Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

how big/small should the NS be?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by boy in blue View Post
    Yet we can still give 640 million in foreign aid to equip African countries armed services,how do they sell this to the people??
    foreign aid is money well spent on security

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by ibenji View Post
      From 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
      I agree with the result but not the reasoning. Ireland by itself canno deter anybody or anything. Also, threats to Ireland's security and interests do not com ein the shape of a threat of invasion but for instance in the shape of threats to the EU's stability. Article 42 TEU still applies. So Ireland would be well advised to work on integrating with EU forces and contributing. Given the pacifist mindset in this country I would suggest focusing on force multipliers like Sparky's AOR/LSS. Other options are extending our ISTAR capablity into the serious high tech realm.

      Comment


      • #18
        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.
        Mate 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
        "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

        "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by trellheim View Post
          Mate 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
          Is it really just FG that you could give the same label to?

          Comment


          • #20
            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


            • #21
              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.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by expat01 View Post
                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.
                We haven't seen complaints because it's 60 odd million and even for our budgets that's not huge, if however we started pushing up to 1% even, how quickly would there be protests. I mean hell just today there was yer man on 4FM going on about why we even need/have a DF and why we need to bring it up to strength (I turned off before all his talking heads rang in), hell he seemed outraged that the recruitment campaign had cost 85K apparently...

                Comment


                • #23
                  We'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.
                  Last edited by expat01; 3 April 2017, 17:35.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by expat01 View Post
                    We'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.
                    Just 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


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                      Just 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.
                      I 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


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by ibenji View Post
                        I 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
                        Not going to bother derailing the thread, suffice to say I disagree with you. As to spending on defence, it's not going to happen, none of the parties could give a monkies about it and are under no inducement to do so, and any major spending (and by that I mean moving the capital budget into the 100's of millions and sustaining it for an extended period) will hit the "What about X" in five seconds.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                          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.
                          Yes 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.
                          Last edited by expat01; 3 April 2017, 23:40.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by expat01 View Post
                            Yes 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.
                            I would point to the evidence that the Defence Forces were left crumble without any public attention or concern from the forces sent to the Congo, to the Corvette's that couldn't get out of the harbour. (lets not even start at the WW2 situation) Or if you'd like how about the fact that Eithne was meant to have sister ships but that got cancelled due to cost overruns on her, how about the fact that there's no concern about MOWAG's driving around with no uprated protection on UN missions right now. The Department of Finance has always kept the DF on a tight lease and the public are quite happy with that. Just go have a look at the comments regarding the PC9's overflight of Dublin today on the Journal. Or the complaints about their purchase at the time in the first place.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              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


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by expat01 View Post
                                Yes 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.
                                There isn't complaints because cuts are just implemented without discussion as required (and the money isn't given in the first place).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X