Would the Army fight it's own people?

The Diabolical Monocle · 28-11-2014 03:08PM

FionnK86 wrote: »

Simon Coveney announced that soldiers from the Defence Forces might be required to provide armed protection for all major Irish banks if a cash shortage was triggered, back in 2011.

Read article below:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/get-army-ready-to-protect-banks-central-banks-warning-to-taoiseach-during-crisis-30782109.html

In the situation this occurred, do you believe that Irish troops would fire on its own citizens?

From my own experience living near the Curragh Camp is that the soldiers would never fire on Irish citizens, and would refuse even if ordered to do so.

I'd certainly want them to beat some asses anyway if there was a run on the banks.

If a run catches hold thats my meager savings gone.

As for firing, after a run there'd be rioting and deaths anyway, so probably better to choose the lesser evil, try for a non lethal shot to get the word out and have medics ready and nearby.

Frosty McSnowballs · 28-11-2014 03:12PM

Aliyah Substantial Headphone wrote: »

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

:pac:

Jaysis, imagine how much lighter the kit would be without the rounds! Less hassle too :pac:

Deleted User wrote: »

No offence OP, but what kind of a fantasy world are you living in? "The army" is not one collective conscience that instinctively knows what is and isn't right. They, or rather individual members of it, will open fire in a heartbeat if ordered to

No offence, eh poster but what kind of fantasy world are you living in? Individual members will always use their own judgement if a situation was to arise. They won't just open fire in a heartbeat upon receiving an order to. There are quite stringent and black and white rules to this stuff. You will always have to justify your own actions. The excuse of "I was ordered to" is not sufficient.

The only event where that would happen is if you are being actively engaged and there are zero options. It's hard to see that it would ever come to that.

Deleted User wrote: »

The defence forces have long been used as private security for the banks

Yeah that's also not correct. The protection of large sums of cash shouldn't need to be explained. It's not for the banks benefit either.

super_furry wrote: »

Soldiers are trained killers. They get their orders and they obey, I have no problem believing they'd fire on Irish people.

You are mental

FURET wrote: »

Soldiers are generally the type of people who have no problem following orders.

'Splain please.

Jawgap · 28-11-2014 03:17PM

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

I'd certainly want them to beat some asses anyway if there was a run on the banks.

If a run catches hold thats my meager savings gone.

As for firing, after a run there'd be rioting and deaths anyway, so probably better to choose the lesser evil, try for a non lethal shot to get the word out and have medics ready and nearby.

What film is this again?

Frosty McSnowballs · 28-11-2014 03:19PM

Jawgap wrote: »

What film is this again?

People only die with a head shot.

Jawgap · 28-11-2014 03:20PM

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

People only die with a head shot.

do they not get to re-spawn back down the street?

csallmighty · 28-11-2014 03:21PM

The army should be called in to give these black friday people a beating.

Frosty McSnowballs · 28-11-2014 03:26PM

Jawgap wrote: »

do they not get to re-spawn back down the street?

Ah fcuk, I keep forgetting about that! Sneaky beggars!

Xios · 28-11-2014 03:29PM

The lack of education/knowledge in this thread is appalling.

Larbre34 · 28-11-2014 03:32PM

The absolute pits of negative messaging from FG again.

"You need us"

"You have no idea how bad it was"

"If you think we're bad, wait until you get the alternative"

To every party I would say; ye underestimated the intelligence, the courage and the discernment of the Irish electorate before. Don't ever make that mistake again.

And no, the Army would not have "fought" it own people, it would have defended the buildings it was ordered to from civil disorder, probably using non-lethal weapons and defensive barriers. Even on the worst day of the last 6 years, I doubt even the most pessimistic envisaged live firing against protestors in the streets.

The Diabolical Monocle · 28-11-2014 03:48PM

Jawgap wrote: »

What film is this again?

The one where not every gunshot results in a death.

Staring 50cent and some clueless weasel.

Jawgap · 28-11-2014 04:09PM

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

The one where not every gunshot results in a death.

Staring 50cent and some clueless weasel.

Not every gunshot results in a death, it's the "try for a non lethal shot" statement you made that made me lol!

How does that work then......

Army are surrounding the Central Bank and a sergeant calmly reports to the officer in charge "The sentries report citizens to the south west. FFFhousands of 'em."

At which point the officer barks to the rest of the men "At one hundred yards, volley fire present! Aim........to nick them.........FIRE!......
Volley by ranks! First rank, FIRE! Second rank, FIRE! Third rank, FIRE!" etc etc

jimgoose · 28-11-2014 04:10PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Not every gunshot results in a death, it's the "try for a non lethal shot" statement you made that made me lol!

How does that work then......

Army are surrounding the Central Bank and a sergeant calmly reports to the officer in charge "The sentries report citizens to the south west. FFFhousands of 'em."

At which point the officer barks to the rest of the men "At one hundred yards, volley fire present! Aim........to nick them.........FIRE!......
Volley by ranks! First rank, FIRE! Second rank, FIRE! Third rank, FIRE!" etc etc

"'Eathens every bloody where, sah!!" :pac::pac::pac:

corner of hells · 28-11-2014 04:15PM

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

Jaysis, imagine how much lighter the kit would be without the rounds! Less hassle too :pac:

No offence, eh poster but what kind of fantasy world are you living in? Individual members will always use their own judgement if a situation was to arise. They won't just open fire in a heartbeat upon receiving an order to. There are quite stringent and black and white rules to this stuff. You will always have to justify your own actions. The excuse of "I was ordered to" is not sufficient.

The only event where that would happen is if you are being actively engaged and there are zero options. It's hard to see that it would ever come to that.

Yeah that's also not correct. The protection of large sums of cash shouldn't need to be explained. It's not for the banks benefit either.

You are mental

'Splain please.

As mister pants , you,re ruining the thread , I want someone to talk.about lasers and unicorns .

diomed · 28-11-2014 04:17PM

This sounds like some organisation somewhere is running out of funds.

Xios · 28-11-2014 04:20PM

corner of hells wrote: »

As mister pants , you,re ruining the thread , I want someone to talk.about lasers and unicorns .

Those'll be in the 2016 budget.

Frosty McSnowballs · 28-11-2014 04:21PM

corner of hells wrote: »

As mister pants , you,re ruining the thread , I want someone to talk.about lasers and unicorns .

Zombie unicorns with plasma lasers? Yeah, what Xios said :P

The Diabolical Monocle · 28-11-2014 04:22PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Not every gunshot results in a death, it's the "try for a non lethal shot" statement you made that made me lol!

How does that work then......

Army are surrounding the Central Bank and a sergeant calmly reports to the officer in charge "The sentries report citizens to the south west. FFFhousands of 'em."

At which point the officer barks to the rest of the men "At one hundred yards, volley fire present! Aim........to nick them.........FIRE!......
Volley by ranks! First rank, FIRE! Second rank, FIRE! Third rank, FIRE!" etc etc

Thats just one fictional scenario you have in your mind.

A soldier targeting and shooting a rioter, or looter for example, so as not to kill, and not killing them ... well see thats actually happened back here in reality.

Jawgap · 28-11-2014 04:23PM

jimgoose wrote: »

"'Eathens every bloody where, sah!!" :pac::pac::pac:

Apparently, anti-austerity protestors can run, RRRRUN, 50 miles and fight a battle at the end of it.

jimgoose · 28-11-2014 04:26PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Apparently, anti-austerity protestors can run, RRRRUN, 50 miles and fight a battle at the end of it.

"The Swallows have won!!"

Jawgap · 28-11-2014 04:28PM

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Thats just one fictional scenario you have in your mind.

A soldier targeting and shooting a rioter, or looter for example, so as not to kill, and not killing them ... well see thats actually happened back here in reality.

So Soldier 'A' takes aim in an urban environment and sends a 5.56mm at an unprotected civvy, probably moving erratically - and you reckon when then round arrives it will just knock the guy or girl off his feet !!! Give them a flesh wound???

As I said......LOL.

If a soldier shoots at you and you're still moving after the round arrives you're either lucky or they were a crap aim.

Xios · 28-11-2014 04:32PM

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Thats just one fictional scenario you have in your mind.

A soldier targeting and shooting a rioter, or looter for example, so as not to kill, and not killing them ... well see thats actually happened back here in reality.

You're mis-informed. Lethal force is used to neutalise a threat. When you fire lethal ammo, you are intending to kill your target. There is no such thing as shoot to injure. You do not have a choice where the round lands.

I don't know what hollywood films have you convinced otherwise. There is no such thing as shooting a gun or knife out of someones hand, you shoot them to kill them, end of. If the situation calls for anything non-lethal, rubber bullets, pepper spray, tazers, tear gas, batons are what you use. Cops in the US are trained to empty their entire clip into the threat. You do not discharge your weapon unless you intend to kill that person.

Shooting someone in the leg can nick an artery, they'll bleed out without immediate hospitalization, and in the scenario OP listed, they rioters won't get that care.

Graces7 · 28-11-2014 04:39PM

Somewhat off thread but when I came to Ireland I was shocked and terrified to see soldiers with guns when cash was being delivered. I was in Westport one day waiting in the car for a friend who had business in the bank and the car was surrounded. I have never got used to it. Shudders

Jawgap · 28-11-2014 04:41PM

Xios wrote: »

You're mis-informed. Lethal force is used to neutalise a threat. When you fire lethal ammo, you are intending to kill your target. There is no such thing as shoot to injure. You do not have a choice where the round lands.

I don't know what hollywood films have you convinced otherwise. There is no such thing as shooting a gun or knife out of someones hand, you shoot them to kill them, end of. If the situation calls for anything non-lethal, rubber bullets, pepper spray, tazers, tear gas, batons are what you use. Cops in the US are trained to empty their entire clip into the threat. You do not discharge your weapon unless you intend to kill that person.

Shooting someone in the leg can nick an artery, they'll bleed out without immediate hospitalization, and in the scenario OP listed, they rioters won't get that care.

As Patrick Mayhew said, when asked if there was a shoot-to-kill policy......"Well you don't shoot to tickle. In circumstances where the law permits you to shoot, you shoot to kill"

Jawgap · 28-11-2014 04:48PM

Graces7 wrote: »

Somewhat off thread but when I came to Ireland I was shocked and terrified to see soldiers with guns when cash was being delivered. I was in Westport one day waiting in the car for a friend who had business in the bank and the car was surrounded. I have never got used to it. Shudders

Meh.....it's all relative.

I was in an airport in the UK yesterday and found it disconcerting to see police walking around in what can only be described as paramilitary tactical gear - aside from the chequered baseball caps with 'police' they looked like soldiers.

The other disturbing point was that they seemed to be carrying AR-15s instead of the MP5.

although, I have to say one of them was a female........:D

FionnK86 · 28-11-2014 04:51PM

Okay further to my question at the beginning of the thread, if the army did indeed open fire on a crowd of demonstrators/angry mob/looters, do you believe that civil unrest would follow?

That is to say, it would be the straw that broke the camel's back,and start a civil war?

Graces7 · 28-11-2014 04:51PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Meh.....it's all relative.

I was in an airport in the UK yesterday and found it disconcerting to see police walking around in what can only be described as paramilitary tactical gear - aside from the chequered baseball caps with 'police' they looked like soldiers.

The other disturbing point was that they seemed to be carrying AR-15s instead of the MP5.

although, I have to say one of them was a female........:D

Relative to what please? I came from a small island for decades where there were not even any police! I had never in my long life seen a real gun

Coped a little better in Killarney one day when I found myself caught up in the crowd of them taking up their positions .. awful culture shock! shivers!

Xios · 28-11-2014 04:57PM

FionnK86 wrote: »

Okay further to my question at the beginning of the thread, if the army did indeed open fire on a crowd of demonstrators/angry mob/looters, do you believe that civil unrest would follow?

That is to say, it would be the straw that broke the camel's back,and start a civil war?

No.

To Clarify. For a civil war to happen. You need to 2 or more opposing sides. Do you see a clear divide in the nation? Dubs vs culchies? There are no serious ethnic divides in Ireland. Maybe in northern Ireland the Protestants and Catholics would be a concern, but gone are the days of the power struggle between political ideologies. We are in a stable state and in the event of a soldier or soldiers firing on citizens, then they'd likely just be arrested or shot by their fellow soldiers.

On the firing ranges in the defence forces, I believe there's an armed marshal behind the guys firing while training, just in case one of them snaps and decides to go 'full metal jacket' and shoot his colleagues.

Jawgap · 28-11-2014 05:00PM

FionnK86 wrote: »

Okay further to my question at the beginning of the thread, if the army did indeed open fire on a crowd of demonstrators/angry mob/looters, do you believe that civil unrest would follow?

That is to say, it would be the straw that broke the camel's back,and start a civil war?

Why are you speaking in mod......

I don't believe the Army would open fire on looters because the civil authority wouldn't order them too.

This is not the US and it's only property - if people were looting I'd imagine the Garda would be out trying to make arrests (perhaps with the assistance / protection of the Army in their 'aid to the civil power' role) and gathering up CCTV footage to catch the feckers later.

Frosty McSnowballs · 28-11-2014 05:05PM

Xios wrote: »

On the firing ranges in the defence forces, I believe there's an armed marshal behind the guys firing while training, just in case one of them snaps and decides to go 'full metal jacket' and shoot his colleagues.

You clearly know too much, and as such, we need to eliminate you.

The Diabolical Monocle · 28-11-2014 05:16PM

Jawgap wrote: »

So Soldier 'A' takes aim in an urban environment and sends a 5.56mm at an unprotected civvy, probably moving erratically - and you reckon when then round arrives it will just knock the guy or girl off his feet !!! Give them a flesh wound???

As I said......LOL.

If a soldier shoots at you and you're still moving after the round arrives you're either lucky or they were a crap aim.

"...and you reckon...?".

Well no, I dont.

Please try to not go off into your own little world again.

Theres been no mention of the central bank or thousands of rioters either (as per your earlier post).

Or, in Xios's case, that a nicked artery cannot cause death.

Rather that in a situation where the word must get out to prevent chaos and prevent as many deaths as possible that it would be advisable to

"try for a non lethal shot to get the word out and have medics ready and nearby."

Shooting to wound does indeed exist, a simple google search will prove this, and in a situation where all else has failed and a financial implosion due to the acts of rioters may later cost lives it would be a sensible approach if you wanted minimum un-necessary deaths.

Even moreso the case if there are trained medics nearby.
In Ireland the shooting of a rioter would definitely get a whole lot of attention very quickly and would change a lot of attitides, possibly saving more lives than 1.

Thats pretty much the contention of my first post.

If you disagree with the logic, well ... perhaps you'd have a better solution.

Would the Army fight it's own people?

Comments