Originally posted by boy in blue
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
how big/small should the NS be?
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by ibenji View PostFrom my point of view, cost / return efficiencies should not really come into it. Some services are too critical and I believe that a sufficient deterrent is required and hence a larger navy. When you compare that the government gets 3 euro return to every one spent in the construction of roads in Ireland but yet we still suffer from a decaying regional / local road network etc. Just because something is cost efficient does not tend to make Irish Government react
Comment
-
My mantra continues.. politicians don't need to sell defense spending, it is a myth that anyone other than a few lefty tofu knitters would object and, on the contrary, there is much press coverage of our defense deficiencies.
You would not believe how hard it is to find the funding for ships in the current funding envelope"Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "
"No, they're trying to fly the tank"
Comment
-
Originally posted by trellheim View PostMate your concept of how Defence spending is viewed in Ireland needs to take a long, long look. Ignore all the rest ; no votes in Defence and its an FG govt who havent given a fk about Defence Spending as long as I've been in the Defence Forces ( 31 years now ) .
You would not believe how hard it is to find the funding for ships in the current funding envelope
Comment
-
Fair point, FF are not great either to be fair but long term they are a little better for Defence. ( if FG said 0.2% FF would be 0.5% its that kind of difference)
That said I can't see FF advocating the NATO 2% of GDP either."Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "
"No, they're trying to fly the tank"
Comment
-
Look, I've never said there are votes to be gained by spending on defence. Otherwise they'd have been lost with the cuts. I just maintain that there are no votes to be lost by doing it. Or have I missed protest marches and tax boycotts over the fourth OPV.
We have an electorate and a political class that are apathetic and ignorant, lack of spending is inertia and cuts in defence are a soft option.Last edited by expat01; 3 April 2017, 16:16.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by expat01 View PostLook, I've never said there are votes to be gained by spending on defence. Otherwise they'd have been lost with the cuts. I just maintain that there are no votes to be lost by doing it. Or have I missed protest marches and tax boycotts over the fourth OPV.
We have an electorate and a political class that are apathetic and ignorant, lack of spending is inertia and cuts in defence are a soft option.
Comment
-
Originally posted by expat01 View PostWe've been at 1% and more before the crash. Don't remember much fuss or even notice then. The flip side of apathy. Nobody really notices or cares. And most Irish don't resent DF spending.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparky42 View PostJust a quick look on the net and we dropped below 1% back in '96, which I presume was in relation to higher troop numbers due to the North at the time of the crash we were about .6% (which might have been more due to the size of the economy). And while people didn't notice then, I think you are misjudging things now. Are you seriously suggesting that there wouldn't be "What aboutism" if we started moving that back up to 1% from what it is now instead of "X/Y/Z" of the other areas of national spending? I'm not saying we shouldn't be spending more, but I think if we aren't even willing to pay for Water, what's the chance of paying for defence.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ibenji View PostI think your reference to people not wanting to pay for water is misleading in regard to defence. We pay through our motor tax and our general taxation already for water. We should not have to pay twice. That said I think that the defence budget should be increased to the necessary level in order to provide the level of service at we need. The rescue helicopter contract alone is 500 million over ten years. Imagine what the aer core could have done with that money
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparky42 View PostAre you seriously suggesting that there wouldn't be "What aboutism" if we started moving that back up to 1% from what it is now instead of "X/Y/Z" of the other areas of national spending? I'm not saying we shouldn't be spending more, but I think if we aren't even willing to pay for Water, what's the chance of paying for defence.
Ever. At all. Not once. In all our history. Not even in the depths of Haughey's fistal rectitude. Nothing. Zippo. Zilch. Nada.
Except for the occasional moan that we aren't well prepared or well defended. Which is exactly the opposite position. I think there is a well-worn platitude to this effect that gets rolled out whenever defence comes up, and repeated with the same reverence and lack of reflection as an ingrained response at mass.
So no, I think you are misjudging things and I don't think you can point to any evidence to refute me.Last edited by expat01; 3 April 2017, 23:40.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by expat01 View PostYes I am. There has never been a complaint about military over-spending. With the exception of the civil war, It has never been public issue.
Ever. At all. Not once. In all our history. Not even in the depths of Haughey's fistal rectitude. Nothing. Zippo. Zilch. Nada.
Except for the occasional moan that we aren't well prepared or well defended. Which is exactly the opposite position. I think there is a well-worn platitude to this effect that gets rolled out whenever defence comes up, and repeated with the same reverence and lack of reflection as an ingrained response at mass.
So no, I think you are misjudging things and I don't think you can point to any evidence to refute me.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
After P64 comes on charge I'd like a Damen Crossover type replacement for Eithne (preferably two). The P40s could be replaced afterwards by whatever type is felt appropriate at the time.
I see no connection to water charges which is a con for privatization in line with corporate goals across Europe (and nothing else)
Comment
-
Originally posted by expat01 View PostYes I am. There has never been a complaint about military over-spending. With the exception of the civil war, It has never been public issue.
Ever. At all. Not once. In all our history. Not even in the depths of Haughey's fistal rectitude. Nothing. Zippo. Zilch. Nada.
Except for the occasional moan that we aren't well prepared or well defended. Which is exactly the opposite position. I think there is a well-worn platitude to this effect that gets rolled out whenever defence comes up, and repeated with the same reverence and lack of reflection as an ingrained response at mass.
So no, I think you are misjudging things and I don't think you can point to any evidence to refute me.
Comment
Comment