Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • #76
    Seriously, on the subject of submissions, while there must be several hundred years of military experience on this site, how do we make submissions, what is required? do we need to cost them?
    what level of detail is needed?
    The only thing I can think of is that the Air Corps should be prepared and equipped to carry out troop support, and possibly COIN and ISTAR along with the groundpounders on UN missions, apart from that probably blindingly obvious idea, I have no others.
    "We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey"
    Radio transmission, siege of Jadotville DR Congo. September 1961.
    Illegitimi non carborundum

    Comment


    • #77
      The green paper, when released, should clearly outline what submissions, if any, would be accepted and how.


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

      Comment


      • #78
        Giving that it is about to go to Cabinet (and it was supposed to be published last year) I would say the deadline for submissions is well passed

        Comment


        • #79
          "I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by."
          Douglas Adams

          Comment


          • #80
            broadly - and accepting that the financial crash wasn't factored into it - how closely did the last Defence White Paper inform/predict/shape what happened in Defence in the 13(?) years that followed it?

            was the 2000/2001 White Paper a genuine attempt to read the tea leaves and set the DF's posture, or was it a genuine attempt to look like it was reading the tea leaves and set the DF's posture with a veiw to shutting up those concerned about Irelands defence priorities and capabilities so FF could carry on with the parish pump?

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by ropebag View Post
              broadly - and accepting that the financial crash wasn't factored into it - how closely did the last Defence White Paper inform/predict/shape what happened in Defence in the 13(?) years that followed it?

              was the 2000/2001 White Paper a genuine attempt to read the tea leaves and set the DF's posture, or was it a genuine attempt to look like it was reading the tea leaves and set the DF's posture with a veiw to shutting up those concerned about Irelands defence priorities and capabilities so FF could carry on with the parish pump?
              As I have said before, a quick look at those who made submissions tells a lot about how serious the Government of the time took the White Paper process.


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

              Comment


              • #82
                was the 2000/2001 White Paper a genuine attempt to read the tea leaves and set the DF's posture, or was it a genuine attempt to look like it was reading the tea leaves and set the DF's posture with a veiw to shutting up those concerned about Irelands defence priorities and capabilities so FF could carry on with the parish pump?
                A bit of both. In some ways it codified and set out what was already happening, but it was very carefully couched and very vague. It also left huge areas of security and defence policy untouched because of political sensitivities. One could expect that this one will be different for two reasons, the first being that the ensuing 10 years have actually seen Irish and EU security policy evolve quite a bit - the DF have trained extensively with other EU countries outside of the UN structure (I say structure, but you know what I mean) and served abroad in a substantial way on EUFOR missions. So this is not new or scary, and so less likely to be scaremongered all to hell by SF or the Greens (remember them) as presaging conscription or an 'EU Army'. The heat has gone out of this debate, and so a rational discussion might actually be possible. There is also a far better prepared and equipped academic sector who are likely to be publicly supportive of what is in it, and to argue in favour of a realistic posture (Ben Tonra in UCD is always excellent on this stuff, but there are others too).

                That said, we should probably start a thread somewhere for loony reactions to the Green Paper. We could even have a drinking game, drink for every mention of conscription, an EU Army, Nuclear weapons in Abbeyshrule or DeV ...

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Aidan View Post

                  That said, we should probably start a thread somewhere for loony reactions to the Green Paper. We could even have a drinking game, drink for every mention of conscription, an EU Army, Nuclear weapons in Abbeyshrule or DeV ...

                  I'd argue that Bill Clinton got it right, when he said "its the economy stupid", thats what voters really care about.

                  Neutrality as expounded by Fianna Fail/SF and Greens appeal to their core voters, but thats about it, and they vote for their party no matter what. To floating voters, its not an issue.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    People are asking me why I'm not getting into this thread, so I will.

                    [startcontribution] Give war a chance. [/endcontribution]
                    "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


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Aidan View Post
                      But even if someone did have a go, and did manage to kill irish soldiers, it would hardly undermine the State - after all the British Army relatively recently lost two Sappers outside a Barracks in N.I. and the fabric of society didn't crumble overnight. And the same goes for more recent unfortunate events in London. A tragic waste of human life certainly, but capable of undermining the fabric of the State? Doubt it.
                      I didn't say it would collapse the fabric of society, I said it would undermine public confidence in the nation's armed forces.

                      Furthermore, while I don't want to get drawn any further into this, the stated incidents were cold blooded murder committed by cowards with a terrorist agenda. It was not an attack on armed soldiers in the execution of their duties to the State. There would be a significant difference between the two scenarios in terms of impact.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Furthermore, while I don't want to get drawn any further into this, the stated incidents were cold blooded murder committed by cowards with a terrorist agenda. It was not an attack on armed soldiers in the execution of their duties to the State
                        In any likely scenario in this State the two are not mutually exclusive. Which is entirely the point.

                        Again, not Iraq, not Northern Ireland.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Aidan View Post
                          In any likely scenario in this State the two are not mutually exclusive. Which is entirely the point.

                          Again, not Iraq, not Northern Ireland.
                          its a not unreasonable viewpoint that if the DF were conducting 'deterant' operations - as the military presence on CIT is claimed to be - and they failed to deter, then tht would erode public confidence. obviously if some 'alphabet IRA' group had a go at a DF protected asset and they all got killed or captured with the DF being the very obvious winner in the engagement then that would be both a massive boost to the DF and massive downer for the paramilitaries. however, if it was less clear cut than that, or, God forbid, the paramilitary group won the engagement and fcuked off sharpish, then the DF's credibility would be in the dirt.

                          when the DF do an ATCP mission they are not just protecting whatever asset they are assigned to, much more importantly they are protecting/establishing the States claim to be the singular power in the territory. if a DF escort were to be seriously attacked or even defeated the very obvious conclusion to draw is that the state is not the singular power in the territory.

                          for me, that says that even if the int says that the specific threat to X asset does not justify it, the political risk justifies a mahoosive show of force that would deter anybody, and rip an enormous hole in anyone foolish enough not to be detered.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            when the DF do an ATCP mission they are not just protecting whatever asset they are assigned to, much more importantly they are protecting/establishing the States claim to be the singular power in the territory. if a DF escort were to be seriously attacked or even defeated the very obvious conclusion to draw is that the state is not the singular power in the territory.
                            Again, I think you are confusing this state with some flyblown developing world $hithole. In nearly 40 years of CIT, and not one serious attempt has been made on a at a CIT convoy (including long periods when paramilitaries were better motivated, equipped and resourced than now, and the DF was less well set up). And we're talking about the need for a 'massive show of force' now, on the streets of a western European country with a relatively low crime rate, in 2013? Seriously?

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Aidan View Post
                              Again, I think you are confusing this state with some flyblown developing world $hithole. In nearly 40 years of CIT, and not one serious attempt has been made on a at a CIT convoy (including long periods when paramilitaries were better motivated, equipped and resourced than now, and the DF was less well set up). And we're talking about the need for a 'massive show of force' now, on the streets of a western European country with a relatively low crime rate, in 2013? Seriously?
                              are you seriously happy with a 'presence' and no real means for the soldiers to react if they are mobile - based on what has not happened?

                              we had years of the Snatch being undefeated too however we still introduced Tavern - but that bubble soon bursts when the bad guys up their game.

                              the ONH have never gone to war as a belligerent - does this mean it's soldiers aren't equipped for it? absolutely not.

                              as far as i know we never had a soldier decapitated on Top Cover in Northern Ireland - but all of our vehicles had cheese-wire cutters anyhow - just incase they tried it one day.

                              thankfully our commanders never thought "well - we've been alright until now, i'm sure we will be grand as we are"

                              you cannot simply rest on your laurels hoping you never get bitten, because when you do - it will hurt.

                              if there is a threat - you must be equipped to counter it. if you think you can counter it based on what is in service now (i.e. soft skinned Pajero's with no firing positions) - then it is clear there is no longer a threat.
                              Last edited by RoyalGreenJacket; 26 June 2013, 18:17.
                              RGJ

                              ...Once a Rifleman - Always a Rifleman... Celer et Audax

                              The Rifles

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                if there is a threat - you must be equipped to counter it. if you think you can counter it based on what is in service now (i.e. soft skinned Pajero's with no firing positions) - then it is clear there is no longer a threat.
                                The specifics of what goes into a CIT will remain general, but (a) the suggestion that the DF have 'no means to react' is silly, and (b) the equipment used is tailored to the threat, as you suggest. And has been said already, the primary reason the DF still do it is that the Gardai don't have enough armed officers (and have never been asked to take CIT), not because there is a threat significant enough to need troops travelling in open topped armoured vehicles.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X