a domestic role.