Would the Army fight it's own people?

mcko · 29-11-2014 12:21AM

What's the differance between the Irish Army and toast.

mcko · 29-11-2014 12:23AM

mcko wrote: »

What's the differance between the Irish Army and toast.

You can make soldiers out of toast.

IsaacWunder · 29-11-2014 12:36AM

This whole thread is based on a deluded premise by Simon Coveny. If, as he puts it, "the banks" had no money then the state, which had guaranteed the complete liabilities of said banks, would also have no money.

Now you don't have to be Cormac McCarthy to figure out what the army would be used for if the government became bankrupt overnight. Assuming they showed up to work, our soldiers wouldn't be standing outside the AIB with bayonets, they'd be standing on the backs of lorries in housing estates around the country handing out food rations.

Fukuyama · 29-11-2014 12:39AM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I thought the whole point of moving to smaller rounds was to try and reduce fatalities and cause injury instead as it takes more people out of the picture dealing with the injured soldier/person rather than being able to simply ignore a corpse

I know the British switched because bullets kept going through brick walls and killing people in their houses in NI.

The 5.56mm flares out and tears up flesh pretty well - but it has less power and is less likely thump through a wall.

NATO found that most engagements occurred at 200 meters maximum, so the need for distance the larger rounds provided wasn't there any more (for infantry).

It backfired in Vietnam when they switched to the M16 - US troops found that their bullets had a hard time going through trees, bricks and other such cover. Where as the NVA and VK had AK47s; a bullet from which zips right through most walls, trees and just about anything. This led to US troops picking up AK47s to fight with. The US suppressed press reports of this because it didn't look too great for a US soldier during the cold war to fight communists with a Russian, communist assault rifle.

Manach · 29-11-2014 12:45AM

I've been in lectures with Irish Soldiers. They are professionals with a clear understanding of their duty and their obligations under both Irish and Human rights conventions. Thus they should be able to act in an informed manner.

Jawgap · 29-11-2014 07:04AM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I thought the whole point of moving to smaller rounds was to try and reduce fatalities and cause injury instead as it takes more people out of the picture dealing with the injured soldier/person rather than being able to simply ignore a corpse

That would be 'illegal' under various international conventions. Same way armed forces are not supposed to use dum-dums(or any kind of expanding bullet) - because they cause excessive and inhumane wounds. However, the prohibition applies only to 'international' conflicts. Domestically, they or the police can blaze away at their own citizens with them or hollow points.

The 5.56mm round has been criticised though because it did tend to lack hitting power over longer ranges (350m +) but in an urban environment at street level ranges are going to be quite short. It's lighter than the 7.62mm round so more of it can be carried, and has less of a recoil meaning aim is less affected.

Fired on a crowded street it'll do a lot of damage - plus I'd say you'd get a lot of ricochets which would cause nasty wounds when they struck people.

Manic Moran · 29-11-2014 07:16AM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I thought the whole point of moving to smaller rounds was to try and reduce fatalities and cause injury instead as it takes more people out of the picture dealing with the injured soldier/person rather than being able to simply ignore a corpse

The reason they moved to the 5.56mm was that it was a good balance between performance and weight. A soldier with a battle load of 210 5.56mm rounds was going to hit more enemies than with 140 7.62mm rounds. In addition to more rounds per pound of weight he had to carry, the lighter recoil helped him to aim. 5.56mm was still large enough to be effective on the battlefield though, no point in going to .22 or anything!

Graces7 · 29-11-2014 09:20AM

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?

IF the situation on December 10th escalates we may just find out... It may shock folk into acting more sensibly.. and no as the majority are law abiding

Graces7 · 29-11-2014 09:25AM

Stojkovic wrote: »

Yes they would and so would the Gardai.

Try for yourself.

Climb over the railings at Dail Eireann and run towards the building and see what happens to you !!!

They have tasers now..

John Mongo · 29-11-2014 11:41AM

RoscommonTom wrote: »

The state of the Irish army, a few oul women coming out of mass of a Sunday would beat them in a scrap,

Someone should have told the al Nusra Front that.

They haven't had enjoyable experiences when they crossed paths with Irish troops.

Awkward Badger · 29-11-2014 12:06PM

I see a lot of talk about fighting for, defending the state, "their own people", duty and obligations etc. But in a situation of a cash shortage and potential economic collapse being a soldier in the army becomes a relatively stable financially secured job where very few exist. Their wages would be prioritised given their importance in maintaining order.

Peoples duty and obligations are primarily towards doing what's best for themselves and families. I'd imagine notions of duty to the country and people would quickly go out the window and it would be very easy to justify carrying out orders when the result of not doing so would land you on the other side of the barricades desperate for money to take care of yourself and family.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 29-11-2014 12:33PM

Awkward Badger wrote: »

I'd imagine

No need to imagine (there's been a lot of it in this thread already).

In short if the army is called upon to go to the aid of the civil powers, or civil authorities then generally (always) soldiers will do what they're told to do.

If a member of the public tries to violate any installation our defence forces are protecting you can expect to be shot at. Its that simple.

Someone mentioned storming Leinster House, its protected by a military police garrison who are armed 24/7. Try it if you don't believe me.

Someone else mentioned the DF not having bullets in their weapons on UN peace keeping duties ~ one of the stupidest things posted in this thread.

And someone said on the ranges (firing range) there's an armed sentry behind the firing point ready to shot if someone goes mad ~ THE stupidest thing posted here.. Stop listening to the voices.

Oh yes, we're all "trained killers" ~ no, that's the preserve of the cooks & some of our medics :P

irish gent · 29-11-2014 12:42PM

Well put it this way ! just look at the Garda , With using pepper spray and assaulting people over the water installers we all saw it on the news...So I guarantee you the Army would use the bullets..

Jawgap · 29-11-2014 01:02PM

irish gent wrote: »

Well put it this way ! just look at the Garda , With using pepper spray and assaulting people over the water installers we all saw it on the news...So I guarantee you the Army would use the bullets..

I didn't. I saw people trying to go to their legitimate work, and being abused for it before being given plenty of warning to obey the law of the land or face the consequences - some chose option 'B' and were duly accommodated.

Anyway, it may also be worth reflecting on the fact that the Defence Forces are not some monolithic organisation. They are composed of citizens like the rest us who are armed and trained.

If such a plan ever existed, and I doubt it did or does - you can bet that some fairly senior officers would have provided some very frank advice to ministers and civil servants as regards their 'plan' for putting troops on the streets. Having been advised on the potential consequences, no doubt the Army would have gone ahead and done their best, if the civilian authorities deemed it necessary and were willing to risk the consequences.

Fukuyama · 29-11-2014 01:19PM

There are also numerous situations where an army being used instead of the police can actually calm a situation. If the police were 'the problem' then the deployment of troops might be welcomed by the local population.

British troops were originally welcomed into the Bogside by nationalists in 1969 because the RUC were seen as the problem. Similarly in the US, racial tensions in the past were often caused by the police so military forces were used as they were not seen by the local populace as "the problem".

In an Irish context, I think far too many people take the view that a garda pushing someone out of the way of a ministers car or protecting Irish Water is some kind of state sanctioned brutality. When in actual fact the gardaí take a very soft approach to dealing with crowds compared to any other country I can think of.

I think this soft approach (and other societal issues) often leads of a lack of respect towards gardaí during "angry mob" situations. People have no problem getting up in a gardas face, screaming, threatening, pushing, throwing things yet seem appalled at the 'brutality' of the gardaí defending themselves themselves. Ironically, the 'kid gloves' approach of the gardaí could actually result in an earlier need to deploy troops in Ireland than in other nations if there was a real civil unrest problem.

Jawgap · 29-11-2014 01:30PM

Frankly the Guards should be allowed to tw@t anyone who asks if they are on their oath

The provocation is unreal.......I think the Guards here are proper heroes, the demeanour in the face of these tools is pretty impressive......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLKo8Jztd6c

The Diabolical Monocle · 29-11-2014 02:00PM

Jawgap wrote: »

the demeanour in the face of these tools is pretty impressive.

Yes I know the feeling.

DarkyHughes · 29-11-2014 02:35PM

Weren't they pulled out of peacekeeping missions for a few years after the Dublin/Monaghan bombings?

irish gent · 29-11-2014 02:48PM

Jawgap you miss the point !!!! you are repeating what I was thinking ??

discus · 29-11-2014 02:52PM

Xios wrote: »

You've been watching too many hollywood movies.

http://www.historynet.com/men-against-fire-how-many-soldiers-actually-fired-their-weapons-at-the-enemy-during-the-vietnam-war.htm

Cheers for that. I would love to watch some movies but I've been busy, being on the border of Iraq and Jordan. You know, since I'm a serving soldier and all that.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 29-11-2014 02:57PM

Jawgap wrote: »

The provocation is unreal.......I think the Guards here are proper heroes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLKo8Jztd6c

I think they're a shower of fucking arseholes.

John Mongo · 29-11-2014 03:21PM

discus wrote: »

Cheers for that. I would love to watch some movies but I've been busy, being on the border of Iraq and Jordan. You know, since I'm a serving soldier and all that.

It doesn't matter if you're a serving soldier.

You obviously haven't read the articles about serving soldiers that these people have, so you obviously haven't a clue... Or something like that.

EazyD · 29-11-2014 04:24PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Frankly the Guards should be allowed to tw@t anyone who asks if they are on their oath

The provocation is unreal.......I think the Guards here are proper heroes, the demeanour in the face of these tools is pretty impressive......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLKo8Jztd6c

Heroes are people who stand up for what's right in the face of adversity. These guys have as much integrity as paper foundations.

YFlyer · 29-11-2014 04:32PM

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/49247-why-you-dont-want-get-shot-5-56mm-warning-graphic.html

D'OH !!

Jayus it be at least 2 months off running with that.

GLaDOS · 29-11-2014 05:18PM

Aliyah Substantial Headphone wrote: »

I think they're a shower of fucking arseholes.

Dial down the aggression

Jawgap · 29-11-2014 05:23PM

EazyD wrote: »

Heroes are people who stand up for what's right in the face of adversity. These guys have as much integrity as paper foundations.

Really? Perhaps you could point to the part of the video where the Guards start hurling provocative (and ill informed) insults at the protesters?

I'd say fair play to the Guards - they've a rotten job to do, they've had their pay cut and no doubt quite a few agree with the idea that Irish Water is a complete disaster but they pull on the uniform and quietly and professionally go about the job.

I wonder if they suffered a crime or were in a car accident would they be as quick to hurl abuse at Garda arriving to help them?

Same with the installation crews. They're just people trying to do a day's work.

If the people protesting are so convinced of the correctness of their arguments why don't they chip in and fund a court appeal - they'll get their costs back.........if they're correct.

EazyD · 29-11-2014 05:25PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Really? Perhaps you could point to the part of the video where the Guards start hurling provocative (and ill informed) insults at the protesters?

I'd say fair play to the Guards - they've a rotten job to do, they've had their pay cut and no doubt quite a few agree with the idea that Irish Water is a complete disaster but they pull on the uniform and quietly and professionally go about the job.

I wonder if they suffered a crime or were in a car accident would they be as quick to hurl abuse at Garda arriving to help them?

Same with the installation crews. They're just people trying to do a day's work.

If the people protesting are so convinced of the correctness of their arguments why don't they chip in and fund a court appeal - they'll get their costs back.........if they're correct.

So turning up for work makes them "heroes"? Right ok

jimgoose · 29-11-2014 05:31PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

The reason they moved to the 5.56mm was that it was a good balance between performance and weight. A soldier with a battle load of 210 5.56mm rounds was going to hit more enemies than with 140 7.62mm rounds. In addition to more rounds per pound of weight he had to carry, the lighter recoil helped him to aim. 5.56mm was still large enough to be effective on the battlefield though, no point in going to .22 or anything!

Aye. I'd just add that a fully steel-jacketed projectile, with the high muzzle velocity of 5.56mm NATO, is somewhat less likely to pulverise bone and tissue in all wound scenarios than .30-cal based cartridges like .308 Winchester and 7.62mm Soviet.

Jawgap · 29-11-2014 05:35PM

EazyD wrote: »

So turning up for work makes them "heroes"? Right ok

'Hero' was a bit of hyperbole on my part but maintaining a high degree of professionalism is not an easy thing. Especially when people are being deliberately provocative in the way some of the mobs have been. Irish people still haven't a clue how to engage in effective civil disobedience.

Plus while those protestors are asleep in bed tonight what do you think those Guards will be doing?

Finally, what a pity we can't get so many people as animated about the homelessness situation or the HSE.

jimgoose · 29-11-2014 05:37PM

YFlyer wrote: »

Jayus it be at least 2 months off running with that.

Broken bone and some bad laceration, amplified by infection, looks like. An 1880 single-action .45 at that range would have taken the leg off.

Would the Army fight it's own people?

Comments