What country could Ireland beat in a all-out War

c_man

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Iceland. No army. The FCA could beat them.

Woah, let's not go crazy now.

vampire of kilmainham

Hogwarts

Manic Moran

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It's bit more complicated than just '700' years. Like most places in Europe we were invaded by the Vikings, Normans (as was England IIRC) and then the English.

England really didn't tighten it's grip on the 'Country' (if we thought of ourselves as a country at all) until the plantation of Uslter.

There were significant rebellions and counter insurgencies against England ever since they tightened their grip.

Oh, so only one or two centuries then.

I'm still not quite seeing that as a viable defence plan.

NTM

Toby Take a Bow

Manic Moran wrote: »

Oh, so only one or two centuries then.

I'm still not quite seeing that as a viable defence plan.

NTM

We're better at the auld guerilla warfare since 1921, so it'd probably be a bit more difficult now.

Solnskaya

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

We're better at the auld guerilla warfare since 1921, so it'd probably be a bit more difficult now.

Yep, except everyone of fighting age is in Australia plastering things. We'd have to ask our chosen weedy foe to hang on a bit while we try and get a few of the lads to book the flights home, then buy a bit more time for the obligatory "sure it yourself who's back" piss-up, a bit more for the "jasus I'm dying after that do" hangover.
When we finally got them all together, Health and Safety would have a field day. It would have to be a war involving big foam swords with everyone wearing eye-protection and signing a disclaimer in case they got hurt.
edit: actually it could take longer, cos we'd need to have a few sponsored walks, duothons and a collection at the traffic lights to raise the bobs to buy the foam swords.

dpe

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

We're better at the auld guerilla warfare since 1921, so it'd probably be a bit more difficult now.

And counter-insurgency techniques have moved on a fair bit as well. Ireland isn't the best terrain to defend against a properly ruthless occupier. Not exactly the Tora Bora mountains is it?

Solnskaya

dpe wrote: »

And counter-insurgency techniques have moved on a fair bit as well. Ireland isn't the best terrain to defend against a properly ruthless occupier. Not exactly the Tora Bora mountains is it?

We could all hide out in Offaly, its big and wild and untamed, and they'd have to pay the occupying troops double just to spend time there.

paky

Manic Moran wrote: »

So as evidenced by past experience, 'long term' means something greater than, oh, 700 years, then?

NTM

coming from a guy whos army is getten the sh.it kicked out of them in afghanistan

Rds1989

New Ireland in Papua New Guinea cos there's only room for one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Ireland

sock puppet

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Whatever about a war we'd be like Afghanistan for any miltary invader imo i.e. impossible to hold in the long term.

It'd really depend on how ruthless an invader is prepared to be.

markesmith

sock puppet wrote: »

It'd really depend on how ruthless an invader is prepared to be.

Ze Germans circa 1940 would've given it a good go

Jumpy

I could imagine the general watching the Irish arrive...


"Paddys, fousands of em"

markesmith

Jumpy wrote: »

I could imagine the general watching the Irish arrive...


"Paddys, fousands of em"

With sleeping bags and a phone number, to quote Tommy Tiernan

TerrorFirmer

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

We're better at the auld guerilla warfare since 1921, so it'd probably be a bit more difficult now.

Not really. By the time of the truce, the IRA was on its last legs, running low on ammunition and in no great shape to continue a campaign indefinitely. British popular opinion was against the continuing occupation of Ireland, as was international, it was a political truce ultimately, not a military one. In a military sense, the IRA was on the brink of defeat and owed the truce as much to international politics as it did domestic military effectiveness....

Not belittling their sacrifices at the same time, but it was a political game as much as it was conventionally military. So if an army invaded today with the sole aim of subjugating the island and political considerations were null, it really wouldn't be a hard task at all.

Chuck Stone

Manic Moran wrote: »

Oh, so only one or two centuries then.

I'm still not quite seeing that as a viable defence plan.

NTM

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

We're better at the auld guerilla warfare since 1921, so it'd probably be a bit more difficult now.

This.

Solnskaya wrote: »

Yep, except everyone of fighting age is in Australia plastering things.

The Irish diaspora would be the main reason we could make life hell for an occupier. They be the financial and logistical support which would be critical imo.

paky wrote: »

coming from a guy whos army is getten the sh.it kicked out of them in afghanistan

Easy now.

sock puppet wrote: »

It'd really depend on how ruthless an invader is prepared to be.

True but if our imaginary invaders invaded Ireland to say.. make us all work the land. The more ruthless they'd be the more people would be dead, injured and agreived and the less productive would be the slaves.

markesmith wrote: »

Ze Germans circa 1940 would've given it a good go

Yes but they'd have had bigger fish to fry and then they'd be all over-stretched by fighting the Ruski's.

Jumpy wrote: »

I could imagine the general watching the Irish arrive...

"Paddys, fousands of em"

Lol.

@Manic Moran. This is all just conjecture BS and I usually don't partake in these daft discussions but I guess looking to the more distant past wouldn't be what the occupied modern Irish person would.

We would probably use the template provided by the P-IRA which would make life for any invader very very difficult and imho unsustainable.

Ultimately nobody knows what the hell would happen - that's why I ususally avoid this hypothetical ****e.

Sleepy

sunflower27 wrote: »

Malta - 122 square miles - This island is just south of the Italian island of Sicily. It became independent from the United Kingdom in 1964 and the British military were completely gone by 1979. The population is 400,000.

You have to remember that the people of Malta were given the George's Cross... we might lose that one...

gigino

Sleepy wrote: »

You have to remember that the people of Malta were given the George's Cross... we might lose that one...

Dev went to the german embassy on the death of Hitler in '45...maybe he was hoping to get an Iron Cross for good auld Eire;)

paky

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Not really. By the time of the truce, the IRA was on its last legs, running low on ammunition and in no great shape to continue a campaign indefinitely. British popular opinion was against the continuing occupation of Ireland, as was international, it was a political truce ultimately, not a military one. In a military sense, the IRA was on the brink of defeat and owed the truce as much to international politics as it did domestic military effectiveness....

Not belittling their sacrifices at the same time, but it was a political game as much as it was conventionally military. So if an army invaded today with the sole aim of subjugating the island and political considerations were null, it really wouldn't be a hard task at all.

military might is only a factor in how wars are won. strategy, leadership, chance and the whole momentum of history needs to be taken into account.

i love how people like to sell this country short. there are many accounts in history where smaller forces have defied the odds: The Winter War been one.

TerrorFirmer

paky wrote: »

military might is only a factor in how wars are won. strategy, leadership, chance and the whole momentum of history needs to be taken into account.

i love how people like to sell this country short. there are many accounts in history where smaller forces have defied the odds: The Winter War been one.

The winter war was between the Finns and the SU and there were no political considerations, which formed a large part of the IRA insurgency. It was a clear cut invasion rather then long term occupation. You have to remember that in 1921, Britain was under pressure from domestic opinion, as well as international opinion. SU in Finland during the WW was entirely different, it was a question of military might in which the SU suffered an embarrassing stalemate before eventual victory, but one must consider that, in the absence of political will, ala Winter War, a country can take over another irrespective of losses. The Soviet Unions losses were catastrophic relatively, no argument. But at that given time, in that sphere of the world, military might was king. And, the SU, at that time, was wanton to dismiss enormous losses that would have ghastly by western standards as 'acceptable'. The IRA did not have that luxury, of writing off thousands of men as collateral. So really, it's entirely inaccurate to compare the IRA versus the Winter war. One critical point you're missing is that the SU prevailed in breaking the Finnish line eventually, irrespective of losses. That is something the IRA could never have accomplished.

IRISH VEGAS

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Not really. By the time of the truce, the IRA was on its last legs, running low on ammunition and in no great shape to continue a campaign indefinitely. British popular opinion was against the continuing occupation of Ireland, as was international, it was a political truce ultimately, not a military one. In a military sense, the IRA was on the brink of defeat and owed the truce as much to international politics as it did domestic military effectiveness....

Not belittling their sacrifices at the same time, but it was a political game as much as it was conventionally military. So if an army invaded today with the sole aim of subjugating the island and political considerations were null, it really wouldn't be a hard task at all.

Can we invite some country to invade us, As history can tell we caint look after the country in the first place;)

meathstevie

I'd stay the hell out of Sweden, Husqvarna can probably make more rifles in a week than there's blades of grass on a football pitch. It's not for no reason that one of the best shooting calibers around is called 6.5 Swedish.

I'd go for Never Land, now that the clown is dead a while there's only the monkey and it's solicitor left.

Capt'n Midnight

Captain Obvious wrote:

With a properly resourced Army and enough soldiers, then id imagine alot of smaller countries.

But not the Spratly Islands

paky

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

The winter war was between the Finns and the SU and there were no political considerations, which formed a large part of the IRA insurgency. It was a clear cut invasion rather then long term occupation. You have to remember that in 1921, Britain was under pressure from domestic opinion, as well as international opinion. SU in Finland during the WW was entirely different, it was a question of military might in which the SU suffered an embarrassing stalemate before eventual victory, but one must consider that, in the absence of political will, ala Winter War, a country can take over another irrespective of losses. The Soviet Unions losses were catastrophic relatively, no argument. But at that given time, in that sphere of the world, military might was king. And, the SU, at that time, was wanton to dismiss enormous losses that would have ghastly by western standards as 'acceptable'. The IRA did not have that luxury, of writing off thousands of men as collateral. So really, it's entirely inaccurate to compare the IRA versus the Winter war. One critical point you're missing is that the SU prevailed in breaking the Finnish line eventually, irrespective of losses. That is something the IRA could never have accomplished.

i think your overlooking the fact that the ira actually won. theres no ifs and buts about it.

sock puppet

paky wrote: »

i think your overlooking the fact that the ira actually won. theres no ifs and buts about it.

They "won" against a force numbering in the tens of thousands. By comparison there were more casualties than that on the first day of the battle of the Somme.

paky

sock puppet wrote: »

They "won" against a force numbering in the tens of thousands. By comparison there were more casualties than that on the first day of the battle of the Somme.

how do you mean? the whole british government infrastructure on the island was paralysed. the brits had no chance of winning. what is it your suggesting, that the ira were given the victory?

Chuck Stone

Let's say Ireland was under threat because we discrovered a very valuable mine of Frosted Lucky Charms under the Comeragh mountains or some shit.

Now let's say Kellogsland with it's considerable miltary power fabricated some evidence that Ireland was ammasing Lucky Charms to make a giant wish that Kellogsland would be flooded by cold milk and the threat was imminent.

How cheap would it be for Ireland to train say 200 expert snipers and have a bank of 400 rifles (parts and replacements) and a huge quantity of bullets?

Wouldn't that make life absolute hell for any occupier at minimal cost?

Tonyandthewhale

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Wouldn't that make life absolute hell for any occupier at minimal cost?

I've never heard of an occupying force in an operation as large as an invasion and occupation of Ireland being brought to it's knees by a force as small as 200 soldiers. If it was that easy no one would be able to occupy anything. 200 people would possibly be enough to set up a few moderately effective terrorist/freedom fighters but they would need logistical and popular support and what's to say they wouldn't be arrested or killed within a week of the initial invasion. To avoid detection they'd need to keep to a low level of activity or plan every attack carefully which means only acting every few months or even every few years. Hardly enough to beat off an entire army.

Tonyandthewhale

paky wrote: »

how do you mean? the whole british government infrastructure on the island was paralysed. the brits had no chance of winning. what is it your suggesting, that the ira were given the victory?

Well there is the rather significant fact that the Britis hadn't mobilized their entire armed forces. The war of independence started with a police response from the British who then turned to the likes of auxillaries, black and tans and even regular army units as the conflict escalated. The debate within Britain was should they commit to an all-out war considering this would be costly and probably not the most expedient course of action politically speaking. Once they had settled the northern question and kept us in the commonwealth a proper war wasn't worth the hassle. I'm not going to say the IRA had no chance, maybe the could have upped that ante, gotten re-supplied I don't know but it's ridiculous to say that Britain never had a chance.

paky

Tonyandthewhale wrote: »

Well there is the rather significant fact that the Britis hadn't mobilized their entire armed forces. The war of independence started with a police response from the British who then turned to the likes of auxillaries, black and tans and even regular army units as the conflict escalated. The debate within Britain was should they commit to an all-out war considering this would be costly and probably not the most expedient course of action politically speaking. Once they had settled the northern question and kept us in the commonwealth a proper war wasn't worth the hassle. I'm not going to say the IRA had no chance, maybe the could have upped that ante, gotten re-supplied I don't know but it's ridiculous to say that Britain never had a chance.

i think there is some confusion here with what did happen and what could of happened. the brits surrendered the 26 counties, hence they lost. end of

archer22

paky wrote: »

any african country for sure. they wouldnt be able to do much with bows and arrows if even that. the last i heard they still use javellins in war

If I remember correctly...they did give the Irish army a hiding once with their bows and arrows.Back in the sixties.. Congo I think.

RobitTV

paky wrote: »

i think there is some confusion here with what did happen and what could of happened. the brits surrendered the 26 counties, hence they lost. end of

In a way they won and we won.

It was a win-win situation Ireland got its 26 counties, but the Britain got Northern ireland, no one lost IMO.

archer22

Antartica...Penguins cant fight ****

archer22

paky wrote: »

how do you mean? the whole british government infrastructure on the island was paralysed. the brits had no chance of winning. what is it your suggesting, that the ira were given the victory?

Of course the IRA were given the victory.Do you think a nation that had just lost millions of soldiers as part of the winning coalition (and never once even considered surrendering) in the Great War was suddenly going to come out waving a white flag because they lost a few hundred soldiers in Ireland (sic).

Manic Moran

Wouldn't that make life absolute hell for any occupier at minimal cost?

Not really. I'd suggest that the Afghan and Iraqi forces facing the US in those countries were a fair bit more capable than 200 guys with rifles, and the US Army is still there.

NTM

HerrScheisse

Ireland doesn't need to militarily defeat any countries whatsoever. With the green isles finances shystered for the next decade, wave after inexorable wave of ruthless emigrants will flood out into the english speaking world injecting alcohol abuse and freckles into the local genepools and disturbing the delicate balance of power forever. I think Australia will fall first.

Chuck Stone

Manic Moran wrote: »

and the US Army is still there.

NTM

Being 'there' (in heavily fortified, unwelcome, barracks) is not the same as a succesful occupation.

Compare Japan to Iraq.

IRISH VEGAS

HerrScheisse wrote: »

Ireland doesn't need to militarily defeat any countries whatsoever. With the green isles finances shystered for the next decade, wave after inexorable wave of ruthless emigrants will flood out into the english speaking world injecting alcohol abuse and freckles into the local genepools and disturbing the delicate balance of power forever. I think Australia will fall first.

yup like in USA "hispanics" and yanks just love hispanics lol

TheUsual

The Irish invasion plans. Simple yet effective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af51Y-ZmzVE

sanbrafyffe

there not even a country
#

barr32 wrote: »

northern ireland

IRISH VEGAS

sanbrafyffe wrote: »

there not even a country
#

but they have more hardwear that us lol

argosy2006

Narnia,
If we cant beat up elfs and kids then i give up :P

http://www.moviemobsters.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/prince-caspian.jpg

barr32

sanbrafyffe wrote: »

there not even a country
#

but we would beat the **** out of them anyways

RobitTV

Could we beat New Zealand?

Chuck Stone

RobitTV wrote: »

Could we beat New Zealand?

I consider NZ our sister country.

NZ v Ire in a war? We'd propbably call it off and go to the pub for a few games of pool and a few pints.

IRISH VEGAS

RobitTV wrote: »

What country could ireland beat in a war?

The faroe island's maybe

What type of War ???

Dravokivich

IRISH VEGAS wrote: »

What type of War ???

A just war.

tfitzgerald

I think we would stand a good chance against the Republic of Cork:)

LordSutch

Isle of Man maybe? http://www.homepages.mcb.net/manxfishing/charter/images/irishseamap.jpg

I know its probably not a proper country in its own right, but I also know that they're not part of ther UK, so maybe they're fair game for a play war? )
The Manx navy may consist of two converted fishing trawlers with 127mm guns, six inflatable attack craft with 125cc engines, two light aircraft, gliders,
ten microlights, two hundred retired part time TAs, + five ex (decomissioned) light house keepers with a grievence!

Sunnyisland

I was going to say the Vatican, But we already lost that one.

Sin City

Costa Rica has no army at all . So might be worth an invasion, as long as we can do all the fighting in the shade though