Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Realistic thinking ??

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Realistic thinking ??

    Don't jump all over my case on this one, I'm just throwing it out there to provoke some discussion.

    Is the neutrality issue just an excuse to underfund the DF? If Ireland were to "take sides" then the DF would have an obligation to "show up" with some manpower and equipment to fight a modern war. By remaining neutral, the govt. can cheaply sit on the fence and ignore the DF.

    However, who is gonna attack Ireland. Ireland is not a main player in world events. Ireland does not threaten anyone and nobody is threatened by Ireland. Despite some minor differences of opinions Ireland is a Western country and obviously aligns itself with the UK, USA, NATO, etc. There's not much chance that any Western country has any military interest in Ireland. And I think it's safe to say that the UK,US etc would come to our aid in another scenario.

    So, realistically we don't need MBT's, jet fighters/bombers, "battleships" etc.

    Should the DF concentrate on the job that do best, internal defence/security. Undoubtedly they are very good at this role, among the best, second maybe to Israel or even the UK. Should the funding be directed at improving these aspects of the force, equiping a real Army aviation service with appropriate helicopters and transports as required, not jet fighters. More armored cars/cav-type vehicles, not MBT's. Better personal issue equipment, even full nissue for its reserves. Fund full integrated training for PDF and RDF and maintain standards year round eg, ammo, range time etc
    No-one, I think, is in my tree...

  • #2
    Strummer, do you even read the other posts? That's what everybody has been saying on this thing for ages... :p
    Meh.

    Comment


    • #3
      Soory, Yook,
      I'm kinda "discombobulated" at the moment, "her indoors" is about to drop child, so I don't know whether I'm coming or going !!!!!!
      No-one, I think, is in my tree...

      Comment


      • #4
        damn it dude.

        thats all we need. Another one of you!!!

        hang on. Didn't you have her mowing the lawn about 2 weeks ago? you evil bastard...
        Meh.

        Comment


        • #5
          She'll do what she's told or else feel the back of my hand........!!!!:D

          But back to the topic......Should the PDF just cease altogether with the military posturing/posing and just give in to the fact that they are more or less a Gendarmarie (sp). Forget about battle plans etc and focus on the internal security. Be like that outfit in France, or the Italian Carabinieri, a militarized police?
          No-one, I think, is in my tree...

          Comment


          • #6
            Mowing the Lawn is good for a Pregnant woman!! Gets the Muscles worked out and good breathing exercises pushing it around the Garden!!

            Anyway yes Neutrality should be abolished! De Valera introduced it Practically on his own, it no longer has any Political or Economic Repercussions, we are part of the Second biggest Political, Cultural and Economical Alliance in the World so why not admit it and Join the EU "Army" The Treaty of Rome mentions a common defence policy and Ireland Sifgned up to this in what 1970??. Lets face it the EU is becoming a World Power we have Significantly raised our profile within the EU Politically and Economically. And our sit on the Fence attitude that every government has taken since De Valera makes us a Laughing Stock!!

            Who are we Switzerland??

            Friends Come and Go, but Enemies accumulate!!

            Comment


            • #7
              Scrap the whole army and replace it with 5000 ARW and 5000 full on reserve.

              Let the police worry about all the shite money transfers etc.

              Comment


              • #8
                Well I do think we should be a gendarmerie, but still part of an european alliance.
                While Irelands territorial integrity is not threathened, our interests are something that can be threathened,... ie: the EU.
                If an EU partner were to be attacked this would indeed have major implications on our economy and currency, it would be a bit like what would happen in mayo if cork were invaded. Mayo and the rest of Ireland would be affected, even if they themselves were not attacked.

                Neutrality is also a convenient method of avoiding difficult questions and taking responcibility for nasty things that have to be done in Western interests (some neicessary, some not).
                ie: we like oil, but we are prepared to let the yanks and brits fight for it so that we get our supply, and yet not have the moral guilt over how it was acquired.

                We will very soon play our part though, neutrality has had it's time as a useful catchphrase and it just does not work in a globalised economy and in the modern world.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hmmmm head in sand, I don't suppose anyone cares for an independent state's legal requirement to maintain a defence?
                  I suppose if you want we could always renounce our independent status.
                  "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Well the way I see it, we could be an excellent Gendarmarie, or a very mediocre defence force. Now I'm not talking about the quality of the men and women there when I say mediocre, but more the size, equipment, support and training. We are to put it bluntly not equipped to deal with a major military confrontation.
                    And the fame of our forces in UN missions has been leapt upon by successive governments to encourage shaping the forces for peace keeping duties rather than warfare (essentially because it's an excuse for a small defence force with minimal force projection capabilities)- ie: cheap.
                    A reversal of this trend is unlikely to succeed considering how much more cost effective the peace keeping/gendarmerie model is.
                    At present we are in limbo between the two models and not masters of either.
                    Considering the budget available and the political mood, we are not likely to be masters of the Warfare model any time soon.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Once you get rid of a defence capability,however limited, it's almost impossible to get back.
                      Our security situation is fairly benign now, who's to say what it'll be like in 25 years?

                      In 1918 they thought WWI was the war to end all wars........

                      C-Q, is there a legal requirement for an indepent state to maintain a defence? Other than the traditional requirements of countries that formally declare themselves neutral in a given conflict to maintain their status, i don't know of any.
                      .
                      .
                      .
                      With 50,000 men getting killed a week, who's going to miss a pigeon?

                      Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        No I think it is just the neutrality thing.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Neutrality should be abolished! De Valera introduced it Practically on his own
                          At the risk of going off-topic (I promise I won't discuss it further here) I would like to point out that the neutrality policy was overwhelmingly approved by the Dail, to say it was all De Valera's idea is inaccurate.
                          "The dolphins were monkeys that didn't like the land, walked back to the water, went back from the sand."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Iceland has no army, only a police special forces team.
                            defence is provided by the US,.... I suppose you could say that they outsourced their defence

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by FMolloy
                              At the risk of going off-topic (I promise I won't discuss it further here) I would like to point out that the neutrality policy was overwhelmingly approved by the Dail, to say it was all De Valera's idea is inaccurate.
                              Some spoke out against it in the Dail too. The point is, I suppose, that neutrality might have been in the national interest then, but is a bit of a blight on the nation's ability to manage its affairs in the world now.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X