While doing research, I came across this doctoral thesis. Worth a read.
MILITARY FORCE STRUCTURES IN SMALL STATES: PROVIDING FOR RELEVANT AND CREDIBLE MILITARY CAPABILITY
BY
VERNON NOEL BENNETT
A thesis submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree ofDoctor of Philosophy
Victoria University of Wellington 2018
MILITARY FORCE STRUCTURES IN SMALL STATES: PROVIDING FOR RELEVANT AND CREDIBLE MILITARY CAPABILITY
BY
VERNON NOEL BENNETT
A thesis submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree ofDoctor of Philosophy
Victoria University of Wellington 2018
ABSTRACT
Small states are perceived as lacking military power. Nevertheless, most maintain military
forces. Given their shortfalls in power and capacity what choices do small states make about
maintaining military forces and what utility do they gain from them? This issue is not well
addressed in small state literature which considers the security of small states but focuses less
on their defence planning or the military instruments they maintain. This thesis addresses that
issue by examining how small states structure their military forces, why they do so, and
whether they provide for relevant and credible military capabilities.
This is achieved by examining the structural balance of small state military forces;
developing and applying a methodology to describe the process and priorities within the
military systems of small states; and developing expectations for military forces in small
states from small state literature and military theory as testable propositions to provide a basis
for comparison of their military capabilities. The results of this comparison are then analysed
with regard to the utility that small states may gain from their military forces and related to
wider themes within the field of small state studies to ascertain the benefit that they may gain
from them.
Four cases of small state military force structures are used. Ireland provides limited military
capabilities to meet discrete tasks and roles within a benign strategic environment and its
policy of military neutrality. New Zealand, like Ireland, does not face a direct military threat
but it has a wide range of security interests. This is reflected in a broad force structure, albeit
with modest capabilities based on utility and the benefits of its international partnerships.
Norway, on the other hand, does perceive a direct military threat and functions within the
NATO security alliance. It maintains forces that are able to operate throughout the conflict
continuum as part of the NATO framework but, as a small member of the alliance, it faces
the challenges of balancing defence concerns within the alliance framework. Singapore also
perceives itself to be strategically and militarily vulnerable. However, unlike Norway, it does
not participate in a military alliance and instead provides the most capable military forces of
the four cases as it aims to be self-reliant in the face of perceived vulnerability.
The four cases possess markedly different military force structures as a result of their varying
assessments of strategic discretion and differences in their approaches to the various security
iv
environments they encounter. All four face challenges with economies of scale, critical mass
and fixed costs in providing for their military capabilities. However, the extent of these
challenges differs between each of the four cases and they gain different utility and benefit
from maintaining their military instruments. Hence while small states have some common
military characteristics they cannot be considered as a homogenous group. This should affect
the manner in which they, other states and international organisations perceive them.
Small states are perceived as lacking military power. Nevertheless, most maintain military
forces. Given their shortfalls in power and capacity what choices do small states make about
maintaining military forces and what utility do they gain from them? This issue is not well
addressed in small state literature which considers the security of small states but focuses less
on their defence planning or the military instruments they maintain. This thesis addresses that
issue by examining how small states structure their military forces, why they do so, and
whether they provide for relevant and credible military capabilities.
This is achieved by examining the structural balance of small state military forces;
developing and applying a methodology to describe the process and priorities within the
military systems of small states; and developing expectations for military forces in small
states from small state literature and military theory as testable propositions to provide a basis
for comparison of their military capabilities. The results of this comparison are then analysed
with regard to the utility that small states may gain from their military forces and related to
wider themes within the field of small state studies to ascertain the benefit that they may gain
from them.
Four cases of small state military force structures are used. Ireland provides limited military
capabilities to meet discrete tasks and roles within a benign strategic environment and its
policy of military neutrality. New Zealand, like Ireland, does not face a direct military threat
but it has a wide range of security interests. This is reflected in a broad force structure, albeit
with modest capabilities based on utility and the benefits of its international partnerships.
Norway, on the other hand, does perceive a direct military threat and functions within the
NATO security alliance. It maintains forces that are able to operate throughout the conflict
continuum as part of the NATO framework but, as a small member of the alliance, it faces
the challenges of balancing defence concerns within the alliance framework. Singapore also
perceives itself to be strategically and militarily vulnerable. However, unlike Norway, it does
not participate in a military alliance and instead provides the most capable military forces of
the four cases as it aims to be self-reliant in the face of perceived vulnerability.
The four cases possess markedly different military force structures as a result of their varying
assessments of strategic discretion and differences in their approaches to the various security
iv
environments they encounter. All four face challenges with economies of scale, critical mass
and fixed costs in providing for their military capabilities. However, the extent of these
challenges differs between each of the four cases and they gain different utility and benefit
from maintaining their military instruments. Hence while small states have some common
military characteristics they cannot be considered as a homogenous group. This should affect
the manner in which they, other states and international organisations perceive them.
Chapter Three: Military Force Structures in Ireland – Limited
Military Capabilities Within a Relatively Benign Strategic
Environment
Introduction 66
Ireland’s Characteristics as a Small State 67
Ireland’s Strategic Influences and Security Policy 69
Ireland’s Military Capabilities 73
Providing for Military Capabilities in Ireland 80
Priorities within Ireland’s Military System 88
Ireland’s Characteristics as a Small State Military Force 91
Conclusion 93
Military Capabilities Within a Relatively Benign Strategic
Environment
Introduction 66
Ireland’s Characteristics as a Small State 67
Ireland’s Strategic Influences and Security Policy 69
Ireland’s Military Capabilities 73
Providing for Military Capabilities in Ireland 80
Priorities within Ireland’s Military System 88
Ireland’s Characteristics as a Small State Military Force 91
Conclusion 93
Comment