Why does Ireland need a military/army?

Capt'n Midnight · 12-02-2012 09:10PM

gigino wrote: »

Well said. We sheltered under the UK's umbrella during WW2, the cold war etc and let them fight it / do the dirty work ( with individuals volunteering from Ireland ).

No one born since the end of the war of Independence would have been 18 years old when WWII started.

Yes we handed control of shipping arrangements to the UK, but that was mainly so we wouldn't be competing for the same stuff and pushing up the open market price.

Cold War ?
We were making money off the Russians with the Shannon stop over for flights to Cuba and beyond and importing good Russian Oil. Don't forget we were also exporting beef to Iran / Iraq / Libya.

Capt'n Midnight · 12-02-2012 09:13PM

CiscoStudent wrote: »

The only terrorist organisation here are the IRA who last time I checked were Republicans.

They and their ilk alone are a reason to keep an army as insurance against escalation.

Capt'n Midnight · 12-02-2012 09:13PM

Sindri wrote: »

I think we may have an obligation towards the U.N. with peace keeping missions.

Like being contractually obliged.

Actually don't we make money from the UN ?

Terrontress · 12-02-2012 11:07PM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Terrontress wrote: »

Of course they would. They are the closest EU state to the Republic, have a common travel area, have lent them bucketloads of money and share a land border.

Does anyone really care? Nobody would be insane enough to try and invade an EU country.

Firstly, can I say that my post was in reaction to Keith AFC saying that Ireland does not deserve the UK's assistance, not saying it is likely to happen although I am sure the department of defence has risk-assessed it.

But given that you have made your post:

There have been quite a few country leaders described as insane:

Idi Amin, Muammar Gadaffi, Sadam Hussein, Kim Jong Il off the top of my head.

I know we are not within reach of them but what if Argentina invaded to prove a point about grabbing an island off the coast of the UK?

Doc Ruby · 12-02-2012 11:23PM

Terrontress wrote: »

I know we are not within reach of them but what if Argentina invaded to prove a point about grabbing an island off the coast of the UK?

An invasion isn't like piling into a few boats and rowing till you hit a shore.

There are logistics, preparations, intelligence gathering, training and massing forces, munition import and manufacturing, transporting those forces across two oceans, establishing bridgeheads, maintaining supply lines, and a whole lot more. All of this would be noticed well in advance and almost certainly result in preventative action being taken by the "world police".

Even if that were not the case, Argentina by dint of a lack of aircraft carriers wouldn't be able to use its air force, so any invasion would be a foregone conclusion.

As if all that wasn't enough, there is no way that Germany, France or the UK are going to let an EU member state get invaded at this stage of the game, regardless of whether or not there are mutual defence treaties. And two of those three are nuclear armed. In fact I'm sure the continental powers would be only delighted to have a crack at anyone foolish enough to attempt it, unless that someone was the US of course.

After the Argentinians were sent to a richly deserved grave at the bottom, Ireland would be tut-tutted over and strongly advised to beef up its defence forces, and we would.

If, hypothetically, every country on earth vanished except Ireland and Argentina, then we might have a problem, but that doesn't change the reality.

The reality is that Ireland is under no threat of invasion from anyone.

If Ireland was under legitimate threat of invasion, we could most certainly roll out significant military resources given a few years to buy them in and train people up. But we aren't so our military reflects the political realities. If those change, so will we. Until then it would just be a waste of money.

It should go without saying that were these other countries to remove their own armed forces or allow a fellow EU member state to become occupied, the results for the EU would not be beneficial overall, to put it mildly. Less so the UK, maybe Keith has a point, but really, who cares?

marketty · 13-02-2012 12:09AM

We'd hammer Argentina sure didnt we teach their navy everything they know

dr.fuzzenstein · 13-02-2012 12:17AM

marketty wrote: »

We'd hammer Argentina sure didnt we teach their navy everything they know

Them's fightin' words!:p

Capt'n Midnight · 13-02-2012 01:22AM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

An invasion isn't like piling into a few boats and rowing till you hit a shore.

You need a LOT of ships
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_naval_forces_in_the_Falklands_War

included were
3 Ocean liners
8 Ferries
25 Tankers
7 Freighters
4 container ships

Today's Royal Navy has just 19 Destroyers and Frigates.
They sent 24 to the Falklands.

Argentina could have based more planes on the Islands if they had improved the runway at Stanley. Instead the jets had to come from the mainland and so didn't have much fuel for more than a very short time in the combat area.

[armchair]Having the fast jets operating from Stanley would have meant that the Argentinian Air Force would have been much more effective and this could have easily tipped the balance.[/armchair]

audidiesel · 13-02-2012 04:02AM

Yes IMO its blatently obvious that we need an army.

In this country generally when theres something that no one knows who deals with on a small scale, the guards get the call. But if its on a larger scale (flooding, snow, etc) the army is usually called in and does a teriffic job generally speaking.

Having read through the entire post to date, i havent seen a single point to genuinely make me think we dont need them.

Reading the post's about amalgamating certain aspects of the army into the guards or joining them. Thats a very bad idea. Countries keep these seperate for good reasons. There's a huge difference between gardai and the army trying to clear a protest or prevent social unrest. The army does a fantastic job as a backup/aid to civilian forces and should be commended for this.

Oh and to any members of the armed forces reading this, keep up the good work

Manic Moran · 13-02-2012 06:39AM

The sole function of the military is to do bad things to bad people.

All the other functions that the Army tends to do routinely can all be carried out by other organizations. However, only the Army can carry out organized violence on behalf of the State and be good at it. If you believe that the State will never need a body capable of dealing with violent incidents at the maximum possible level, either for domestic use such as defense against foreign aggression, or for foreign policy reasons such as peace keeping or peace enforcing, and bearing in mind that if you change your mind it will take years, maybe decades to rebuild a professional military without a core, then you can be justifiably in the 'disband' camp. If there is any doubt at all, however, you are in the 'keep' camp.

NTM

sandmanporto · 13-02-2012 06:56AM

Smcgie wrote: »

Someone has to put the sandbags down

comments like this that show up as a reply to a question like this makes the irish look like a frivolous bunch of fools.
to the point, every nation needs a defence. the miltary aided during the floods in cork so i guarantee you wouldn't slate the defence forces if we had a major crisis! the defence forces of ireland are on standby and if ireland ever has disaster due to war etc you won't see idiotic posts here slating their efforts.

Dyr · 13-02-2012 10:18AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

The sole function of the military is to do bad things to bad people.

NTM

dunno what it is with the american army and being judgmental.

AeoNGriM · 13-02-2012 10:31AM

It's them feckin snakes. They've been biding their time since St. Patrick fecked them out and they're only mad for a chance to get back in once our guard is down.

Mance Rayder · 13-02-2012 01:23PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

They and their ilk alone are a reason to keep an army as insurance against escalation.

I agree 100%

positron · 13-02-2012 02:01PM

Increase Army spending - may be they will stage a coup one day and we all will be saved!

Or go the Swiss model - a few professional militia, and rest would be citizen conscripts. Introduce 12 months mandatory national service (could be defense or other).

Dyr · 13-02-2012 03:09PM

positron wrote: »

Increase Army spending - may be they will stage a coup one day and we all will be saved!

Or go the Swiss model - a few professional militia, and rest would be citizen conscripts. Introduce 12 months mandatory national service (could be defense or other).

tbh with a country of irelands size, it would make sense to organise as a militia, historically, the governments of the country never really felt easy about giving the populace guns though :pac:

Manic Moran · 13-02-2012 06:48PM

Bambi wrote: »

dunno what it is with the american army and being judgmental.

It's any army. If you're down to using military force, your country obviously has very significant issues with the country or organisation you're going up against, even if it's not at the individual level of soldier to soldier. Destroying a leader's ability to wage war (or do anything else), for example, is a bad thing, from his perspective.

NTM

D1stant · 13-02-2012 06:59PM

bb1234567 wrote: »

The government is trying to find ways to cut back so why not scrap the army, I'm sure it costs a lot to run and maintain.We dont even have an airforce/submarines/missiles etc so its not like wed even be able to deal with a full on attack from another big country like England,Germany or China almost any country really, we'd be defeated within a day or two maybe less.

Nonsense. We would kick the sh1t out of the Vatican

aidan24326 · 13-02-2012 07:28PM

CiscoStudent wrote: »

Our Labour party are communists, are you aware they have infiltrated our government?

They're a long way from being communists.

Manic Moran wrote: »

The sole function of the military is to do bad things to bad people.

If that were true not quite so many innocent people would get caught in the crossfire. The majority of people killed in any war are not 'bad' people.

And anybody saying we need the army we have for 'defence' purposes is delusional. If we were attacked or engaged in a war situation (which isn't likely) our army could do very little. They're hopelessly ill-equipped to do much if we were attacked by a more powerful nation.

They do a commendable job in other ways and I wouldn't deny that but suggesting they could protect us from a superior invader is nonsense. The likes of Britain/France/USA/China etc would wipe us out in a day or two. Thankfully for us there's no particular reason for any of them to want to do so.

johnr1 · 13-02-2012 08:52PM

Explosions in the Sky wrote: »

This thread should be closed as should any of these threads that start up again, they are worse than "people on the dole are scumbags" and the "recession" threads :cool:

Why don't you point your gun at us and order us not to discuss how our money is spent while you're at it ? :rolleyes:

sara025 · 14-02-2012 03:06PM

How about stop wasting so much money funding the FCA instead of getting rid of the PDF

Manic Moran · 14-02-2012 03:34PM

sara025 wrote: »

How about stop wasting so much money funding the FCA instead of getting rid of the PDF

Would you care to guess what proportion of the defense budget was accounted for by the FCA before it was turned into the RDF?

Here's a clue. The US Army is starting to downsize again to save costs. The proportion of reservists is increasing.

Batsy · 14-02-2012 05:45PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Would you care to guess what proportion of the defense budget was accounted for by the FCA before it was turned into the RDF?

Here's a clue. The US Army is starting to downsize again to save costs. The proportion of reservists is increasing.

It's similar to Britain. The regular British Army is being shrunk to its smallest size since the 1850s. But what most people don't realise is that the TA - which is part of the British Army, not separate from it - is being increased in size. This means that by 2020, the British Army will consist of over 120,000 personnel (compared to 143,000 today), of which 84,000 will be regulars (compared to 110,000 today) and 38,000 TA (compared to 33,000 today), a ratio of 70/30. Under the "Forces Reform 2020" plan outlined by Defence Secretary Liam Fox on 18 July 2011, the Ministry of Defence will provide more money to train more TA soldiers with the objective of more frequently deploying entire TA units (much like U.S. National Guard units.) Currently only units of the Territorial Army Medical Services are deployed as formed units. This reform will bring the ratio of regular and part-time personnel of the British Army in-line with US and Canadian allies.

It's also interesting to note that Britain's Territorial Army alone is four times the size of the entire Irish Army, which has a strength of 8,500.

Nothingbetter2d · 14-02-2012 05:55PM

Sindri wrote: »

I can think of the financial incentive for scrapping the army but they are very useful.

Flooding - Send in the army.

Civil Unrest - Send in the army (to back up Gardaí for whatever purpose)

Explosives and explosive manufacturing facilities - The Army

Natural disaster - The Army

Fairly useful I think...

a damn site more useful than local politicans... we'd save more money scrapping all the local politicians and their expense accounts.

Capt'n Midnight · 14-02-2012 08:14PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

The sole function of the military is to do bad things to bad people.

All the other functions that the Army tends to do routinely can all be carried out by other organizations.

We need something like the US Army corps of engineers here for the big civil projects.

sara025 · 15-02-2012 12:41PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Would you care to guess what proportion of the defense budget was accounted for by the FCA before it was turned into the RDF?

Here's a clue. The US Army is starting to downsize again to save costs. The proportion of reservists is increasing.

The British Army and US Army actually utilise their reserve forces...

Fratton Fred · 15-02-2012 04:10PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You need a LOT of ships
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_naval_forces_in_the_Falklands_War

included were
3 Ocean liners
8 Ferries
25 Tankers
7 Freighters
4 container ships

Today's Royal Navy has just 19 Destroyers and Frigates.
They sent 24 to the Falklands.

Argentina could have based more planes on the Islands if they had improved the runway at Stanley. Instead the jets had to come from the mainland and so didn't have much fuel for more than a very short time in the combat area.

[armchair]Having the fast jets operating from Stanley would have meant that the Argentinian Air Force would have been much more effective and this could have easily tipped the balance.[/armchair]

Worth pointing out though that a type 45 destroyer has air defence capabilities of six type 42s.

The landing craft are a step change better as well.

Slight gap in the ability to launch fighters though.....

OwenM · 15-02-2012 04:33PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

This is another of those statements trotted out without any backup.

What do Irish citizens get for our money? Soldiers guarding cash in transit and soldiers marching in provincial towns on St. Patrick's Day.

Those soldiers on St. Patricks day are almost always unpaid reservists, not getting paid..... how's that for value for money.

Capt'n Midnight · 15-02-2012 07:57PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Worth pointing out though that a type 45 destroyer has air defence capabilities of six type 42s.

Type 45's cost nearer the price of a carrier than a type 42. They cost an awful lot more than keeping the existing aircraft capable ships.

It's got one 4.5" gun. The post war Darling class had six.
It's got a pair of 30mm guns, the Darling class had 6 40mm guns
The old Darling class also had torpedoes and depth charges.

"any ship can be a minesweeper, once" Germans built the best tanks in WWII, the T34 and Shermans weren't as good but they were close enough and more importantly there were over 40,000 of each against 10,000 Panthers/Tigers.

type 45 is very nearly a one trick pony, carriers can carry a lot of stuff in their hangers, http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/01/why-is-this-carriers-deck-packed-with-cars/

Weren't we to buy a container ship or RoRo for all the troop deployments to the Leb etc ?

dr.fuzzenstein · 15-02-2012 08:36PM

Batsy wrote: »

It's similar to Britain. The regular British Army is being shrunk to its smallest size since the 1850s. But what most people don't realise is that the TA - which is part of the British Army, not separate from it - is being increased in size.

Yeah, but it's the TA after all:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no-m0Z3-KzU

The Irish army is hardly here to protect this island, which most countries could take over with their fire brigade by lunchtime.
More for peacekeeping duties overseas.
But experience has shown that taking over Ireland and holding on to it are two completely separate matters. Hence no worries from the Brits. They've had enough.:p

Why does Ireland need a military/army?

Comments