Should Ireland join NATO

sligolad1

Many people believe that Ireland's membership of NATO is long overdue. Their reasoning is that Ireland cannot be neutral in the war on terrorism and cyber warfare! What do you think?

EncinoMan

For a start, Ireland is highly unlikely to join NATO. The supposed neutrality we claim may be a charade of symbolic nationalistic nonsense but the Irish people are very attached to our 'neutrality'.

Membership of and adherence to international agreements here has never been driven by common sense, economic gain, or any tangible benefits. More often it's by utopian dreams of a better world, eg League of Nations, joining the eurozone etc.

I don't see what ireland could gain from NATO membership either.

However if Ireland were to become a NATO member, we would be obliged to send troops to help in any NATO conflict. Given the limited capacity of the Defence Forces (don't get me wrong, I have the upmost respect for them), it wouldn't be much of a string to add to NATO's bow. However, it would somewhat legitimize Ireland as a target for radical Islamic terror groups.

Let's be realistic too- NATO serves as a function of American foreign policy.

Defensively speaking, we don't gain either. Odds are, if somehow a foreign aggressor were to threaten these shores, the big powers would be drawn in anyway.

Lemming

AFAIK, membership of NATO requires maintaining a certain level of military standing in equipment, training, and availability for deployment. Given the current climate of the Irish economy & the mind-boggling continued illusion around neutrality, I really don't see membership as happening any time soon.

EncinoMan wrote: »

However if Ireland were to become a NATO member, we would be obliged to send troops to help in any NATO conflict. Given the limited capacity of the Defence Forces (don't get me wrong, I have the upmost respect for them), it wouldn't be much of a string to add to NATO's bow. However, it would somewhat legitimize Ireland as a target for radical Islamic terror groups.

Legitimise Ireland as a target? Sorry to pop that particular bubble, but radical Islamic terror groups don't need any prompting on that one; the nation is not a Muslim one. That's enough to put you on the wrong side of their world view (no different to any other radical religious terror group). Any Muslims that also don't happen to either agree with or submit to their world view will just be declared traitors, western puppets or innocent martyrs depending on the day.

tac foley

As of this moment, what is the threat to the RoI from radical muslim terrorism?

It would be interesting to what the perceived threat actually is, and what, if anything, your security service is doing about it.

tac

Hedgemeister

The PLO had an office in Dublin at one time.
Ireland is 'soft' on terrorist organisations and this is well noted internationally, whether we like it or not.

Lemming

tac foley wrote: »

As of this moment, what is the threat to the RoI from radical muslim terrorism?

It would be interesting to what the perceived threat actually is, and what, if anything, your security service is doing about it.

tac

I wouldn't imagine there would be a direct threat right now tac, and the country would - I'm sure - generally speaking be far down the bombing list, but my point (poorly made) was that it would still be on the bombing list by virtue of being predominantly not a Muslim nation and also friendly towards the major western powers so being a member of NATO or not would be neither here nor there save to determine how "soon" such terrorist groups would turn their attention to Irish interests.

EncinoMan

Lemming wrote: »

Legitimise Ireland as a target? Sorry to pop that particular bubble, but radical Islamic terror groups don't need any prompting on that one; the nation is not a Muslim one. That's enough to put you on the wrong side of their world view (no different to any other radical religious terror group). Any Muslims that also don't happen to either agree with or submit to their world view will just be declared traitors, western puppets or innocent martyrs depending on the day.

Actually- I agree with you to an extent. Ireland could already be legitimized as target due to letting the Americans transit to the Middle East, or just on foot of being westerners. We already have our colours pinned to the mast here.

However- surely Irish involvement in NATO conflicts would heighten this risk to a further extent? Look at Spain and the UK terror attacks... If we had been actively involved in conflicts such as Iraq or Afghanistan we might have drawn more attention from terror cells than we did.

Even if its a small risk- hardly worth joining NATO for it.

And yes I know about the seven bomb disposal experts or whomever it is the DF have deployed to Afghanistan. Fair play to them, of course, but they aren't that significant in the grand scheme of things.

Xios

Lemming wrote: »

Legitimise Ireland as a target? Sorry to pop that particular bubble, but radical Islamic terror groups don't need any prompting on that one; the nation is not a Muslim one. That's enough to put you on the wrong side of their world view (no different to any other radical religious terror group). Any Muslims that also don't happen to either agree with or submit to their world view will just be declared traitors, western puppets or innocent martyrs depending on the day.

In all honesty, a nations religion or political align has very little to do with wether or not they are targets of terrorism, especially Islamic terrorism. The worst affected nations of islamic terrorism are islamic nations.

As for NATO, we shouldn't really bother. If the military landscape is a school, NATO is the group of cool kids/Jocks, Russia is repressed kid that bullies people and Ireland is the small fella who fits in with everyone, but has a mean punch if ya start on him. (we could bloody the nose of the bigger guys, but in no way could we ever stop em)

folbotcar

We tried to join NATO at the start but we because we had to recognise then current borders, ie Northern Ireland that was a no no at the time. That restriction is gone now.

But the neutrality fantasy is too embedded in psyche now for us to join NATO. Not only that if we did join NATO, we'd have to take Defence seriously and actually spend real money on the military.

Now that would never happen!

The irony is that NATO was set up precisely to protect smaller nations like us. Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway and Luxembourg being enthusiastic members based on their wartime experience. Meanwhile the likes of Poland, the Czechs, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia and others were quick to join. The experience of the Ukranians being a good example of why it's a good idea.

Meanwhile we sit back content for everyone else to take defence of Europe seriously while we can relax knowing we're safe out here in the Atlantic with our pretend neutrality. Just like in WW2. We do hypocrisy very well in this country.

Lemming

Xios wrote: »

In all honesty, a nations religion or political align has very little to do with wether or not they are targets of terrorism, especially Islamic terrorism. The worst affected nations of islamic terrorism are islamic nations.

That is a very good point Xios. I would suggest that Islamic nations are probably the most affected because the terror groups don't have far to travel (don't knock convenience!) so they're close to their logistical support base and those countries governments are likely administering socially progressive schemes that are at odds with whatever strict religious dogma this week's particular terror group favour, and/or are seen to be friendly with western society, or there are "western" targets in those countries.

Jawgap

It's not long overdue because it was never due in the first place.

I don't think we 'need' to join NATO, indeed as a non-aligned EU member state you could argue, quite convincingly, that we punch way above our weight at the UN and in other international bodies precisely because we're not in NATO - would we, for example, get another turn as quickly on the Security Council if we were seen as being too closely aligned to the British and Americans?

If we did join, however, it's not a given we'd have to commit land forces. The terms - subject to some absolutes - could be negotiated for us to fulfill some particular niche (maritime patrol / interdiction springs to mind). What is clear is that we would have to significantly (at least treble) the defence budget - and for that reason alone it won't happen.

On the plus side, if we did join the opportunities for defence force personnel would undoubtedly by hugely improved.

average hero

Frankly I think we should join NATO. For very simple reasons. Number one, we tried to join before as stated but the current borders issue kept us from doing so. That issue has dissipated for the most part. Number two, we are NOT a neutral nation despite people saying otherwise. We allow NATO planes to stop in Shannon etc and frankly, I don't have a problem with that.

I think that NATO would give us money to bolster our defense equipment and that money could be well spent on giving the fantastic men and women in our military the careers and experience they desire. Regarding Islamic extremism aggression, I think that by virtue of not being an Islamic country that we are a target for them. Joining NATO would put us on a level of target as what....Estonia?

Tac - regarding levels of threat against Ireland, I heard from a well placed source in the army that there are about 50 individuals in Dublin that security services are actively monitoring with varying levels of surveillance. All fairly low level stuff, mainly financial stuff, coming and going through Dublin airport and monitoring the mosque perhaps and I believe this information is shared with our friends in Britain and the US. I personally do not know the veracity or accuracy of this information (he has a good track record though!), so take this as hearsay until you hear otherwise.

EncinoMan

Again, I fail to see what Ireland gains from joining NATO. Are you seriously suggesting we change our foreign policy so that the DF members have better career prospects and more guns to play with?

mcko

I always wonder why no one asks why they hate and attack the west, look at our history in the region, and not just Israel.

Lemming

mcko wrote: »

I always wonder why no one asks why they hate and attack the west, look at our history in the region, and not just Israel.

"The West" is an opaque term that has no real meaning of substance other than when spouting (or referring to) soapbox rhetoric. Who is "the West"? And why would that include Ireland which has little to no history in "the region" which incidentally begs the question of what is "the region"? Middle east? Africa? Asia? Imaginary Muslim Caliphate?

Such groups 'hate' anybody who doesn't follow their world view; how far they are prepared to go is a question of the day and how militant they are feeling on any given day. It's not a phenomenon limited to muslim terror groups nor do they hold a monopoly on the notion; plenty of such groups all over the world - white power groups, black power groups (they do exist ... ), ultra-nationalist types, and take your pick of whatever religion you find wherever you find yourself.

But as Xios said; such groups have carried out far more attrocities in their own nations or those of their neighbours than attacks on "The West". And if they are prepared to view Ireland (to run with this for a second) as "the enemy" because Irish companies once traded cattle with some other country or person A said hello to person B well then such groups don't need much of an excuse to find for hating and attacking others regardless.

average hero

EncinoMan wrote: »

Again, I fail to see what Ireland gains from joining NATO. Are you seriously suggesting we change our foreign policy so that the DF members have better career prospects and more guns to play with?

Well, I don't see what our current foreign policy has gained us in the grand scheme of things. You may argue that a few (very very few) people have been released from kidnapping situations because of having an Irish passport but frankly most terrorists in those situations don't care. We share a border with Britain and we are in the EU.

We should join NATO to bring in more opportunity to our fantastic defense forces. Perhaps we don't even send troops, we just allow use of our ports and airports, bringing in more cash and investment into the country.

Some of our biggest trading partners are in NATO (USA, Britain, Canada, France, Germany etc), we allow NATO planes land in Shannon, we house NATO countries companies here because they allow us to offer them the big tax cuts.

Lets be serious, NATO countries have helped us. Let's drop the pretense of 'neutrality'. For a few F-16's and an extra ship or two, they could use our ports/airports surely?

folbotcar

Jawgap wrote: »

It's not long overdue because it was never due in the first place.

I don't think we 'need' to join NATO, indeed as a non-aligned EU member state you could argue, quite convincingly, that we punch way above our weight at the UN and in other international bodies precisely because we're not in NATO - would we, for example, get another turn as quickly on the Security Council if we were seen as being too closely aligned to the British and Americans?

I'm afraid that's one of the myths that gets trotted out regularly. We don't punch above our weight. We never did. Our non aligned status isolates us from most decisions even decisions that materially affect our country. In fact if it wasn't for the EU we would simply be a tourist destination isolated and dependant on British trade somewhere on the outskirts of Europe.

The other favoured myth is that the Irish are welcomed on UN service because of our 'neutrality' and the 'fact' that we have no colonial past. Well the first is as inaccurate as is the second. We were enthusiastic colonisers for the British, providing soldiers as we still do and administrator for all the colonies. We were the British remember! All conveniently forgotten.

Also within or outside NATO we are seen as closely aligned with the British and Americans because in all practical aspects they are the countries we have most in common with. I think most of us who have travelled have been asked where we're from. Ireland often generates puzzlement and if they've heard of us the assumption is that we're British. I've even come across this here in Ireland where a newly arrived woman actually thought she was in the UK.

It's an anomaly that we are not in NATO. As I said in my earlier post we seem content to sit back and let the rest of Europe take defence seriously. While we pat ourselves on the back at our principled stance in WW2 and since. Apparently everyone else in Europe is out of step with us. While we're busy punching above our weight in the world.

Don't make me laugh.

Xios

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Libya is great nato success story.

From a foreign policy perspective, it most certainly is. A stable middle east and african continent is bad for business. How else are the U.S. supposed to sell their military might? It's the global equivalent of protection money, they destablise the region, and demand resources in exchange for aid and security.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_terrorism That's a bad link, i'll find a better source.

Conspiracy stuff, but still interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man

Interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8

EncinoMan

@averagehero, to suggest that a nation of four million joins NATO on the basis of promoting the interests of 9500 people is absurd. Joining NATO wouldn't be actually something I'd totally oppose, but we would definitely need a better reason than that to lose our 'netural' status (the left would cause uproar) and increase our defence budget significantly. It ain't gonna happen.

Morpheus

[MOD]
Dont troll
Dont feed trolls
Read the charter
Warnings and infractions on route
Debate like adults or this thread will be extinguished.
[/MOD]

average hero

EncinoMan, I understand what you are writing, but that's just how I see things. We are relatively close to NATO and I really don't think that any other country in the world (Russia, China, India or Middle Eastern countries) really see us as different to NATO. If there were a move aganst NATO, I don't think our 'neutral' stance would protect us.

I, on the other hand view it as we'd suffer either way, but we aren't gaining any benefits at all from staying outside NATO.

I respect your point of view and indeed all points of view, but I personally think we should join if viable.

laoch na mona

there is no benefit to joining NATO considering its record of imperialism, A perfect example of the human rights abuses caused by NATO is the illegal invasion of Iraq and all the crimes committed in the so called war on terror.


also NATO uses its power to influence the work of the UN, in the past this has led to the deaths of refugees when The UN because of NATOs interests refused to help Saudi arabia deal with refugees but did not sanction Turkey for closing its boarders to refugees from ethnic cleansing ( a crime under international law). I think this was during a conflict within Iraq before the first gulf war, I'll have to read through the essay I cited it in

comongethappy

laoch na mona wrote: »

there is no benefit to joining NATO considering its record of imperialism, A perfect example of the human rights abuses caused by NATO is the illegal invasion of Iraq and all the crimes committed in the so called war on terror.


also NATO uses its power to influence the work of the UN, in the past this has led to the deaths of refugees when The UN because of NATOs interests refused to help Saudi arabia deal with refugees but did not sanction Turkey for closing its boarders to refugees from ethnic cleansing ( a crime under international law). I think this was during a conflict within Iraq before the first gulf war, I'll have to read through the essay I cited it in

What year did NATO invade Iraq?

laoch na mona

comongethappy wrote: »

What year did NATO invade Iraq?

Operation OIL.

the other incident was nato power politics getting in the way of protecting human rights, Turkey (a NATO member ) were allowed to ignore genocide on their boarder

Morpheus

laoch na mona wrote: »

also NATO uses its power to influence the work of the UN, in the past this has led to the deaths of refugees when The UN because of NATOs interests refused to help Saudi arabia deal with refugees but did not sanction Turkey for closing its boarders to refugees from ethnic cleansing ( a crime under international law). I think this was during a conflict within Iraq before the first gulf war, I'll have to read through the essay I cited it in

A good thing that the UN members dont use their power and influence to hinder the UN in its mission.... (totally not looking at you Russia and China)

and thanks to our totally retarded triple lock agreement, Russia and China (both serious abusers of human rights probably on a far worse scale than NATO) as UN council members, dictate when Ireland cant send troops into a country.

laoch na mona

Morpheus wrote: »

A good thing that the UN members dont use their power and influence to hinder the UN in its mission.... (totally not looking at you Russia and China)

and thanks to our totally retarded triple lock agreement, Russia and China (both serious abusers of human rights probably on a far worse scale than NATO) as UN council members, dictate when Ireland cant send troops into a country.

all that is true, except turkey have a horrible human rights record, but it does not say why we should join NATO just why we shouldn't send military support to Russia or China, which i never suggested

zone 1

Join Nato and be done with it.. at least we might be able to protect oursevles with some decent equipment from the from the US military. they might feel sorry for us.

comongethappy

zone 1 wrote: »

Join Nato and be done with it.. at least we might be able to protect oursevles with some decent equipment from the from the US military. they might feel sorry for us.

You don't have to be militarily aligned to be capable of self defence.

zone 1

your right were not look what we have for self defence........

Fratton Fred

laoch na mona wrote: »

Operation OIL.

You had to feel sorry for Germany, Belgium, Canada and Italy (to name a few) for getting dragged in to that.....

Jawgap

zone 1 wrote: »

Join Nato and be done with it.. at least we might be able to protect oursevles with some decent equipment from the from the US military. they might feel sorry for us.

Who do we need protection from?

Those other NATO members who already surround us?

comongethappy

Jawgap wrote: »

Who do we need protection from?

Those other NATO members who already surround us?

If fairness, the "who will attack us" point can be said for every nation on earth.

If every potential enemy & conflict was known ahead of time there would be no wars.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

There is almost no tangible benefit to the Irish people for joining NATO outside of those who serve in the defence forces. You also have to remember that those who are now in the defence forces signed up in the context that they would be joining an army that serves as a peace keeping force and not an army actively engaged in war, which is a major consideration that is overlooked.

The argument of whether we are truly neutral or not can be debated I think, but to blanketly state we are absolutely not neutral is incorrect. None of our soldiers are involved in active combat against anyone, we have not declared war on anyone and the soldiers we do have currently on peace missions are not seen as blatantly biased to either side by either side.

What threat from an attack perspective does Ireland face today? Seriously? I can think of three main ones and currently none of them seem realistic to be honest.
1. Dissident Unionists in the North
2. Britain (not really possible now but had the potential to happen in the 1970's)
3. Islamic extremists

Since the Good Friday Agreement 1 and absolutely 2 do not look like happening in any conceivable way.
So that leaves 3 as the only real plausible threat to our country. Will joining NATO increase or decrease the chances of an attack posed here? There's only one logical answer to that.

Any other threat posed to Ireland would be an EU wide problem and we would end up getting involved either way, but considering these threats are to the east, Russia/China/India, and the fact we are as far west as you can get in Europe, we are at the end of the line, and being in or out of NATO in one of these situations will mean absolutely nothing in this context.

Our sovereignty is at a very low risk all things considered. We don't need to mess around with that in anyway in my opinion.

Jawgap

comongethappy wrote: »

If fairness, the "who will attack us" point can be said for every nation on earth.

If every potential enemy & conflict was known ahead of time there would be no wars.

I wouldn't say that was true - plenty of wars / conflicts have been well flagged in advance and still happened.

First, why would anyone attack us? What have we got that anyone would want? Why would anyone want to occupy us? What possible positional advantage do we offer?

Also as regards Islamic extremists - they're into making statements, that means attacking symbols and mounting spectacular attacks - there's no target in Ireland that meets their criteria. The only time we'd be on their radar is when the likes of Obama or Cameron is in town.

The arrow is pointing at us.....

average hero

Jawgap wrote: »

Who do we need protection from?

Those other NATO members who already surround us?

Isn't it great that we don't need protection from anyone?

But that's the whole point though isn't it? We are just sitting here with assets such as our location, airports, ports etc not doing anything. But whether anyone likes it or not, we are benefiting from having NATO members surround us. We just don't know it because we haven't experienced 'not' having them around us.

I mean, we're sitting here all smug and we spout our 'neutrality' because we're so great and we'd never ever do anything to anyone, but we benefit from having two NATO superpowers on our doorstep in the UK and France. Realistically, without having so many bigger countries around us or the EU, we'd have no say in anything!

I just think that our neutrality is a bit of a bad joke. We assist NATO in differing ways, we benefit from NATO countries assistance/friendship etc yet we harp on about our supposed neutrality from our high horse. When the proverbial would hit the fan, we're the first to run cap in hand to NATO countries.

What would happen if there were military jets from a foreign nation such as Russia over Ireland? What happens then?

Join it and be done with it!

Thargor

Sorry but what does Operation Oil refer to specifically?

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

average hero wrote: »

Isn't it great that we don't need protection from anyone?

But that's the whole point though isn't it? We are just sitting here with assets such as our location, airports, ports etc not doing anything. But whether anyone likes it or not, we are benefiting from having NATO members surround us. We just don't know it because we haven't experienced 'not' having them around us.

I mean, we're sitting here all smug and we spout our 'neutrality' because we're so great and we'd never ever do anything to anyone, but we benefit from having two NATO superpowers on our doorstep in the UK and France. Realistically, without having so many bigger countries around us or the EU, we'd have no say in anything!

I just think that our neutrality is a bit of a bad joke. We assist NATO in differing ways, we benefit from NATO countries assistance/friendship etc yet we harp on about our supposed neutrality from our high horse. When the proverbial would hit the fan, we're the first to run cap in hand to NATO countries.

What would happen if there were military jets from a foreign nation such as Russia over Ireland? What happens then?

Join it and be done with it!

By being in the EU the UK/France ect. would react regardless of whether we are in NATO or not. Your point is moot.

tac foley

..and moot, too.

tac

riffmongous

average hero wrote: »

Isn't it great that we don't need protection from anyone?

But that's the whole point though isn't it? We are just sitting here with assets such as our location, airports, ports etc not doing anything. But whether anyone likes it or not, we are benefiting from having NATO members surround us. We just don't know it because we haven't experienced 'not' having them around us.

I mean, we're sitting here all smug and we spout our 'neutrality' because we're so great and we'd never ever do anything to anyone, but we benefit from having two NATO superpowers on our doorstep in the UK and France. Realistically, without having so many bigger countries around us or the EU, we'd have no say in anything!

I just think that our neutrality is a bit of a bad joke. We assist NATO in differing ways, we benefit from NATO countries assistance/friendship etc yet we harp on about our supposed neutrality from our high horse. When the proverbial would hit the fan, we're the first to run cap in hand to NATO countries.

What would happen if there were military jets from a foreign nation such as Russia over Ireland? What happens then?

Join it and be done with it!

So why should we pay for it when we already get the advantages for free?

Jawgap

riffmongous wrote: »

So why should we pay for it when we already get the advantages for free?

Do NATO want us to join? I'm not sure either we or them want us as a member of the cool kids gang.

riffmongous

Jawgap wrote: »

Do NATO want us to join? I'm not sure either we or them want us as a member of the cool kids gang.

I never heard of anything tbh, but I'd imagine there would be some people happy to have a new market opened up to them along with a commitment to increase spending