Thanks Thanks:  159
Likes Likes:  510
Dislikes Dislikes:  15
Page 4 of 25 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 608
  1. #76
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,753
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Banner View Post
    Hmm Interesting debate. I think the whole point is that the future relationship of NI to the UK and to the republic is uncertain. Remember (like it or not) that SF could well be in power both sides of the border soon enough and we could be looking at a 32 county referendum on a united Ireland shortly afterwards. It probably wouldnt get enough votes to pass but there is a clearly agreed path (as part of the Stormont Agreement) for NI to form part of a united Ireland.

    Anyway interesting article on wider European defence policy and strategic thinking. Some of this is relevant to the debate here.

    https://www.project-syndicate.org/co...fense-doctrine
    Just wondering where you plan to deport all the non Republicans from NI to.

    The White paper is about the Defence forces of the 26 county state in the south. The Politics of the 6 County British state in the north is only of concern if its citizens are intent on destabilising the security of the south or its border area.
    At present they are not.

  2. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  3. #77
    Corporal
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    55
    Post Thanks / Like
    Here's a scenario that was published by the daily mail back in 2011 it is vastly over the top but could a melt down of the Eurozone impact the defence of the state.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rk-battle.html

  4. #78
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    ...At present they are not.
    and?

    at present it is winter, does that mean that for the next 10 years - and going by past history the next 15 - the defence doctrine of the state should not involve the wearing of t-shirts or the using of sun cream?

    the white paper exists to prepare the DF - and wider government - to face the challenges the state is likely to face over the next 10/15 years, and to put in place a process/mechanism that will allow the state to respond to challenges that are, at present, either not foreseen or not considered likely to happen. anyone who believes - particularly after the Scottish referendum and its still occuring aftermath, as well as the potential SF issue both north and south of the border - that the UK is likely to have the same territorial borders in 2025 as it does now, is quite simply on crack.

    it is my view, as a very interested observer and participant, that neither Scotland nor NI will be within the UK, assuming such a thing were even to continue to exist in bastard form, by 2025. and i do not believe that the process will be amicable. if i were you, i would would take that as a warning that our political problems are going to arrive on your doorstep, and i would make preperations.

  5. Thanks sofa, SwiftandSure thanked for this post
  6. #79
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,976
    Post Thanks / Like
    If the White Paper even alluded to a DF public order/ATCP role in NI, can you imagine how things would kick off?

    I've no doubt that contingencies are being looked at, but secretly and by the same ranks that planned Exercise Armageddon.

    Going to have nightmares tonight now though ropebag, cheers for that.

  7. Likes ropebag liked this post
  8. #80
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,753
    Post Thanks / Like
    The last paper designed a defence force based on the benign security situation that existed in 1999. After it was published, 9/11 happened. 7/7 happened. More pipe bombs made by former irish terrorists started appearing in the front gardens of Dublin criminals and others. We entered a major recession.
    The white paper was not changed. The Defence forces however adapted to the new situations, and went through a number of restructures that were outside the scope of the white paper.

    The White paper cannot predict and try to prepare for all eventualities. It can only work from the current situation, and seek to be better prepared to adapt as required, while being in the best possible situation to carry out current tasks. Otherwise we are back to hovertanks.

  9. Thanks Truck Driver thanked for this post
    Likes Pure Hover liked this post
  10. #81
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    373
    Post Thanks / Like
    Europe faces a huge asymmetric threat in the years to come from Islamic Fundamentalism, the likes of IS a serious ongoing threat and a portent of what's to come. Europe's been there before of course and it was the Austrians then who saved the day but then the threat was more of a conventional nature. To face this current threat Europe will need robust and flexible Defence policies and a contribution from ALL member states in terms of men and material and not vacuous policy statements.

    The White Paper needs to look at these international threats which can and will threaten Ireland and needs to formulate a response to what Ireland will do in the event of these eventualities. I'd contend that Ireland's current refusal to integrate into a European collective defence under an outdated and misguided "neutrality" concept will not serve it well. Perhaps more importantly however is the continued loss in troop numbers and experience and the ongoing efforts to eliminate the Reserve which means that when a robust response is eventually required it simply may not be available.

    It will be too late then for recriminations.

  11. Thanks SwiftandSure, FMP thanked for this post
    Likes SwiftandSure, FMP liked this post
  12. #82
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,542
    Post Thanks / Like
    The WP's job is to set the overall situation, it will not go into great detail on any issue. Nor should it as it is there to set strategic Government policies in general situation terms.

    It will cover the broad threats (eg disidents, fundamentalists etc) - as those the GP - it will not say if they do x we will do y. It will say something like maintain capability to respond to threats etc.

    Neutrality will also be covered.

    But a majority of the Irish electorate decided they didn't want the various EU security bits.

  13. #83
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    373
    Post Thanks / Like
    I share your aspirations Dev for a strategic balanced document but I'm not convinced that those tasked with its drafting have the necessary strategic vision or knowledge to produce such a document.

    If you want to have contingent capabilities espoused in any White Paper, then you have to develop and enhance them from current forces and not continuously seek to erode them - like what's happening at present.
    Last edited by Pure Hover; 7th December 2014 at 17:52.

  14. Thanks SwiftandSure thanked for this post
  15. #84
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    529
    Post Thanks / Like
    Only two things will result in a serious consideration of military capacity. An unimaginable surfeit of cash for a protracted period, or a serious existential threat.
    The first won't happen in a hurry and the second will only be acknowledged when it's too late to do anything about it.
    Even joining NATO is no guarantee of proper military spending, as most of its members budgets will attest.

  16. Likes pym, DeV, Truck Driver liked this post
  17. #85
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,542
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Pure Hover View Post
    I share your aspirations Dev for a strategic balanced document but I'm not convinced that those tasked with its drafting have the necessary strategic vision or knowledge to produce such a document.

    If you want to have contingent capabilities espoused in any White Paper, then you have to develop and enhance them from current forces and not continuously seek to erode them - like what's happening at present.
    Have you read the previous WP or the GP?

    They both say exactly as I stated above

    Quote Originally Posted by expat01 View Post
    Only two things will result in a serious consideration of military capacity. An unimaginable surfeit of cash for a protracted period, or a serious existential threat.
    The first won't happen in a hurry and the second will only be acknowledged when it's too late to do anything about it.
    Even joining NATO is no guarantee of proper military spending, as most of its members budgets will attest.
    What they will do is say the threat is there but it is low (which a direct threat is).
    They will then say this capability will be retained at this level.

  18. #86
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,753
    Post Thanks / Like
    Minister now saying White paper is a few months off.

  19. Thanks SwiftandSure thanked for this post
  20. #87
    Closed Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Valley of the Shadow of Death
    Posts
    3,160
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    Minister now saying White paper is a few months off.
    That'll be 2016 so.

  21. #88
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    130
    Post Thanks / Like
    I actually think the delay is a good thing. To me it suggests that the powers that be are looking to make some adjustments within the overall budgetary envelope to literally get more bang for our buck. This would be very politically sensitive so announcements of a strategic nature are being postponed to a time when it will (hopefully from a govt's perspective) carry less political risk.

    Can you imagine the fall out of announcing a strategic aim for an EPV or two, more helicopters and a vehicle fleet upgrade programme at a time when water charges are still very sensitive and the country is still reeling from years of austerity. It would be political suicide so in light of that the White Paper gets pushed over the horizon in the hope that it can be announced in a time when the environment is less sensitive.

    What do ye reckon? is this total pie in the sky or does my theory hold some water?
    Last edited by Banner; 10th December 2014 at 09:32.

  22. Likes Pure Hover liked this post
  23. #89
    Closed Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Valley of the Shadow of Death
    Posts
    3,160
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Banner View Post
    I actually think the delay is a good thing. To me it suggests that the powers that be are looking to make some adjustments within the overall budgetary envelope to literally get more bang for our buck. This would be very politically sensitive so announcements of a strategic nature are being postponed to a time when it will (hopefully from a govt's perspective) carry less political risk.

    Can you imagine the fall out of announcing a strategic aim for an EPV or two, more helicopters and a vehicle fleet upgrade programme at a time when water charges are still very sensitive and the country is still reeling from years of austerity. It would be political suicide so in light of that the White Paper gets pushed over the horizon in the hope that it can be announced in a time when the environment is less sensitive.

    What do ye reckon? is this total pie in the sky or does my theory hold some water?
    Short of an Islamic terrorist action akin to 7/7 on Irish soil or overt Russian military aggression in Europe, I can't see there ever being an opportune time to advocate an increase in defence spending in Ireland. There's always going to be run down hospitals, schools, social develop schemes that will come before defence; which is why it has been wholly unwise to keep reducing the defence budget.

    I'm very much looking forward to the publication of the WP, although my understanding is that the time it's submitted to the minister and when it's published are very much separate dates. So, is the delay that the DoD failed to meet the deadline? Or is the MoD sitting on it, waiting for when it's more advantageous to publish? Or did the DoD submit to the minister, and the minister sent it back to be amended before resubmission?

  24. Likes Pure Hover liked this post
  25. #90
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,542
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Banner View Post
    I actually think the delay is a good thing. To me it suggests that the powers that be are looking to make some adjustments within the overall budgetary envelope to literally get more bang for our buck. This would be very politically sensitive so announcements of a strategic nature are being postponed to a time when it will (hopefully from a govt's perspective) carry less political risk.

    Can you imagine the fall out of announcing a strategic aim for an EPV or two, more helicopters and a vehicle fleet upgrade programme at a time when water charges are still very sensitive and the country is still reeling from years of austerity. It would be political suicide so in light of that the White Paper gets pushed over the horizon in the hope that it can be announced in a time when the environment is less sensitive.

    What do ye reckon? is this total pie in the sky or does my theory hold some water?
    Water charges being increased by 100% would be a good way to pay for the EPVs.

    Personally I would say the sticking point is neutrality. FG are looking to move away from it (which could be an excuse to reduce the army to a Bde plus).

    If that was the case it will be published on Christmas Day to bury it

  26. Likes Pure Hover liked this post
  27. #91
    Captain Truck Driver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Here And There...
    Posts
    10,241
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Water charges being increased by 100% would be a good way to pay for the EPVs
    ...which would be political hara kiri as mentioned by Banner above, I would think
    "Well, stone me! We've had cocaine, bribery and Arsenal scoring two goals at home. But just when you thought there were truly no surprises left in football, Vinnie Jones turns out to be an international player!" (Jimmy Greaves)!"

  28. #92
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,542
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Truck Driver View Post
    ...which would be political hara kiri as mentioned by Banner above, I would think
    Giving that it would be against the will of the people and would arguably require a Constitutional amendment yes

  29. #93
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    373
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Have you read the previous WP or the GP?

    They both say exactly as I stated above



    What they will do is say the threat is there but it is low (which a direct threat is).
    They will then say this capability will be retained at this level.
    I have indeed read both documents and as we're aware the WP 2000 is hopelessly out of date approaching 2015. For example Here's some of the Key capability decisions of WP 2000;

    ■ The retention of a Permanent Defence Force of 10,500 personnel organised along conventional military lines.
    ■ A light infantry based Army with a three Brigade structure and an appropriate level of all arms capability.
    ■ Development of the Naval Service around a modern 8 ship flotilla.
    ■ Development of the Air Corps based on its existing role profile.
    ■ Development of a re-organised Reserve Defence Force.

    I agree that the new WP will identify or should identify threats to Ireland and seek to develop policy based on these threats. There is some good material in the GP but it's a one and only chance to be bold and try to develop new policy initiatives but it falls short IMO. Talk is cheap and my main contention still remains that you can essentially say what you want in a strategic document but unless you have the capabilities available or are prepared to invest in those capabilities then its a worthless exercise.

    The GP talks about training to NATO capability but kicks to touch on the Neutrality issue - probably understandably so but isn't it time to be bold and try and change the status quo? In terms of expenditure It conveniently hides behind the "expenditure was reduced during the crisis and we had to reduce defence spending in accordance with that" policy. There's no doubt that was the harsh reality but as the economy improves there's no clamour for an increase in Defence spending from the DoD. In fact I'd say they relished the opportunity to twist the knife during the downturn.

    Reports of a further delay are not that surprising. I seriously doubt if it's got anything to do with the political situation but more likely simply "we're working on it!" but what's another 6 months in a four year plus delay.

    Then again Christmas week may prove me wrong!
    Last edited by Pure Hover; 10th December 2014 at 18:24.

  30. #94
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    373
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Banner View Post
    I actually think the delay is a good thing. To me it suggests that the powers that be are looking to make some adjustments within the overall budgetary envelope to literally get more bang for our buck. This would be very politically sensitive so announcements of a strategic nature are being postponed to a time when it will (hopefully from a govt's perspective) carry less political risk.

    Can you imagine the fall out of announcing a strategic aim for an EPV or two, more helicopters and a vehicle fleet upgrade programme at a time when water charges are still very sensitive and the country is still reeling from years of austerity. It would be political suicide so in light of that the White Paper gets pushed over the horizon in the hope that it can be announced in a time when the environment is less sensitive.

    What do ye reckon? is this total pie in the sky or does my theory hold some water?
    I think you may have something there Banner and I'd like to believe there's some truth to it but...........

    Increases in Defence spending are always controversial but surely a return to pre-crisis spending should be a minimum aspiration. I suppose it depends on how you sell it really. There wasn't a bleat from the public about the new NS patrol vessels but when it came to replacing the Gov't jet then that was a completely different matter.

  31. #95
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,542
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Pure Hover View Post
    I have indeed read both documents and as we're aware the WP 2000 is hopelessly out of date approaching 2015. For example Here's some of the Key capability decisions of WP 2000;

    ■ The retention of a Permanent Defence Force of 10,500 personnel organised along conventional military lines.
    ■ A light infantry based Army with a three Brigade structure and an appropriate level of all arms capability.
    ■ Development of the Naval Service around a modern 8 ship flotilla.
    ■ Development of the Air Corps based on its existing role profile.
    ■ Development of a re-organised Reserve Defence Force.

    I agree that the new WP will identify or should identify threats to Ireland and seek to develop policy based on these threats. There is some good material in the GP but it's a one and only chance to be bold and try to develop new policy initiatives but it falls short IMO. Talk is cheap and my main contention still remains that you can essentially say what you want in a strategic document but unless you have the capabilities available or are prepared to invest in those capabilities then its a worthless exercise.

    The GP talks about training to NATO capability but kicks to touch on the Neutrality issue - probably understandably so but isn't it time to be bold and try and change the status quo? In terms of expenditure It conveniently hides behind the "expenditure was reduced during the crisis and we had to reduce defence spending in accordance with that" policy. There's no doubt that was the harsh reality but as the economy improves there's no clamour for an increase in Defence spending from the DoD. In fact I'd say they relished the opportunity to twist the knife during the downturn.

    Reports of a further delay are not that surprising. I seriously doubt if it's got anything to do with the political situation but more likely simply "we're working on it!" but what's another 6 months in a four year plus delay.

    Then again Christmas week may prove me wrong!
    Of the four areas you talk about the only thing has changed is the strength. It ran until 2010.

    You come up with Aims & strategies are match resources to them, not the other way around.

    The training to NATO standards has been going on for over 14 years ago now. Pfp ex/courses, courses in NATO countries, NATO standard equipment etc etc

    Defence (and most other departments) budgets were cut for 2 main reasons:
    - Government income dropping dramatically
    - Social Welfare spending increasing dramatically

    Maybe FIS, the rent supplement, the various unemployment benefits etc should have been cut and defence spending should have been maintained? Would Irish people be willing to pay?

    Two of the key questions the GP posed relate to neutality/engagement with collective security and the triple lock.

    Personally I'd say a major change is unlikely because that isn't what irish people want.

    FG manifesto page 31 (change the triple lock and mutual defence mentioned):
    http://www.slideshare.net/mobile/Off...-manifesto-web


    Labour manifesto page 89 (more or less maintain the status quo):
    http://www.labour.ie/download/pdf/la...festo_2011.pdf

  32. #96
    Space Lord of Terra morpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Metropolis
    Posts
    3,081
    Post Thanks / Like
    ha

    ha ha

    HA HA HA

    Labour wants to deploy the RDF overseas and integrate us more closely with civil defence

    FG wants to ensure that the RDF gets postal votes

    FML.
    "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
    "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

  33. #97
    Captain Truck Driver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Here And There...
    Posts
    10,241
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by morpheus View Post
    ha

    ha ha

    HA HA HA

    Labour wants to deploy the RDF overseas and integrate us more closely with civil defence

    FG wants to ensure that the RDF gets postal votes

    FML.
    Well, whatever about the likelihood of the former, the postal vote suggestion has more merit. Bearing in mind that personnel might be away from their home base on a course, Annual Training, etc. Although I can't ever remember a situation where a vote clashed with RDF military training. What happens with PDF personnel in similar situations (I get that they need the postal vote when serving overseas)?
    "Well, stone me! We've had cocaine, bribery and Arsenal scoring two goals at home. But just when you thought there were truly no surprises left in football, Vinnie Jones turns out to be an international player!" (Jimmy Greaves)!"

  34. Likes DeV liked this post
  35. #98
    Lt General apod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ass in the grass.
    Posts
    4,873
    Post Thanks / Like
    PDF personnel are prohibited from voting in the normal manner.All our votes are postal.
    "Let us be clear about three facts:First of all.All battles and all wars are won in the end by the Infantryman.Secondly the Infantryman bears the brunt of the fighting,his casualties are heavier and he suffers greater extremes of fatigue and discomfort than the other arms.Thirdly,the art of the Infantryman is less stereotyped and harder to acquire than that of any other arm".
    -- Field Marshall Earl Wavell.1948

  36. #99
    Captain Truck Driver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Here And There...
    Posts
    10,241
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by apod View Post
    PDF personnel are prohibited from voting in the normal manner.All our votes are postal.
    Ohhh. Didn't know that. Why is that, out of curiosity?
    "Well, stone me! We've had cocaine, bribery and Arsenal scoring two goals at home. But just when you thought there were truly no surprises left in football, Vinnie Jones turns out to be an international player!" (Jimmy Greaves)!"

  37. #100
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,753
    Post Thanks / Like
    So the CO can be sure you are not voting for who you aren't supposed to be voting for. The GS have the same, but it isn't mandatory.

    All joking aside, the reason is to allow the soldier to vote wherever he or she happens to be posted, at home or overseas. Making it mandatory reduces the chance of someone having 2 votes. (One in your hometown, one where you are posted)

  38. Thanks apod, Truck Driver thanked for this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •