Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Irishmilitaryonline.com Submission to Green Paper/White Paper on Defence

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

  • #16
    Where I live, bank robberies are carried out by gangs of 7-15. Cash in transit heists have been carried out by platoon sized gangs, with stopper groups on approaches to the kill zone. You know who handles security? Chubb and ADT.


    24 hour cash escorts? The army already has guns so that saves money? You're not convincing me.
    But I've made my suggestion. While you'rw criticising my submission, how about making one of your own?
    Last edited by expat01; 22 June 2013, 23:54.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by expat01 View Post
      You know who handles security? Chubb and ADT.
      Same as here then (Securior etc)

      Are they armed (unlike here)?

      As a percentage the amount of the total CIT deliveries, the number escorted by GS or GS & DF is small (ie most CIT deliveries aren't escorted)!

      24 hour cash escorts? The army already has guns so that saves money? You're not convincing me.
      But I've made my suggestion. While you'rw criticising my submission, how about making one of your own?
      Bit late considering its going before Cabinet on Tuesday!



      On the triple lock, 1 of those locks will always be there (Government approval) and rightly so.

      Comment


      • #18
        DeV, you are making a very good case for disbanding the army entirely. You are describing a force that pretty much swallows money for no return that couldn't be achieved with armed police and private security.
        And of course the security companies are armed. Otherwise they'd just be store detectives or crowd control.

        If I hear a noise outside at night, I call security because they've got the vests and rifles. But I also go to the range twice a month and practise my fire and movement drills occasionally. Just in case the noise is ever inside the house. Paying for both costs money, but it would be irresponsible not to pay and then moan if anything happened.

        Comment


        • #19
          The ultimate purpose of an army is to be the states final line of law and order.Gardai at the end of the day are civilians and cannot be ordered to take life.Soldiers can.
          The army is the ultimate guarantor of stability.No outside investor,on which our economy depends so much,is going to set up shop here if their executives will be kidnapped,their stock stolen,their factories burned and "protection" money demanded.All you have to do is look at countries such as Somalia and Colombia to see the damage a weak(the army is a governments muscle) government(or none at all) can do to a countries economy.
          yes a lot of the Army tasks here are gendarmerie type tasks but if all you have is a gendarmerie then you don't have a proper army to act overseas in expeditionary tasks.You can't have it both ways.
          The army here trains for the full spectrum of operations from full scale warfighting to PSO and ATCP and we can do each fairly well.We will never be the worlds biggest or best equipped but we punch well above our weight and our troops are multi skilled unlike in some other forces.
          So yes.The navy are very important and deserve good investment but not at the expense of the other branches.
          "Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.

          Comment


          • #20
            "get most use from the navy"........more so the navy gets used the most in ops that are not its primary remit. The reality is that the DF is contingency based and just because firefights are going off here doesnt mean the DF is redundant unless it goes crusading.

            Comment


            • #21
              Far from it:

              The DF are able to be utilised cost effectively to do ATCP because they the threat of conventional ops is low so the DF doesn't have to train as high tempo as it might.

              They are available so why not use them?

              Also there is no longer 10% of the DF overseas.

              With the newer OPVs coming online and what the Minister is saying about the importance of the seas, maybe he should reverse the cuts in patrol days.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by apod View Post
                The navy are very important and deserve good investment but not at the expense of the other branches.
                Replace "Navy" with "Army" and the statement still holds true.
                Having a 7:1:1 split between branches of an Islands defence force, where 7 is neither air arm or naval force is incomprehensible.


                Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                Comment


                • #23
                  i have a friend who works for mastercard who reckons that in ten years time conventional cash will have disappeared, and that we'll use cards for even the most basic things. I must admit geting my coffee from starbucks by card, and if you go someplace like denemark, cash is on its way out.[/QUOTE]

                  if that arises, and it will, then the need for cash escorts will be gone.

                  The green paper wiil outline the strategic situation and the forecasts for the next ten years or so and how we should balance and priotorise defence spending, so perhaps we should suspend the pissing matches over who deserves the most money till we ve read it.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    +1 on what Paul G said.too many naval service biased posters here wanting to cut the Army to suit their nautical ambitions.
                    Lets wait and see.
                    Having said that i would love to see Commodore Mellet be the next CoS.If he did with the wider DF what he is doing with the Navy it could only be good.
                    "Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by apod View Post
                      The ultimate purpose of an army is to be the states final line of law and order.Gardai at the end of the day are civilians and cannot be ordered to take life.Soldiers can.
                      The army is the ultimate guarantor of stability.No outside investor,on which our economy depends so much,is going to set up shop here if their executives will be kidnapped,their stock stolen,their factories burned and "protection" money demanded.All you have to do is look at countries such as Somalia and Colombia to see the damage a weak(the army is a governments muscle) government(or none at all) can do to a countries economy.
                      yes a lot of the Army tasks here are gendarmerie type tasks but if all you have is a gendarmerie then you don't have a proper army to act overseas in expeditionary tasks.You can't have it both ways.
                      The army here trains for the full spectrum of operations from full scale warfighting to PSO and ATCP and we can do each fairly well.We will never be the worlds biggest or best equipped but we punch well above our weight and our troops are multi skilled unlike in some other forces.
                      So yes.The navy are very important and deserve good investment but not at the expense of the other branches.
                      The first part of your post is possibly the most dangerous thing I've ever heard from a soldier. In a democracy the army should have nothing whatsoever to do with law and order. The army exists to fight enemies of the state. Use them for law and order and soon the people become the enemies of the state. Soldiers kill enemies, or they aren't really soldiers.
                      And DeV, no soldier can be "ordered to take a life" in any way. He may open fire in defence Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. A garda can do all that and more if he's armed.
                      I don't think its healthy to deploy your army amongst your own people. Fortunately our government agrees and has made sure that the soldier on the street is legally no more than an armed civilian and apart from the normal sentry rules, can do nothing except as a kind of auxiliary to a cop. This is good.

                      If you look at my make believe paper, I said that the army should be purposed and equipped for overseas deployment. I don't believe there will be any need for ATCP in the future. My problem is that the ATCP role the army HAS taken since 1969 did not actually require a military to achieve and focusing on it has distracted the army from other possibilities.
                      And while I fully agree the Irish soldier punches above his weight compared to what the government believes he can do, I honestly think the Irish military punches far, far below our country's weight. We're not exactly up there with New Zealand, unfortunately.
                      Since the end of the civil war, nobody in government, or command, has ever taken the military seriously. As a consequence the Irish population haven't, and in my experience most Irish soldiers don't either.





                      MOD: Editted due to restricted information
                      Last edited by DeV; 23 June 2013, 18:21.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by paul g View Post
                        i have a friend who works for mastercard who reckons that in ten years time conventional cash will have disappeared, and that we'll use cards for even the most basic things. I must admit geting my coffee from starbucks by card, and if you go someplace like denemark, cash is on its way out.
                        if that arises, and it will, then the need for cash escorts will be gone.

                        The green paper wiil outline the strategic situation and the forecasts for the next ten years or so and how we should balance and priotorise defence spending, so perhaps we should suspend the pissing matches over who deserves the most money till we ve read it.[/QUOTE]



                        Hahahahaha cheques and cash have suppose to have been on their way out since the 70s!!!

                        For years people have been keeping the cash under the mattress, possibly because they distrust banks...... Maybe they are right!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by expat01 View Post
                          The first part of your post is possibly the most dangerous thing I've ever heard from a soldier. In a democracy the army should have nothing whatsoever to do with law and order. The army exists to fight enemies of the state. Use them for law and order and soon the people become the enemies of the state. Soldiers kill enemies, or they aren't really soldiers.
                          And DeV, no soldier can be "ordered to take a life" in any way. He may open fire in defence Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. A garda can do all that and more if he's armed.
                          I don't think its healthy to deploy your army amongst your own people. Fortunately our government agrees and has made sure that the soldier on the street is legally no more than an armed civilian and apart from the normal sentry rules, can do nothing except as a kind of auxiliary to a cop. This is good.

                          If you look at my make believe paper, I said that the army should be purposed and equipped for overseas deployment. I don't believe there will be any need for ATCP in the future. My problem is that the ATCP role the army HAS taken since 1969 did not actually require a military to achieve and focusing on it has distracted the army from other possibilities.
                          And while I fully agree the Irish soldier punches above his weight compared to what the government believes he can do, I honestly think the Irish military punches far, far below our country's weight. We're not exactly up there with New Zealand, unfortunately.
                          Since the end of the civil war, nobody in government, or command, has ever taken the military seriously. As a consequence the Irish population haven't, and in my experience most Irish soldiers don't either.





                          MOD: Editted due to restricted information

                          New Zealand ?? please don't insult us, They are selling off a third of their LAVS, because they have on use for them. Only three have being used abroad
                          http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...l-35-army-LAVs
                          Last edited by sofa; 23 June 2013, 22:11.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            While the current political triplelock defines overseas deployment the practical tripleffect of lack of money,casualties and retaliation against civvies here have served to prevent ad hoc deployment on any given Blair/Bush folly .Sending out an expedition has consequences.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by sofa View Post
                              New Zealand ?? please don't insult us, They are selling off a third of their LAVS, because they have on use for them. Only three have being used abroad
                              http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...l-35-army-LAVs
                              You may need to check your sources a little more or don't jump to conclusions.

                              http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...-Forces/page44

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by apod View Post
                                The ultimate purpose of an army is to be the states final line of law and order.Gardai at the end of the day are civilians and cannot be ordered to take life.Soldiers can.
                                The army is the ultimate guarantor of stability.No outside investor,on which our economy depends so much,is going to set up shop here if their executives will be kidnapped,their stock stolen,their factories burned and "protection" money demanded.All you have to do is look at countries such as Somalia and Colombia to see the damage a weak(the army is a governments muscle) government(or none at all) can do to a countries economy.
                                yes a lot of the Army tasks here are gendarmerie type tasks but if all you have is a gendarmerie then you don't have a proper army to act overseas in expeditionary tasks.You can't have it both ways.
                                The army here trains for the full spectrum of operations from full scale warfighting to PSO and ATCP and we can do each fairly well.We will never be the worlds biggest or best equipped but we punch well above our weight and our troops are multi skilled unlike in some other forces.
                                So yes.The navy are very important and deserve good investment but not at the expense of the other branches.

                                I've never heard the police vs army role put like that before, but your right
                                Insofar as that as a Garda I would never take a life simply for being orderd to do so.

                                This is why soldiers should only be used sparingly for domestic security,
                                There job is to kill the enemy, a policeman's job is to bring criminals
                                Before the courts.
                                Im Ron Burgendy??

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X