Do we need the Defence Forces?

Sand

Looking at the recent poll on this board regarding Irish neutrality, where something like 57% of the respondents voted to keep Irish neutrality/pacifism, a question arises - Why do we need an army/navy/airforce?

According to the CIA factbook we spend something like 738 million dollars per year on our armed forces- and we get very little benefit from it. There are no forseeable threats to Irish independance, and even if there was wed have to rely on our neighbours protection. U.N. missons are all very worthy but they gain us extremely little if anything at all. The navy performs a limited role in interdiction of drugs and search and rescue (though from what Ive heard we again call on our neighbours for certain missons which we do not have the equipment or expertise for). They could simply be replaced by a boosted Coast Guard imo.

The $738 million wed save could be invested in either tax cuts or more useful projects such as infrastructure, education and so forth.

And on the health service.
Put a few hundred millionEuro into the Gardai as well.
theres plenty of work for the soldiers-better paid too..
mm

Victor

Oh, help, don't let the guards expands and get real guns!! Nooooo!!!

Manach

I voted yes for 2 reasons.
1stly, the present world situation is one where Ireland's army is not called upon realistically to defend the country but should this change one would need a tradition of military expertise to fall back on, it's not something one can buy under the Dummy's guide to creating an army from stratch

2ndly, For a brief time I was in the FCA, and got a chance to fire off a real assualt-rifle. No army no fun like that

PHB

First off, Ireland is not neutral.
Switzerland is the closest to a neutral country in the world.

We need a defence force because its not just a external defence force. Its an internal defence force also.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

swiss

I would also vote no, because I do feel that a group of physically fit men and women, trained to endure gruelling and dangerous conditions are an invaluable asset to any populace. The remit of the defence forces is not only to defend our country in times of war, but to provide relief and support in times of crises, for example should a natural disaster occur, they can provide labour, food etc. for besieged communities.

I also think that the army, as a knit group of disciplined, organised people help to inspire confidence and pride in our country, especially through their role in international mediation efforts in war-torn countries.

Yes, the army do come at a cost. I don't think that the government could hire the A-team and let it at that. $700 mill plus is certainly a lot of money, but in retrospect, it only accounts for 0.6% of our GPD, so I do not believe that it is an outragous sum for protecting our national security

Da_cOmRaDe_MiKe

as a member of the AR ( FCA RENAMED TO AR ( ARMY RESERVE )
id like to state that we do a lot of work.... it might not show in the main pubic view but a lot of work is done.
im also going career as it is most enjoyable and im sure most of ye would change yur minds if ye were actually participating in it...

Manach

Well I think you meant to vote no because a Yes was a vote to disband the forces. Not to support them!

Obviously I w'd fail the army IQ test...D'Oh

DadaKopf

Yes, the army do come at a cost. I don't think that the government could hire the A-team and let it at that.

The A-Team never charged it in the end anyway. We could easily afford them.

GreenHell

The army exists to perserve democracy and the Irish state, so yes we need them. Ireland is neutral, hell it has a smaller army that swziterland. We don't need a big army so I'm happy with the state its in, small, well trained, and well equiped. Personnally I'd like to see more development of the air corps, they suck the army takes most of the budget.

mike65

Of course we need a defence force, who else is going to escort our money around the counrty or rescue old ladies in the winter floods?

Mike.

Sand

The army exists to perserve democracy and the Irish state, so yes we need them.

Thats the claim, but they cant stop a realistic attack. No airforce to begin with, so lose air superiority. And as the Taliban found out....

small, well trained, and well equiped.

definitly small, well trained? Hmmm Ill assume they do something with the money but how well trained can they be when they have little to no combat experience (not even the guys training them - beyond peacekeeping missons which are not valuable in this regard) and theyre poorly equipped, the result of several decades of neglect and cutbacks.

to provide relief and support in times of crises, for example should a natural disaster occur, they can provide labour, food etc. for besieged communities.

Certainly a valuable role but why do they need rifles, machine guns and mortars for this role? Surely a part time reserve dedicated to this job would be far more (and cost) effective.

I also think that the army, as a knit group of disciplined, organised people help to inspire confidence and pride in our country, especially through their role in international mediation efforts in war-torn countries.

Confidence and pride? Not really, given the above. As for the intervention in war torn countries Im actually saddened we send across people to risk their lives with so little in the way of quality equipment. Id hate to think what might happen if an Irish UN force was asked to arrest some guy for trial as a war crinimal for example and he decided he didnt want to go peacefully. Actually, Im not sure if thats ever arisen (being asked to make an arrest in a potentially dangerous operation), probably because people are aware of our shortcomings.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Id hate to think what might happen if an Irish UN force was asked to arrest some guy for trial as a war crinimal for example and he decided he didnt want to go peacefully. Actually, Im not sure if thats ever arisen (being asked to make an arrest in a potentially dangerous operation), probably because people are aware of our shortcomings.

The training of the Irish army is generally held in reasonably high esteem - when talking about infantry at any rate. Their light weaponry (rifles) are state of the art Steyrs. The UN missions are equipped with UN equipment, not Irish equipment, so our army's own lack of heavy equipment is not an issue here. Given our lack of heavy equipment, we would not be asked to provide the people for said equipment - someone else would.

The UN forces use people to their strengths. We have good light infantry. Not the best, but good. This is what we would be asked to provide, and they can generally do their job as well as any.

jc

Jelvon

lol I did a stint in the british otc ( officer training corp), trust me the irish army isn't held in too hign regard by the british army. See on those UN missions, it is a laughing stock, like ffs you don't even have your own apcs . Just a different perspective on it

Jelv

Keeks

I don't knwo bout anyone else here but to me this poll will not reflect true results due to the confusing way the thread is questions...

The thread name is "Do we need the Defence Forces?" and the poll name is "Should we diband the Irish Defence Forces?". Two totally differently phrased questions. most ppl don't actually look at what the poll question is.

As for the question on whether to have a defence force or not, we have enough trouble here to deal with to warrant having one. The Naval services have to deal with drug trafficiking, fishing rights and keeping those pesky spainards out of our fishing waters. The army deal with counter terrisom, bomb threats and safety for our money.

These are only a few examples.

Having a secuity force has nothing to do with being neutral. Switzerland is neutral, and army service is compulsary there. Having an army doesn't mean we have to go to war!

Wook

a picture can tell more then thousand words....

Xterminator

I think it is nesacary to have some element of defense forces.

Perhaps we could change it to make it more relavent to what is needed today.
If it could be seen to be useful it would help justify its existance.

The navy does a lot of fisheries protection, and I presumes some anti drug trafficking role too. For this it needs small fast boats reasonably armed,possibly with a seal type teams for boarding insurgant vessels.
Latest tracking technology is essential etc.
Also we need to be able to contribut to missing vessel searches in international waters etc.

The Air Corps is in need of radical change. We need air rescue/ambulance servcies 24x7 for the country. we need to be able to assist in searches nearby if requested. It would be nice if we had a small number of up-to-date fighters that were airworthy rather than a no. of obsolete 'bangers' that are useless.
A coupe of transport planes are essential for rapid deployment of infantry and equiptment to where they are needed.

The ground forces need to be capable of providing exta support to the guards for important occasions such as a trial, where the danger is percieved to be above normal.
They need to be able to respond to disaster, and possibly public disorder situation appropriatly.
We aslo need to be able to provide peacekeeping no's to the UN , on a scale appropriate with a country of our size/population/economy.

X

ykt0di9url7bc3

it will always be something to fall back on!
and they help in other areas, like we care for our poeple with a small professional sevice...
and if they get wiped out then the FCA start blowing up bridges around the country...FCA: Our home grown terrorists[\I]...
and international treaties and our nationality insure that other countries fight our future wars...

We'll still have to contribute to the UN and its a shame they are aways put against the odds but a defense force is a sound investment rather than a 1.1billion stadium

GreenHell

Originally posted by Sand


Thats the claim, but they cant stop a realistic attack. No airforce to begin with, so lose air superiority. And as the Taliban found out....



definitly small, well trained? Hmmm Ill assume they do something with the money but how well trained can they be when they have little to no combat experience (not even the guys training them - beyond peacekeeping missons which are not valuable in this regard) and theyre poorly equipped, the result of several decades of neglect and cutbacks.

A claim, lets see 30 years of troubles, now I don't imagine it was just the IRA. The republic was relatively unscaded compared to the north and britain, Irish Army has an excellent intelligance service and special forces wing.

Well trained yes, go talk to any cadet, their bitter people. If an army is not out there fighting whatever fight, do you think they sit in their barracks playing hid and seek? Thats a lot of hid and seek.

Equipment isn't to shady either, the rifles they use are state of the art, along with anti - tank weapons. Restructuring of the Defense Force has changed maintaining an army to developing it.

Fidelis

I would have to agree with Keeks, I saw the title of the thread "Do we need the Defence Forces?" from the Politics board, then I saw "Yes" or "No" and clicked "Yes". I then noticed the header of the poll. Don't be so deceptive in your wordings next time.

Originally posted by Da_cOmRaDe_MiKe
as a member of the AR ( FCA RENAMED TO AR ( ARMY RESERVE )

It's RDF - Reserve Defence Force. You must be a medic or an MP :rolleyes:


Role of the Defence Forces: To protect the state from internal & external aggression. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer if we had a military security force to deal with internal threats rather than having to "rely on our neighbours protection".

We are currently recieving shipment of 40 Mowag Piranahs so that we won't have to use UN apc's in future peacekeeping missions but unfortunately, the Air Corps is virtually non-existent apart from it's Coastguard wing which relies heavily on British Nimrod and Sea King support from both Scotland and England.

End of story: it's handy to have 10,000 people for crisis relief work and another 20,000 (RDF) on top of that for defence.

Sand

The thread name is "Do we need the Defence Forces?" and the poll name is "Should we diband the Irish Defence Forces?". Two totally differently phrased questions. most ppl don't actually look at what the poll question is.

I cant help it if people dont read the questions theyre asked. Shades of U.S. Democrat voters?:)

The Naval services have to deal with drug trafficiking, fishing rights and keeping those pesky spainards out of our fishing waters. The army deal with counter terrisom, bomb threats and safety for our money.

Coast Guard, Guards and private security firms can all do a better job for cheaper. I still dont see why we need tanks , artillery and heavy machine guns for any of those jobs:|

Having an army doesn't mean we have to go to war!

No but an army is supposed to fight and win wars. Everything else is secondary to that objective. There is no security threat to Ireland, and even fewer where the current defence forces can actually make a difference. Hence theyre a waste of money:|

Xterminator what youre talking about coss a **** load of money and the defence forces are historically the last priority for the Finance Minister come budget time - tax cuts and health/education are bigger vote winners than new fighter jets which we wont be using anytime soon.

a defense force is a sound investment rather than a 1.1billion stadium

At least for 1.1 billion you get a state of the art sports complex which this country can use. As for the 750 million Army.....well.

Irish Army has an excellent intelligance service and special forces wing.

Gardai were more effective in this role. They didnt need tanks and artillery for it either. Perhaps if we gave the Gardai the 738 million dollars they could surprise us all with what they could do.

Well trained yes, go talk to any cadet, their bitter people. If an army is not out there fighting whatever fight, do you think they sit in their barracks playing hid and seek? Thats a lot of hid and seek.

Im reminded of a quite bitter Army officer who made some smart remarks I read in the Irish Times a while back regarding a recent Minister of Defence and some APCs which were eventually purchased (second hand from Finland if I remember correctly). The officer said that anytime new equipment was mentioned the MoD would whitter on about the 3 or 4 new APCs and how these famous APCs were at every photo shoot for the past few years because they were still "new" by MoD standards.

As for the equipment as I recall members of our valiant Air Corps were allowed to fly obsolete helicopters until finally some of them died in a crash. Realising they had to replace them now (Those eejits just had to go get themselves killed) , they went off and ordered some untested, as yet still on the drawing board choppers - which had absolutely nothing to do with the bribes attached by the company. No sir. Nope, Ireland is just rich enough to act as a triallist for these choppers, sure we can easily get new ones if these arent up to the job.


Personally I feel that the Defence Forces have been relegated to some sort of Jack of All Trades (Master of None). Reading the ways the Army is supposedly needed none of them mention any specific job which the Army excels at or is required for. Im far from a pacifist, but I believe that there are 3 possibilities. Either A) We need the Defence Forces and we should properly fund them or We dont need them and we equip them poorly or C) We dont need them and we dont waste money on them, and instead invest in services which are required and are useful.

Right now were doing B - We should save ourselves money imo and try C.

bonkey

Speaking of helicopters...

I hope the fskcing genius who ordered Dauphins instead of Seakings for air-sea rescue lost his job. Seakings will fly in anything (pretty much), have better range, and less downtime. Dauphins, IIRC, even have problems with night-flying.

Yeah - lets not buy the all-weather helicopters with an incredible track record. After all - most rescue missions dont happen in rough weather, do they?

Muppetry.

In fairness to Sand's original concept, I do have to say that the Irish Defense Forces in general are a joke. While I would not like to see them disbanded, I would like to see a more intelligent structuring.

I mean - what the hell do we train pilots on aircraft for, when we have no armed aircraft? Oh yeah - I forgot - we train them so that they can leave the military and get highly paid jobs in commercial airlines.

jc

GreenHell

I would agree that the air corps are a joke, most of them leave once trained for a more profitable role in the commercial airline business, holding onto pilots its a tough job for the air corps.

One of the reasons the air corps sucks is because most of the funding goes to the army and then to the navy. Their flying aircraft which might be able to fly around europe, but then be overtaken by weather balloons!!

Celt

Sand where are you getting all your supposed facts and knowledge about the irish army from?

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
I cant help it if people dont read the questions theyre asked. Shades of U.S. Democrat voters?:)

What gobsheen started a poll with two conficting questions? Shades of Romania c. 1985 (if you vote yes to reducing the size of the army, you must include your name and address on the ballot card).

Sand

What part do you disagree with and why?

Sand

Sorry Victor, reading the question is usually the first step of answering it correctly. Tbh if people dont read the question in their rush to hit submit it works both way. Some people see Do we need the defence forces?They think "No", rush in and hit no without looking at the question and later realise theyve voted for retaining the Defence Forces when they wanted to disband it and vice versa. The essential problem is that these people did not read the question they were asked. I took the time to pose the question- surely the "gobsheen" who messed up could have read it?

Blade

Sorry had to throw this in again...
http://www.esatclear.ie/~lorenzo/aircore.jpg

GreenHell

lol

bugler

We need the Defence Forces because:

We should be able to contribute to military International peace keeping in some capacity.

Just because Ireland is secure at the moment and for the foreseeable future does not mean it will always be thus. And who wants to have to design and raise Defence forces from scratch when things look a bit dodgier?

It is nice to offer our citizens the chance to pursue either a full time or part time military career in the service of their own country.


The criticisms of the way the poll/thread was posted are valid, Sand. Not everyone will read each and every line of text, unfortunately. The title of the thread gives a completely misleading slant relative to the actual poll question.

Scruff

arrgh! voted the yes instead of no.

ye'd think with the thread called "Do we need the defence forces?" it would be a straight yes\no to that but oh-no ye have to go and be awkward ....:rolleyes:


/edit and only now after reading the thread do i see keeks has pointed it out and other people have made the same mistake. :rolleyes: at least i'm not the only eejit

Sand

We should be able to contribute to military International peace keeping in some capacity.

Why? It does absolutely nothing for us and there are other far better equipped and trained to carry it out.

And who wants to have to design and raise Defence forces from scratch when things look a bit dodgier?

As if we wont have to should Eurasia invade anyway? Quite simply with no navy, or airforce wed lose anyway, even assuming we had the equipment to equip an army significantly larger than the 10000 ish we have now- and somehow developed the combat experience and strategical/logistical know how to use it effectively - the greatest milatary tragedies and blunders have occured when barely trained armies led by inexperienced commanders have taken to the field. (Note: Patrolling UN peacekeeping areas doesnt count as combat experience).

It is nice to offer our citizens the chance to pursue either a full time or part time military career in the service of their own country.

A very costly chance to pursue a highly unproductive career.

The criticisms of the way the poll/thread was posted are valid, Sand. Not everyone will read each and every line of text, unfortunately. The title of the thread gives a completely misleading slant relative to the actual poll question.

They mightnt read every piece of the text but they should read the question. If theyre not arsed doing that then Ill give their answer the same time they gave the question. Ill admit I may have erred in my estimatation of the respondents ability/desire to read the question and in future Ill put it in block capitals or something.

What was the problem with taking the time to read the question? Surely you managed to fit it in while reading the thread? Or was it simply a snap decision made and executed as quickly as possible? And *then* you read the thread? - and presumeably the question.

Scruff

If there was no army there'd be nothing to stop the Peoples Republic of Cork becoming a reality :eek:

Seriously though, aside from the fact that our army isn't exactly battlefield ready, do you seriously think that we live in such a politically stable country and island that we can afford NOT to have a standing army of some kind???

With no army any amount of crackpots, the R.I.R.A. or anybody who wanted to could import arms, there are plenty of people with the necessary contacts to import arms again still out there and have a coup for themselves. And just because the I.R.A. are on siesta doesn't mean a couple of months or years down the line they won't break ceasefire. If that happened do ye think they'd forgo one of their political aims and not try and overthrow the elected government with only a few special branch Gardaí with revolvers??

Not to mention the fact that the Republic would be open season for any loyalist terrorists. I bet we wouldn't see u walking through the back roads of Monaghan or Cavan in the pissing rain in the middle of a winter night patrolling the border.

I think "Sand" is a very good nickname for yerself, ure head is certainly buried in it. (:eek:)

Victor

There is one fundamental reason to have it. That way all teh gun freaks can be collected into one little area.

Sand

do you seriously think that we live in such a politically stable country and island that we can afford NOT to have a standing army of some kind???

Ummm, yeah. There is no conceivable threat to Irish independance. Certainly none which only the DF can prevent.

any amount of crackpots, the R.I.R.A. or anybody who wanted to could import arms, there are plenty of people with the necessary contacts to import arms again still out there and have a coup for themselves.

The Gardai are quite effective in combatting the IRA. They have the intelligence capability to do so and should armed force against some terrorist cell or person be required the Gardai's version of SWAT (forget the actual name) is up to the task.

and not try and overthrow the elected government with only a few special branch Gardaí with revolvers??

800 "activists" who dont have the balls for actually fighting the British Army but instead prefer to leave bomb women and children vs thousands of Guards? With little or no public support (Yes Sinn Fein is rising in popularity but thats only the element thats always been there showing their true colours imo)? Im sure Ill still sleep soundly at night.

Not to mention the fact that the Republic would be open season for any loyalist terrorists.

And would be thwarted by intelligence gathered by the Gardai and the PSNI. The loyalists are of the same quality as the IRA. Theyre all snivelling thugs.

I think "Sand" is a very good nickname for yerself, ure head is certainly buried in it. ()

LOL. Dont even get me started on Scruff

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
The Gardai are quite effective in combatting the IRA. They have the intelligence capability to do so and should armed force against some terrorist cell or person be required the Gardai's version of SWAT (forget the actual name) is up to the task.

The Emergency Response Unit - ERU - call sign "Oscar". Not considered very good, poor general gun discipline (common throughout the Garda) and considered trigger happy.

Sand

So more than a match for the boys of the old brigade then?

GreenHell

ERU, asked about them before not that impressive, not that many of them.

Ireland also being part of the EU the most successful part of the EU in recent years more than likely has increased its appeal to terrorism of the international kind.

Also aren't the army responsible for defusing bomb's in the republic and do most of the work when it comes to dealing with terrorism?

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
So more than a match for the boys of the old brigade then?

Who?

Originally posted by GreenHell
Also aren't the army responsible for defusing bomb's in the republic and do most of the work when it comes to dealing with terrorism?

Yes the army does bomb disposal, Central Bank protection, cash escort and lots of other things. The Gardaí provide the width of protection against terrorism, the Army provide depth.

Sand

ERU, asked about them before not that impressive, not that many of them.

I remember reading that the unit was trained by the Ranger Wing, assuming theyre not that impressive how impressive can the Ranger Wing be despite it being referred to as an elite unit? They dont need to be Rambo to deal with IRA cells, most of them are badly equipped even by the standards of the Irish army and with far less training. Neither does there need to be that many of them.

Yes the army does bomb disposal, Central Bank protection, cash escort and lots of other things. The Gardaí provide the width of protection against terrorism, the Army provide depth

And in other countires the law enforcement agencies provide the bomb squads. The other jobs you need can be done by the Gardai, especially Gardai bulked up to the tune of 738 million dollars.

GreenHell

Lets say for a moment the Gardaí get bulked up with all the armies budget and the army is disbanded, thosen't the gardaí then take over all the armies roles, thus becoming an army under a different name?

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
I remember reading that the unit was trained by the Ranger Wing, assuming theyre not that impressive how impressive can the Ranger Wing be despite it being referred to as an elite unit?

Remember the bank robbery in Athy about 10 years ago? Five people shot, two dead? Bank robbers not having pulled their triggers. One of the Gardaí shot in the foot - by himself?

No doubt they do some training together. To say the ARW train the ERU would be wrong. The Gardaí are too proud to accept training from the army. They are dissimilar organisations. One has a military orientation (with the intention of killing people), the other police (with the intention of saving people). The ERU would not do stuff like sabotage, parachuting, diving, jungle patrolling heavy weapons training or chicken killing.

Sand

Lets say for a moment the Gardaí get bulked up with all the armies budget and the army is disbanded, thosen't the gardaí then take over all the armies roles, thus becoming an army under a different name?

No, because our defence forces at this time are the Gardai under another name- they take up funds that could be going to worthwhile services and merely duplicate jobs, like bomb disposal and cash runs, that can be done elsewhere more effectively. Whats more they apparently require machine guns and tanks for these jobs? This is wasteful imo.
By the Gardai being bulked up you could have more Gardai, more equipment (Such as cars and helicopters to pursue crinimals), as well as the funds to open say , more youth detention facilities which we need far more thn the defence forces when people with a history of crime are free to ram garda cars:(

To say the ARW train the ERU would be wrong.

Yeah I accept that, on further memory trawling I recall they trained them on use of their weapons, marksmanship etc- I remember that point being raised regarding the Abbeylara shooting.

Fidelis

Off-topic, I know, but that Abbeylara incident was farcical. They were using uzi's and shotguns from a distance. No proper sniper element at all. I also remember reading that all of the ERU personnel involved in the incident had failed a marksmanship test under the auspices of the ARW, only days beforehand!

Victor

Originally posted by Fidelis
I also remember reading that all of the ERU personnel involved in the incident had failed a marksmanship test under the auspices of the ARW, only days beforehand!

"Marksmanship" is an applied topic, a speciality, most soldiers would not pass the marksmanship test either. That said, I would expect an elite team to pass it.

Before Athy the pass mark was 40/100 (not per cent) and was then upped to 70/100. I'm short sighted, unpracticed and have shaky hands and can get 40-50. I'm not sure what mark marksmanship is, but it would be well in excess of 90.

AFAIK, the score for any given weapon is based on the standard range for that weapon (10m for air rifle, working up to 300m for an assault rifle and more for a dedicated sniper rifle) 10 points are assaigned for a bulls eye (bullet diameter) down to 1 point for the edge of a circle about 15 bullet diameters across. Total is taken from 10 shots.

Occidental

A little side note on the Dauphin and the Air Corps in general.

The Dauphin is a fine helicopter and is in good use with Coast Guards, Navy’s and other military users around the world. It is not obsolete and in Air Corps terms is actually quite young. Where the Dauphin has problems is when a customer tries to use it as a ship borne, land based, rescue, supply, general transport, all weather, long range helicopter with no support. Once you’ve fitted it out for these roles, the extra weight has reduced the already limited capacity and range (and it flies like a reluctant brick). Now for good measure, send it to Waterford(which closes at night) for 24 hour SAR duties with absolutely no support and minimal local training.

The Sikorsky replacement for the SAR role could work out very well and may prove to be a fine helicopter. Merlin’s, Sea Kings and S61’s(as currently being used for SAR in Ireland) are already proven in use and might have been more obvious choices. However the Dauphin was also a fine helicopter and who’s to say that the Air Corps aren’t capable of screwing up the Sikorsky too.

Sharkey

Originally posted by Sand
Looking at the recent poll on this board regarding Irish neutrality, where something like 57% of the respondents voted to keep Irish neutrality/pacifism, a question arises - Why do we need an army/navy/airforce?

According to the CIA factbook we spend something like 738 million dollars per year on our armed forces- and we get very little benefit from it. There are no forseeable threats to Irish independance ...

Respectfully, should some foreign interest, e.g., the Ukraine, decide to waltz into Ireland and kick your defenseless butts, would you expect your friendly neighbors to bail you out?

Hey, the reality is that no same entity will attack those who can defend themselves -- and for the insane attackers, there's no substitute for an armed population and/or a well-prepared defense force.

Sand

Granted, but Ireland couldnt defend itself from Cyprus let alone the Ukraine. Hence youre spending 738 million dollars on a service which is primarily useless. As such if Ukraine was to invade then our only realistic hope would be friendly intervention.