Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Does Ireland Need a Military?

  • 15-11-2011 07:41PM
    #1
    TheLoneGunmen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30 ✭


    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.


«134567…10

Comments

  • #2
    Turbine
    Site Banned Posts: 317 ✭✭Turbine


    Yes.

    Next question.


  • #3
    tricky D
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,698 ✭✭✭tricky D


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


  • #4
    Liber8or
    Closed Accounts Posts: 662 ✭✭✭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.


  • #5
    yermanoffthetv
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 625 ✭✭✭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?


  • #6
    syklops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,966 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Poccington
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭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.


  • #8
    flutered
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,724 ✭✭✭flutered


    for what


  • #9
    Liber8or
    Closed Accounts Posts: 662 ✭✭✭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.


  • #10
    Poccington
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭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.


  • #11
    xflyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Milk & Honey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,950 ✭✭✭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.


  • #13
    Liber8or
    Closed Accounts Posts: 662 ✭✭✭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?


  • #14
    Liber8or
    Closed Accounts Posts: 662 ✭✭✭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.


  • #15
    Milk & Honey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,950 ✭✭✭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.


  • #16
    Liber8or
    Closed Accounts Posts: 662 ✭✭✭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.


  • #17
    Milk & Honey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,950 ✭✭✭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?


  • #18
    Liber8or
    Closed Accounts Posts: 662 ✭✭✭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...


  • #19
    Milk & Honey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,950 ✭✭✭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.


  • #20
    Maybe_Memories
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 927 ✭✭✭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."


  • #21
    Raging_Ninja
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,717 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,044 Mod ✭✭✭✭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


  • #23
    Liber8or
    Closed Accounts Posts: 662 ✭✭✭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.


  • #24
    Zambia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭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.


  • #25
    Milk & Honey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,950 ✭✭✭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.


  • #26
    Liber8or
    Closed Accounts Posts: 662 ✭✭✭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...


  • #27
    Milk & Honey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,950 ✭✭✭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.


  • #28
    Liber8or
    Closed Accounts Posts: 662 ✭✭✭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.


  • #29
    twinytwo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,587 ✭✭✭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.


  • #30
    Milk & Honey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,950 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    eire-kp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 380 ✭✭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.


Advertisement