Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
White Paper - When is it due to be published?
Collapse
X
-
The fact that the USAF used Shannon during GW1, Afghanistan and GW2 shows its strategic importance.
They could have easily used facilities elsewhere in Europe but didn't.
It is practically unthinkable but IMHO something along those lines is the most likely (however unlikely it may be) external coventional threat we face.
Comment
-
... RE: INVASION!! & hover tanks?..Well, in my second post did start off by using the words ‘token’ ‘examples’ ‘modicum’ and ‘deterrent’, the extreme unlikelihood of scenario ‘A’ or possibility of an effective counter to it - and put more focus on scenarios ‘B’ and ‘C’ with mention of considerations of (i) and (ii).
What I did hint at, was that if the existence of the Defence Forces is ‘tolerated’ by the general public as an insurance policy for the country against the ‘just in case’ – that this then means that it should be able to offer a bit more of a opposition to the kind of attack a nation state is more likely to encounter in this age. Scenarios ‘A’ (‘boots on the ground’)(total imagination land) and then ‘B’ and ‘C’ are not very likely, but some defence against them is what people are paying for. Regards likelihood of such attacks, you could say the same for most European armies/nations. (I did not really put much thought into who the ‘bad guys’ would be breaking one of our windows...but the US and UK would be some of the last I would place bets on for doing such).
But how about a laboured analogy about it...
People do not like to be told that the expensive insurance they pay for will only cover them for various small ills, but will not cover them for even the initial treatment of a serious medical problem in their relative youth (no matter how unlikely) though perhaps, if the medical problem hangs around long enough to do some damage – it might then be able to offer payment for some low-level treatments. But, no preventative treatment, no way. Customers would probably say; ‘That’s not what I thought, i’m not expecting to live forever, but i’d like to pay less then next year please, or give me a different policy for the same price - that does cover me better!’.
Exploring this premise, I also intimated that the Defence Forces ‘might’ have to be rebalanced, with the Army possibly becoming smaller to allow (pay) for it to be more technically advanced, and the Air Corp and Naval Service correspondingly improving and expanding. I did suggest making the Reserves bigger, with financial incentives increasing with time spent and commitment (but volunteerism and not pay, being the operative words), but I don’t think I suggested making the PDF substantially bigger, or bigger at all – so as to be able to repel any and all comers.
What i’m suggesting is a bit more of a hard edge to the DF (within reason) as in principle, its ‘raison d’être’ is national defence (..?), but in the day-to-day, that say half of that ‘hard edge’ be deployed with the UN overseas and retaining a viable stance in those missions.
For example, to possibly lead less advanced, non-western UN forces, and to help prevent different tribes/factions/countries from massacring each other’s towns and villages, and be less dependent on other UN forces bigger than our own.
Putting acquisition of equipment in such a frame of – use mostly in UN service abroad – it can be explained that the ‘bad guys’ often have the ‘hard stuff’ to hand (armour, aircraft, artillery) – or at least some equipment roundly comparable to our own (but with far more personnel) and the need to travel over rough/ sandy/ muddy roads across vast countries. That that hard stuff is so then needed by our PDF too, AND that same hard edge stuff should/could also exist to be able to put up, at least in principle, a bit of a fight, back home in case another nation threatens lashing out. (Noting that even the other small countries, e.g. in Scandinavia, Austria and Portugal in Europe will still have more of it than we do). This are reasons which could be more easily explained to, justified and be sympathetically heard by the public. Particularly the UN service bit, people would not I think, have too much of a problem with the DF trying to ennoble the UN through undertaking its own UN missions well. Think the big Congo missions, Lebanon, Somalia - the missions that will be in many citizen’s consciousness, or vague recollections of school child history.
It would be unwise to entertain the idea I believe (and this is about as cynical as I will get) that the populace is as interested or enamoured with militarily popular, military response only undertakings such as Afghanistan (for armies and air forces), pirates in the gulf/Africa (for navies) and Libya and Syria (for air forces).
I just do not believe that people will accept NATO 'club' membership as a good thing or, especially as a justifier for military improvements – people are extra cynical ‘in this day and age’ – and probably with more than good reason(s). Post Yugoslavia and Rwanda it would not have been such a difficult and divisive argument to make, post Iraq and Afghanistan I think it is.
As for Ukraine/East Ukraine, that seems far too analogous and close to Ireland - i.e. immediately post independence, and WW1&WW2, for comfort and to contemplate.
I think because of the small size of the country (and emigration, and yes...mostly ’neutral’ stance), Irish people are more prone to having a fairly wide and savvy view of world events, and a good appreciation of history e.g. domestically – colony/terrorist-freedom fighter/independence – more so than of the sometimes partisan/somewhat insular/unaware views of some people from much larger countries – at least in my casual experience anyway. For example, you could be forgiven for not have been aware I think, from watching British or American news media, that there was any nations other than the British or American militaries respectively, in the Afghanistan conflict in recent years].
Say to people: WWII – NATO; they may say back; Triple-Entente – WWI. You say: dictator/terrorists - Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran – they say; oil/WMD/’Reds under the Beds’/ Middle East mess. There is nothing wrong with been a little circumspect and diplomatic when it comes to world events. Would the White Paper reflect, or need to reflect on such nuances?!
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by sofa View PostDidn't the Russians do a practice bombing run at a Swedish city not to long ago??.
What if one of the bombers that flew down the west coast recently turned and did a run at Liverpool or Cardiff over Irish airspace,
The Russians could have done a practice run at Liverpool/Cardiff (there is nothing to stop them) But does anybody know what they done after the RAF stopped chasing them and the Portuguese picked them up.
Comment
-
I have to say I think whingeNot makes a valid point. There is definitely a case for giving the entire DF an increased capability in terms of it’s ability to provide a conventional deterrent. The amount of times I’ve read that the roe of the Cavalry s “reece” and that it’s there to identify and quantify enemy threats so that other elements in the DF can engage and destroy. What other elements? The heaviest vehicles we have are in the Cav so what are we proposing? Asking some other army to come along and get rid of the problem for us? Oops cant do that were neutral
There is definitely a case to be made to replace the scorps with something like a CV90 to probably double the amount of Mowag’s increase Air defence capability (Land to air) and either scrap the Air Corps and sign a formal defence agreement with the RAF or else develop a nascent air to Air capability ourselves. 2 EPv’s for the navy with a nascent antisubmarine capability isn’t a bad idea either
IN broader strategic terms I think all of you are missing some very fundamental potential changes to our strategic environment in the coming 10 years.
1. UK decides in a referendum to leave the EU? What happens Scotland? What happens NI? What happens the UK itself? What in turn then happens to the EU? It’s not impossible to imagine a scenario where the UK breaks up, Scotland and NI vote to stay in the EU and England votes to leave. Do we then have a two tier Europe? Do e have to take NI into the republic? What happens the DF in such a scenario (name change for starters but also potential defence agreement with the UK? Remember if the UK pulls out of NI this Island becomes VERY strategically important all of a sudden.
2. Given the confusion and turmoil such a scenario would create what attitude would Putin take to all of this? (And by the way was ANYONE predicting war in Ukraine and the annexation (yes that old word from the 30’s – annexation) of Crimea even 5 years ago?
It’s clear Putin wishes to re-establish Russian hegemony in it’s near western shphere. It’s also clear that Putin thinks (And is probably right) that he could do anything he likes short of using chemical biological or nuclear weapons and or drive the “4th Guards tank Army” back into Warsaw before the west would do anything.
3. Our DF is there to be expanded in case of an emergency. Lets make sure we have corporate knowledge of relevant systems so that there is something there to expand. Currenlty we are not close enough to where we need to be.
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pure Hover View PostWhingeNot - your musings make for interesting reading and I do hope you submitted them for condideration during the WP process. Whether they'll be considered or even read is another matter entirely. Most commentators with a modicum of interest in our DF await the publication of the new WP with a sense of hopeful anticipation that it will provide a pathway or framework for the use and development of our forces for the next decade or so.
Four years delay aside I don't have much confidence that we'll see the sort of lofty strategic document, most likely now quietly published Christmas week or so, that we all hope for. Essentially because those writing the document i.e. DOD policy branch don't have the necessary knowledge or strategic vision to complete the process. Give it to the SPO to complete a draft and then you'd see an altogether different document.
The capabilities of our forces have been progressively and systematically eroded by a drive to reduce numbers. We now see ourselves with three major obstacles to clear before any real recovery can take place; 1. The lowest Defence spend per GDP in The EU. 2. The chronic low pay of a lot of our soldiers 3. The continuing increase in pension provision for mass retirements that must be paid for out of the Defence Vote
Address these first and then get people who know what they're talking about to write a White Paper.
The DoD's job is to advise the Minister (and by extension the Government) on Defence policy (eg finance, property, C&A, PfP, EU etc)
It is the COS's job to advise the Minster on defence matters (ie the threat level, how many troops you need to do x, etc)
The problem is the cross over and co-ordination of the issues. It is probably part of the reason the DF was historical run down.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Banner View PostI have to say I think whingeNot makes a valid point. There is definitely a case for giving the entire DF an increased capability in terms of it’s ability to provide a conventional deterrent. The amount of times I’ve read that the roe of the Cavalry s “reece” and that it’s there to identify and quantify enemy threats so that other elements in the DF can engage and destroy. What other elements? The heaviest vehicles we have are in the Cav so what are we proposing? Asking some other army to come along and get rid of the problem for us? Oops cant do that were neutral
There is definitely a case to be made to replace the scorps with something like a CV90 to probably double the amount of Mowag’s increase Air defence capability (Land to air) and either scrap the Air Corps and sign a formal defence agreement with the RAF or else develop a nascent air to Air capability ourselves. 2 EPv’s for the navy with a nascent antisubmarine capability isn’t a bad idea either
IN broader strategic terms I think all of you are missing some very fundamental potential changes to our strategic environment in the coming 10 years.
1. UK decides in a referendum to leave the EU? What happens Scotland? What happens NI? What happens the UK itself? What in turn then happens to the EU? It’s not impossible to imagine a scenario where the UK breaks up, Scotland and NI vote to stay in the EU and England votes to leave. Do we then have a two tier Europe? Do e have to take NI into the republic? What happens the DF in such a scenario (name change for starters but also potential defence agreement with the UK? Remember if the UK pulls out of NI this Island becomes VERY strategically important all of a sudden.
2. Given the confusion and turmoil such a scenario would create what attitude would Putin take to all of this? (And by the way was ANYONE predicting war in Ukraine and the annexation (yes that old word from the 30’s – annexation) of Crimea even 5 years ago?
It’s clear Putin wishes to re-establish Russian hegemony in it’s near western shphere. It’s also clear that Putin thinks (And is probably right) that he could do anything he likes short of using chemical biological or nuclear weapons and or drive the “4th Guards tank Army” back into Warsaw before the west would do anything.
3. Our DF is there to be expanded in case of an emergency. Lets make sure we have corporate knowledge of relevant systems so that there is something there to expand. Currenlty we are not close enough to where we need to be.
International relations (and defence) are "excepted matters" for the NI Assembly -- iea get can't vote to stay in the EU
The island is a strategic location now
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Banner View PostI have to say I think whingeNot makes a valid point. There is definitely a case for giving the entire DF an increased capability in terms of it’s ability to provide a conventional deterrent. The amount of times I’ve read that the roe of the Cavalry s “reece” and that it’s there to identify and quantify enemy threats so that other elements in the DF can engage and destroy. What other elements? The heaviest vehicles we have are in the Cav so what are we proposing? Asking some other army to come along and get rid of the problem for us? Oops cant do that were neutral
There is definitely a case to be made to replace the scorps with something like a CV90 to probably double the amount of Mowag’s increase Air defence capability (Land to air) and either scrap the Air Corps and sign a formal defence agreement with the RAF or else develop a nascent air to Air capability ourselves. 2 EPv’s for the navy with a nascent antisubmarine capability isn’t a bad idea either
IN broader strategic terms I think all of you are missing some very fundamental potential changes to our strategic environment in the coming 10 years.
1. UK decides in a referendum to leave the EU? What happens Scotland? What happens NI? What happens the UK itself? What in turn then happens to the EU? It’s not impossible to imagine a scenario where the UK breaks up, Scotland and NI vote to stay in the EU and England votes to leave. Do we then have a two tier Europe? Do e have to take NI into the republic? What happens the DF in such a scenario (name change for starters but also potential defence agreement with the UK? Remember if the UK pulls out of NI this Island becomes VERY strategically important all of a sudden.
2. Given the confusion and turmoil such a scenario would create what attitude would Putin take to all of this? (And by the way was ANYONE predicting war in Ukraine and the annexation (yes that old word from the 30’s – annexation) of Crimea even 5 years ago?
It’s clear Putin wishes to re-establish Russian hegemony in it’s near western shphere. It’s also clear that Putin thinks (And is probably right) that he could do anything he likes short of using chemical biological or nuclear weapons and or drive the “4th Guards tank Army” back into Warsaw before the west would do anything.
3. Our DF is there to be expanded in case of an emergency. Lets make sure we have corporate knowledge of relevant systems so that there is something there to expand. Currenlty we are not close enough to where we need to be.What are you cackling at, fatty? Too much pie, that's your problem.
- Likes 3
Comment
-
"The island is a strategic location now"
Yes Dev but currently the 6 northern counties of this island including a major international airport and a deepwater port are Soverign UK territory and a fully paid up leading member of NATO. If NI was to decide (in the context of a Uk decision to leave the EU) that it would be better off negotiating a more formal agreement with the republic what then? If NI was to leave NATO and the UK this island would suddenly become MASSIVELY strategically important.
ASk yourself this, would Briatin have left Ireland totally unmolested in WW2 had NI not been part of the UK? (I seriously doubt it)
it is EXTREMELY likely there will be a referendum on UK membership of the EU in the next 5 years.
It's EXTREMELY likely that a majority will vote to leave BUT Scotland and NI would vote to stay
What happens then? Does the rest of the UK FORCE Scotland to leave the EU against it's will. What of NI? There are serious questions coming down the tracks that nobody can predict an answer to.
WE might find ourselves part of a 32 county republic INSIDE the commonwealth and NATO (or perhaps with a bilateral defence arrangement with the UK) before we know it.
the one thing I am very happy to predict is this, the status quo will not be acceptable over the course of the next 10 years.
Things are gonna change - big time. Lets debate, look at all the issues have an open and frank discussion and be better prepared as a result.
Oh and I suspect another massive elephant in the strategic room is climate change but that's a whole different story.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DeV View PostThis is the part of the problem
The DoD's job is to advise the Minister (and by extension the Government) on Defence policy (eg finance, property, C&A, PfP, EU etc)
It is the COS's job to advise the Minster on defence matters (ie the threat level, how many troops you need to do x, etc)
The problem is the cross over and co-ordination of the issues. It is probably part of the reason the DF was historical run down.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by Banner View Postthe one thing I am very happy to predict is this, the status quo will not be acceptable over the course of the next 10 years.
Things are gonna change - big time. Lets debate, look at all the issues have an open and frank discussion and be better prepared as a result.
Yet it has survived - and I don't see it going away, short of a major external military threat specifically targeting this state - or threatening the UK via our water/airspace.
As long as neither of those eventualities occur, we'll carry on being "neutral", because it's the cheapest, politically expedient option; because the UK & US are happy enough to play along with it; and it comes with feck all responsibilities.
I don't think there's any chance of NI leaving UK within 25 yrs, let alone 10. An EU referendum wont force the issue - I think you underestimate the ability of politicians to bend/compromise & adapt.
If we woke up tomorrow and NI was part of a 32 county State - the imperative that would drive increased spending on Defense would be wholly internal & very very expensive. And you could forget Air Defence, CIWS for ships, ASW capability, MBT's, whatever.
Regarding your point about WW2 - if partition hadn't happened & instead there was a healthy, independent 32 county state where Republican & Unionist were elected & proportionally represented in the Dáil - our relationship with Britain would have been fundamentally different & I think there would have been a very good chance that we'd have joined their war effort, if not from the get go - then after the first German raid on H&W etc.
Anyway - yeah that's just my opinion, I think it's good to have a debate, it's good to outline the costs associated with different levels of defensive capabilities.
Any significant leap will come at eye watering cost.
Comment
-
with regards to the issue of different constituant parts of the UK having different views on membership of the EU, Denmark provides an example: when Denmark joined it contained Greenland, which, just like the suburbs of Copenhagen became part of the EU. however Greenland, while remaining part of the Kingdom of Denmark, left the EU.
it could be done, though i accept entirely that the UK is a rather more complex issue than Denmark/Greenland.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pure Hover View PostDoD don't just advise the Minister on Defence policy, they set Defence Policy and largely ignore the inputs of the CoS. You hardly think the Minister is setting the agenda for the White Paper do you? The rest of the Gov't are largely clueless or disinterested when it comes to Defence and the DoD exploit this, relentlessly cutting numbers and resources at the whim of their only masters - Dept of Finance.
Comment
Comment