Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hungarian Moderisation

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by The Connaught Ranger View Post
    I have always thought that former COS Lt. Gen. Gerry McMahon's take on this was the best. As a neutral county we have an obligation to mount a credible defence of our sovereignty. Finland an Austria being the most comparably sized neutral states I thought would be a good bench mark - yes Finland is much larger, but its population is similar and if you add in our EEZ then that gap in size closes somewhat.
    You touched on two interesting points; neutrality and size. If we look at neutrality we all know that Finland and Austria had no choice after WW2 but there is another nation that could be added; Singapore. Like us until its independence it relied on the UK for defence, and like us the British forces did not leave all at once. The three countries have a defence policies related to "Total Defence" which is a posture very different to ours.

    As for size Finland and us have a different distribution of territory, Finland being larger land wise and us having more ocean. That would mean a different split on force composition yet today their Navy as a proportion of their active forces is twice as big as ours. This is also the case for another similarly sized country (population) Denmark, there too the Navy represents about 20% of the establishment. Denmark is interesting for two other reasons; a) it has a large maritime area and b) it demographic growth is similar to ours. This is important as defence is long term and so any plan must take into account the ability to pay in the future. Click image for larger version

Name:	Population1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	104.1 KB
ID:	698354
    The graph show our population will grow over the next few years and that growth matches that of Denmark while most other small/medium sized will fall. So even if Denmark is in NATO it would be a good candidate for comparison.

    Originally posted by The Connaught Ranger View Post
    The threats you have listed are all real, but where is the voice in discourse putting this forward?? The former military seem to be only finding their voices now and they are focusing, understandably, on terms and conditions for existing members. I am curious on where the assertion that the commission on defence is being done to appease our EU "partners"?
    "IMHO"; why did FF & FG suddenly become so interested in defence that they proposed a Commission on Defence? We all know how little knowledge or interest they have in the subject, in the last 10yrs we have changed Minister 10 times! I would find it hard to believe that the DoD was pushing for a Commission and our mighty "Military Industrial Complex" is not so mighty. As for the general public, most have little or no interest and when questioned will reply "sure, we're neutral, what do we need an Army for?". So IMHO the impulse must be external, our EU partners almost all of which are heading for the infamous 2% target, or for our external investors. I just find it hard to believe that our politicians would come up with such a Commission on their own.

    Comment


    • #17
      Finland also has the Russians looking over it's shoulder, it's folk memory of their version of WW 2 and their location as a Baltic state as well as an Atlantic/North Sea state and it's fellowship with Norway, Sweden and Denmark and Estonia (ethnic identity) and the Danes are strategically important as the gate guardians of the Baltic, all situations fairly unique to them with few parallels to Ireland.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
        Finland also has the Russians looking over it's shoulder, it's folk memory of their version of WW 2 and their location as a Baltic state as well as an Atlantic/North Sea state and it's fellowship with Norway, Sweden and Denmark and Estonia (ethnic identity) and the Danes are strategically important as the gate guardians of the Baltic, all situations fairly unique to them with few parallels to Ireland.
        Every nation will have a unique situation, when doing comparisons it is to see what lessons/insights can be drawn from those countries.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
          but there is another nation that could be added; Singapore. Like us until its independence it relied on the UK for defence, and like us the British forces did not leave all at once. The three countries have a defence policies related to "Total Defence" which is a posture very different to ours.
          Reading up on “Total Defence” on wiki is extremely interesting and very possibly, as a small open economy, the right model for us with the 6 pillars:
          - military defence
          - civil Defence
          - economic defence
          - social defence
          - digital defence
          - psychological defence

          It is about a lot more than the defence of a nation but a values and way of life defence against all threats including recessions, social integration etc - no parish pumps there!

          Not sure if Singapore could be classified as neutral as they allow foreign troops to be based on their soil and they are a party to the Five Powers Defence Agreement (Although it isn’t necessarily a mutual defence agreement).

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by DeV View Post
            Reading up on “Total Defence” on wiki is extremely interesting and very possibly, as a small open economy, the right model for us with the 6 pillars:
            - military defence
            - civil Defence
            - economic defence
            - social defence
            - digital defence
            - psychological defence

            It is about a lot more than the defence of a nation but a values and way of life defence against all threats including recessions, social integration etc - no parish pumps there!

            Not sure if Singapore could be classified as neutral as they allow foreign troops to be based on their soil and they are a party to the Five Powers Defence Agreement (Although it isn’t necessarily a mutual defence agreement).
            Total Defence is not a new concept even if it is not widely known. It origins are with Austria although today the best known example is Singapore. In recent years since the Russians started to use Hybrid Warfare there has been an renewal especially with the Nordic and Baltic countries. IMHO the idea that defence is just about two armies facing off against each other is a thing of the past. But this also means that old ideas such as neutrality have to be challenged and reformed.


            https://www.regeringen.se/4afeb9/glo...20171220ny.pdf
            https://www.baks.bund.de/en/working-...t-national-and
            https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...nalCode=cdan19

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
              Total Defence is not a new concept even if it is not widely known. It origins are with Austria although today the best known example is Singapore. In recent years since the Russians started to use Hybrid Warfare there has been an renewal especially with the Nordic and Baltic countries. IMHO the idea that defence is just about two armies facing off against each other is a thing of the past. But this also means that old ideas such as neutrality have to be challenged and reformed.


              https://www.regeringen.se/4afeb9/glo...20171220ny.pdf
              https://www.baks.bund.de/en/working-...t-national-and
              https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...nalCode=cdan19
              In fairness, some commentators are starting to promote the DF as being important in order to provide “a safe and secure environment” in order to attract FDI to Ireland .... the right thing to do

              Comment

              Working...
              X