I welcome the Estimate and also the Minister's statement that he has been able to get up-to-date equipment. Those members of the House who were invited by the general staff to be present recently at a demonstration of modern arms will agree that we were very pleased with the demonstration and with the supply of equipment—particularly those automatic weapons or sub-machine guns and the anti-tank weapons.
One of the things that was frightening to us in this country was the fear of a tank invasion and we were all delighted to see that, with the equipmentthe Defence Forces now have, they are able to stop any tank. I am not surprised to hear the Minister saying that, by virtue of this new equipment and these new arms, the morale of the Defence Forces is higher than it has been for a long time. I felt very proud of our position when I saw armour-piercing anti-tank weapons, with their wonderful efficiency and their power to demolish or destroy a very heavily-armoured tank. It was the one type of weapon we wanted in this country and I am perfectly certain that everyone who was privileged to see the demonstration was delighted with the achievements and delighted that our Army has been made so effective by means of this new equipment. Although we may be a small Army, small in numbers, with that equipment and the other new equipment, we have a much more powerful Army than we have ever had and an Army which can certainly make a stand, and a very gallant stand, against superior numbers, if the test should come at any time in the future.
For many years, we felt, particularly those of us who were in the Defence Forces, that we had not the equipment which would enable us to face these new modern implements of war and it is wonderful that new inventions have given to us a power that is out of all proportion to the size of our country and the numbers of our Defence Forces. The country can feel, for the first time, that it has a really effective Defence Force, a force which can defend its interests against anything but the most overwhelming odds. There is no use in having an Army or a Defence Force, unless it is fit to fight, and, whatever it costs to provide that Defence Force with this type of equipment, which is simple and easily moved from place to place—it can be carried by individual soldiers—the necessary equipment should be secured, because, while we have a sufficient amount of that equipment, our Army is a more powerful force than it has ever been in the past.
Deputy MacEoin has suggested that our standing Army is too large. That is a matter of opinion and Deputy MacEoin is entitled to that viewpoint, but I think experience has shown thatthe number mentioned by the Minister as the minimum is in fact the minimum that will enable the permanent force to carry out its functions and enable it to administer and train the non-permanent force, to provide the number of instructors, administrative staffs and so on that will be required to make the Defence Forces effective and efficient. I think we have reached a position where on a matter of that kind, we have to be guided by the advice of our own general staff. The Minister has told us from time to time that that is the advice of the general staff and there is not very much opportunity for disagreement with them. It might be a matter of a few hundred or a couple of thousand, but in the long run the responsibility rests on the general staff, and, if we have a general staff in whom we have confidence and if they are not entirely extravagant in their demands, it is reasonable that their professional and technical views should be accepted by the Government and by the House. I do not think it ought to be a matter for debate whether we have 12,000, 11,000, 10,000 or 9,000 men.
Obviously when we spend the amount of money we are spending on the Defence Forces, we have to consider what is the purpose for which we are spending this money. Deputy MacEoin has referred to the fact that a couple of years ago there was criticism here of the then Government for not taking adequate steps to defend the country in the event of war. Fortunately, the clouds of war which then hovered over the world seem to be dispersing somewhat and I think that responsible opinion all over the world is satisfied that a war could only occur to-morrow by a clash between the Russians and the Americans. Responsible opinion also believes that, so far as the Russians are concerned, they do not want war, that, without war, they are consolidating their position and extending the areas under Communist control. Obviously, therefore, it would be senseless on the part of the Russians to want or to bring about war.
The other major force are the Americans, and if there is one lessonto be learned from the result of the recent presidential election in America it is that the American people do not want war. There was a change of president on a promise by him that he would bring the soldiers home from Korea. He was put into power on that promise; in other words, on the desire of the ordinary American people to get away from war. It, therefore, seems to me, anyway—I hope I am assessing the position rightly—that the dangers of war are much more remote now than they were a couple of years back and for that the world, and certainly this country, ought to be thankful.
A nice problem does arise. There are, as one may term it, these two great powers engaged at the moment in a cold war. There is the other great power with which we have been in conflict for a long period—the British Commonwealth or the British Empire.