Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

White Paper - When is it due to be published?

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

  • Originally posted by Flamingo View Post
    I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not...
    What ever you think about them you can't escape the fact that Kenny and to a greater degree Noonan brought the country back from the brink and ending up like greece.

    Personally i think there is a clear choice at the next election between those who want to forge the country into a modern progressive democratic European state and those who would drag us back into the union and their petty sectarian squabbles.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by paul g View Post
      What ever you think about them you can't escape the fact that Kenny and to a greater degree Noonan brought the country back from the brink and ending up like greece.

      Personally i think there is a clear choice at the next election between those who want to forge the country into a modern progressive democratic European state and those who would drag us back into the union and their petty sectarian squabbles.
      Lenihan had done a fair bit of the heavy lifting already with paycuts,pension contibutions etc,no way would the coalition have imposed the USC given the the furore that erupted over water rates.In fairness Lenihan (whose mob created the crisis) would have handled the protests equally ineptly hoping that soundbytes like" anger isnt a policy" would see off the protesters.

      Comment


      • Opinions are expected to be sought from organisations such as the United Nations and the military in Nordic countries, such as Sweden and Finland, which have partnered Ireland in peace missions overseas.

        The move is part of an approach by Defence Minister Simon Coveney to widen the scope of the consultations being held as part of the run-up to the publication of the Government's white paper, which will determine its strategy over the next 10 years.

        Mr Coveney has adopted a hands-on approach to the white paper and intends to organise a forum to hear the national and international expert input, with a weekend symposium likely to be held next month.

        The minister wants to submit a final draft of the white paper to the Government by the end of July. Subject to Cabinet approval, it will then be published.

        He has also set up an advisory group, which is being chaired by former Army officer and Progressive Democrats senator and party chairman, John Minihan.

        According to the minister, a key part of developing the white paper will focus on the volatile and unpredictable security environment globally and the challenges that could emerge in the future.

        Senior Army officers have been pushing for a major role for the Defence Forces in the Government's strategic approach to tackling the threat from cyber terrorism.

        The Government's response is expected to involve several departments, including defence, justice, communications and foreign affairs as well as the Garda and the Defence Forces.

        But the officers' representative association RACO has submitted that the military's existing expertise in planning to cope with cyber threats, as well as its international experience and involvement in groups confronted with global violence, should ensure that the Defence Forces be allocated a crucial position in the new strategy.

        Mr Coveney has already indicated that the overall strength of the Defence Forces will be retained at up to 9,500 but it has not yet been determined whether there will be a move away from specialisation and a concentration on troops.

        Tight budgets are imposing constraints on decision-making. The Defence Forces budget has fallen by 20pc since 2008 and Ireland has the second lowest spending on defence, as part of its GDP, in the EU, after Luxembourg.

        Irish Independent

        The Government is to seek the views of international military experts before deciding on the nation's defence and security policy for the next decade.

        Comment


        • Seems to me that this is the first Minister of Defence in a long time who is actually seeking to develop the Defence Forces and expanding their roles..........
          There is no problem that cannot be fixed with high explosive.

          Comment


          • He is the first minister who could find his nearest military facility without having to google it first. He was a frequent visitor to the NS long before he became minister.
            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

            Comment


            • Good to see we finally have a pro-active Minister of Defence!

              It can only be a good thing to get feedback/recommendations from foreign military personnel....perhaps they will 'shake up the system' when they point out the glaring lack of air and sea defences in place in Ireland in comparison to every(?) other EU country?!
              IRISH AIR CORPS - Serving the Nation.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                He is the first minister who could find his nearest military facility without having to google it first. He was a frequent visitor to the NS long before he became minister.
                Simon coveney is a very decent man and minister and is doing great work for the remediation of haulbowline island.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                  He is the first minister who could find his nearest military facility without having to google it first. He was a frequent visitor to the NS long before he became minister.
                  Shatter actually had a good grasp of the portfolio, despite his double hatting. He was certainly one of the first to grasp the concept that the triple lock was an imposition on Irish Soverignty.

                  Comment


                  • True the triple lock going would be a great step forward for Irish soverignty!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Flamingo View Post
                      FG and Labour may have given the German banks taxpayers money, but they never organised men in balaclavas with weapons to go and steal it at gunpoint.
                      Well, just to be a pedant - Labour now have the 'Officials', the former SF-WP/DL people, within their ranks. Who very much did go out and rob banks in balaclavas.

                      There's also this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...year-bars.html

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by paul g View Post

                        Tight budgets are imposing constraints on decision-making. The Defence Forces budget has fallen by 20pc since 2008 and Ireland has the second lowest spending on defence, as part of its GDP, in the EU, after Luxembourg.

                        Irish Independent

                        http://www.independent.ie/irish-news...-31075530.html
                        Isn't it time to get away from this sort of rhetoric! The country is supposedly on the up and surely the DF deserve a break in terms of a greater Defence spend. You can have all the lofty statements in the world in a new WP (before Xmas hopefully) but if you've the lowest DF spend in the EU (apart from Luxembourg who bought 6 bullets last year) then your aspirations may fall a little short!

                        Some very positive initiatives from Min Coveney though - especially the appointment of John Minehane - a former Army Officer. The civies will hate that.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by DaithiDub View Post
                          Well, just to be a pedant - Labour now have the 'Officials', the former SF-WP/DL people, within their ranks. Who very much did go out and rob banks in balaclavas.

                          There's also this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...year-bars.html
                          Unacceptable. This guy was convicted of an offence - presumably under the Offences Against The State Act - and he is being paid from the public purse???
                          Another massive OG from Labour...
                          "Well, stone me! We've had cocaine, bribery and Arsenal scoring two goals at home. But just when you thought there were truly no surprises left in football, Vinnie Jones turns out to be an international player!" (Jimmy Greaves)!"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Truck Driver View Post
                            Unacceptable. This guy was convicted of an offence - presumably under the Offences Against The State Act - and he is being paid from the public purse???
                            Another massive OG from Labour...
                            Its not new.

                            Remember Pronsios De Rossa? In the OIRA he was known as Frank Ross.
                            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Pure Hover View Post
                              Isn't it time to get away from this sort of rhetoric! The country is supposedly on the up and surely the DF deserve a break in terms of a greater Defence spend. You can have all the lofty statements in the world in a new WP (before Xmas hopefully) but if you've the lowest DF spend in the EU (apart from Luxembourg who bought 6 bullets last year) then your aspirations may fall a little short!

                              Some very positive initiatives from Min Coveney though - especially the appointment of John Minehane - a former Army Officer. The civies will hate that.
                              Served in Parkgate St. and knows the mind set of the civies in DoD.

                              Comment


                              • "...Mr Coveney has already indicated that the overall strength of the Defence Forces will be retained at up to 9,500 but it has not yet been determined whether there will be a move away from specialisation and a concentration on troops."

                                Umm, does it almost sounds there like ‘specialisation’ is a bad word? By ‘specialism’ does it mean trained personnel for artillery, armour, air-defence, reconnaissance, engineering, electronics, medical units etc. etc.?

                                A response to this could be...
                                Historically...The ‘native’ and non-incumbent national military force in the country, almost a hundred years ago, was a part-time organisation armed only with rifles. This was because all they could be armed with was rifles. This was the National Volunteers.

                                At the same time, ‘The Other Guys’ also had rifles, but also had – machineguns, artillery, armour, and naval vessels and aircraft and so on.

                                Now, would many people see a reason to revert back to that juvenile position?

                                The operative word in the Defence Forces is ‘Defence’. Essentially, if all the country ends up having to defend itself with is men armed with rifles, then the country would be back to the National Volunteers days. So really, the country would not have advanced that much in almost a hundred years. Nor will it have taken advantage of its position as a sovereign state, to purchase, and professionally and legitimately operate; larger and more technologically advanced equipment – be it naval/air/armour - more capable of making defensive efforts, whether at home or, serving abroad (e.g. as part of the UN).

                                Also, for national defence, but equally applicable to UN missions, it would be better to retain and improve its ‘arms length’ equipment - to be better able to respond to events before they are so ‘up close and personal’ that rifles have to be fired. For one thing, this could save DF and other lives.

                                For example, imagine another Rwanda type situation (1994, when Europe was focussed on the conflict in ex-Yugoslavia, and some in the world were still smarting, after Somalia). It would be nice to think that the country could fully respond to that kind of extreme humanitarian crises if it wishes (ignoring for the moment, the for/against ‘Triple-lock’ arguments).

                                It is not too hard to imagine say, 450 Irish UN personnel intervening, armed only with rifles, a few machineguns and ‘jeeps’- very possibly not making that much of an impact (if it were for example, otherwise exposed in the same way the remainder Rwanda UN force was at the time or, as some UN units similarly were in ex-Yugoslavia) . Worse, (for Ireland) the soldiers could easily have found themselves at great risk by been faced by opposing forces also armed with rifles and machineguns but, numbering in their thousands and, with a smattering of artillery and armour. However, what if the Irish UN force were as trained professionals armed with more advanced, mature nation-style military equipment?

                                In the fictional Rwanda scenario outlined above (think ‘the Congo’ if that is easier) would it be better if say, a cheapish SF260 aircraft observed one village been massacred – and, seeing the guilty force moving towards another village to repeat the performance, fired a few rockets to slow them down? Then, the also fictional long-range artillery could fire to dissuade them that bit more. The imaginary UN force could then also fly in with their couple of imaginary helicopters, to drop in a blocking element of reconnaissance troops, ‘sharpshooters’, machine gunners and the like . They would then be later bolstered/extracted by a following UN convoy of fantasy-land armoured cars and armoured infantry vehicles with further troops. Hopefully, by that point the inhabitants of the next victim village would have escaped or, the ‘bad guys’ otherwise given up/dead. A roughly 30km safe haven area could be established in such a way to prevent further large scale massacres (by either side) for at least a time.

                                Regards the much maligned (on IMO) ‘Triple-Lock’... another way to look at it may be (notwithstanding unrelated political point-scoring vetoes) it could prevent the country getting involved where one or more power-blocs are already involved in some way – there are plenty of other trouble spots in the world that the country could get entangled in.

                                In summary, it would likely be best if the existing full-time professional force focussed on training and operating on specific equipment and roles that require time and training. There is nothing to stop ‘specialist military’ operating as ‘ordinary troops’ as well when suddenly required. However, you cannot reverse that arrangement!

                                (Though apparently, according to the movie ‘Armageddon’ it is easier to quickly train Miners to be NASA astronauts, than to train astronauts to be Miners!...)

                                (Do not Air-Corps and Naval Service personnel operate on overseas missions in more ‘ordinary troop’ positions or at least in Non-Naval/Non-Air, but supporting roles?).

                                With genuine national Defence (and independent stand-alone UN force) capabilities, and ‘arms length’ casualty/infrastructure loss-avoidance equipment in mind (notwithstanding my own slightly greater interest in ‘land’ military issues) I also still posit that a bit of a re-balance away from the Army - towards the Naval Service and Air-corps, and Army/Air-Corp air-defence, should be the future priorities (and other ‘harder’ equipment for the Army-PDF).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X