Ireland is no longer neutral

Fukuyama

Tony EH wrote: »

Ironic, since the ONLY country we've actually needed defending from has been the UK.

:pac:

No exactly.

Since 1922, the UK never had any intention of re-invading Ireland. The "Irish Problem" was put to bed (mostly) and no MP wanted to be the one to even suggest reopening the most problematic can of worms in the UK's history.

The closest we came was during WW2 when Churchill wanted Irish ports. And even then he never seriously considered invading because he knew he'd effectively have to fight two wars at once.

During this time, Ireland was secretly drawing up plans to ALLOW the the UK to invade should the Germans arrive. The plan was for Irish troops to sink a few ships in southern Irish ports to stall a German landing, and clear the roads and railway lines so US and UK troops could steam down south over the border.

Irish troops in the south would break off and head into the hills to start guerrilla resistance against the Germans, while the rest would actually be tasked with protecting UK and US troops from the IRA.

The "old enemy" dynamic hasn't been in play since 1922. Even during the troubles it was never a serious threat that either side would meet conventionally.

Like it or not, they're the biggest allies we have. Economically and militarily. We share a common border and a common enemy that crosses freely over it. Our cultures are very similar (and compatible).

All the bar stool republicans and would-be revolutionaries on boards would be begging for UK intervention in Ireland if anything ever happened. :pac:

Tony EH

The Bould Rabbit wrote: »

Yes I would, no problem.


The title of this thread needs changing to something like "Home for the ill informed and misguided".

Of course you would.

Keyboard warrior to hardened battle veteran in two clicks.

:pac:

Egginacup

The Bould Rabbit wrote: »

Good. Neutrality is a cop out.

Time we joined NATO.

And why exactly would we join NATO? Give me one good reason why we should join NATO. WShy do we need to enter a military alliance with anyone?

Tony EH

Dean0088 wrote: »

No exactly.

Since 1922, the UK never had any intention of re-invading Ireland. The "Irish Problem" was put to bed (mostly) and no MP wanted to be the one to even suggest reopening the most problematic can of worms in the UK's history.

The closest we came was during WW2 when Churchill wanted Irish ports. And even then he never seriously considered invading because he knew he'd effectively have to fight two wars at once.

During this time, Ireland was secretly drawing up plans to ALLOW the the UK to invade should the Germans arrive. The plan was for Irish troops to sink a few ships in southern Irish ports to stall a German landing, and clear the roads and railway lines so US and UK troops could steam down south over the border.

Irish troops in the south would break off and head into the hills to start guerrilla resistance against the Germans, while the rest would actually be tasked with protecting UK and US troops from the IRA.

The "old enemy" dynamic hasn't been in play since 1922. Even during the troubles it was never a serious threat that either side would meet conventionally.

Like it or not, they're the biggest allies we have. Economically and militarily. We share a common border and a common enemy that crosses freely over it. Our cultures are very similar (and compatible).

All the bar stool republicans and would-be revolutionaries on boards would be begging for UK intervention in Ireland if anything ever happened. :pac:

If you think you're going to teach me anything new about the Second World War, you can think again. I've been studying it for over 25 years.

Mickey mouse, preliminary, paper plans don't come close to actual invasion and occupation.

As for "bar stool republicans"...you couldn't be more wrong. :pac:

bear1

Streetwalker wrote: »

Machines that where used to kill and slaughter innocents all over that nation. No thanks.

You seem seriously uninformed about what has been going on in Afghanistan.
I suggest you read up on it (not Wiki) and then post something that actually makes sense.
:rolleyes:

whisky_galore

Tony EH wrote: »

No, we weren't.

Letting a few RAF pilots slip up the North, because we didn't want the hassle of watching them in the Curragh, is not taking sides.

Axis airmen were always picked up and intened, weather reports for D Day, the Donegal air corridor, returning whole downed aircraft or downed aircraft components to Britain, keeping tabs on the Axis legations in Dublin, coast watchers reports forwarded if of interest to Allies....covert and overt co-operation rather than getting 'stuck in'.

Jawgap

Tony EH wrote: »

No, we weren't.

Letting a few RAF pilots slip up the North, because we didn't want the hassle of watching them in the Curragh, is not taking sides.

Well in fairness, there was a bit more than that going on. It's probably fair to say we were non-aligned, but it was a benign non-alignment when it came to the Allies.

There was a lot of back and forth at various levels between the British and Irish defence establishments.

For example, the IAC was helped to procure spares for downed Hurricanes and Spits it was trying to get back into action - the examination of crashed German aircraft was facilitated by the Army........navigation aids were provided for aircraft ferrying across the Atlantic.......weather reports (including the famous D-Day one) were provided.....overflights (esp over the Donegal gap) were allowed.....food (meat especially) was exported to Britain, while they helped us procure other stuff especially tea!

Fukuyama

Tony EH wrote: »

Of course you would.

Keyboard warrior to hardened battle veteran in two clicks.

:pac:

I'd be in favour of Ireland exploring the option of joining NATO.

You seem to think that anyone in favour of doing so should be down at their local barracks, joining up. :rolleyes:

Like it or not, wars aren't what they used to be. Large-scale wars have pretty much ceased. Now it's unconventional conflicts and terrorism that poses the biggest threat.

Ireland is a western nation and enjoys first world development because of that. Given our size, we'd never be asked to contribute huge numbers unless WW3 kicked off. We kidding ourselves if we don't think that our interests are heavily aligned and invested with our western partners. And should there ever be a need we should be willing to do our part. I'd rather make a pact/deal with the EU/US than one day find ourselves in a position of shaking hands with a force that's entirely unacceptable to our culture or democracy.

Tony EH

Jawgap wrote: »

Well in fairness, there was a bit more than that going on. It's probably fair to say we were non-aligned, but it was a benign non-alignment when it came to the Allies.

There was a lot of back and forth at various levels between the British and Irish defence establishments.

For example, the IAC was helped to procure spares for downed Hurricanes and Spits it was trying to get back into action - the examination of crashed German aircraft was facilitated by the Army........navigation aids were provided for aircraft ferrying across the Atlantic.......weather reports (including the famous D-Day one) were provided.....overflights (esp over the Donegal gap) were allowed.....food (meat especially) was exported to Britain, while they helped us procure other stuff especially tea!

Of course, and I am being a little facetious, but even so, it's still incorrect to say that Ireland was neutral "in favour of the Allies". The above had more to do in keeping Britain sweet than taking actual sides.

The Bould Rabbit

Tony EH wrote: »

Of course you would.

Keyboard warrior to hardened battle veteran in two clicks.

:pac:

Hang on now. You asked me a question, I answered it.

If you don't accept my answer that's fine, but don't come back taking the piss out of it as if you know me personally.

Any credibility you did have has gone out the window after that. You're not worth debating anything with.

Jawgap

Dean0088 wrote: »

No exactly.

Since 1922, the UK never had any intention of re-invading Ireland. The "Irish Problem" was put to bed (mostly) and no MP wanted to be the one to even suggest reopening the most problematic can of worms in the UK's history.

The closest we came was during WW2 when Churchill wanted Irish ports. And even then he never seriously considered invading because he knew he'd effectively have to fight two wars at once.

During this time, Ireland was secretly drawing up plans to ALLOW the the UK to invade should the Germans arrive. The plan was for Irish troops to sink a few ships in southern Irish ports to stall a German landing, and clear the roads and railway lines so US and UK troops could steam down south over the border.

Irish troops in the south would break off and head into the hills to start guerrilla resistance against the Germans, while the rest would actually be tasked with protecting UK and US troops from the IRA.

The "old enemy" dynamic hasn't been in play since 1922. Even during the troubles it was never a serious threat that either side would meet conventionally.

Like it or not, they're the biggest allies we have. Economically and militarily. We share a common border and a common enemy that crosses freely over it. Our cultures are very similar (and compatible).

All the bar stool republicans and would-be revolutionaries on boards would be begging for UK intervention in Ireland if anything ever happened. :pac:

It was nothing of the sort - the plan was not for a British 'invasion' - the idea was that in the event of a German landing, the Irish would fight the first 48 hours, then call for British assistance - conveniently, 4 columns of British soldiers (based on country regiments as these were deemed like to be more acceptable to the Irish) would then advance into the South with Irish Army Liaison Parties.

In the event some 'domestic' resistance was encountered this was wholly to be a matter for the Irish Army to deal with.

The only potential variation to this, was the intervention of the RAF which would likely happen earlier - in fact the RAF were under orders in 1939/40 to attack any unidentified shipping approaching the Irish coast.

There were also well developed plans to extend air defence cover to Ireland, with Baldonnel becoming a sector station and Chain Home (RDF/Radar) Stations being set up around the coast.

If anyone needs the docs supporting all this I've got them on another computer.

Tony EH

Dean0088 wrote: »

I'd be in favour of Ireland exploring the option of joining NATO.

You seem to think that anyone in favour of doing so should be down at their local barracks, joining up. :rolleyes:

Like it or not, wars aren't what they used to be. Large-scale wars have pretty much ceased. Now it's unconventional conflicts and terrorism that poses the biggest threat.

Ireland is a western nation and enjoys first world development because of that. Given our size, we'd never be asked to contribute huge numbers unless WW3 kicked off. We kidding ourselves if we don't think that our interests are heavily aligned and invested with our western partners. And should there ever be a need we should be willing to do our part. I'd rather make a pact/deal with the EU/US than one day find ourselves in a position of shaking hands with a force that's entirely unacceptable to our culture or democracy.

Ireland's neutrality has served the country very well over the years and should continue to do so. Big yap about taking stances is nothing if your not going to put those words into action yourself.

BTW, our "western partners" don't have a glorious record when it comes to war.

Fukuyama

Tony EH wrote: »

If you think you're going to teach me anything new about the Second World War, you can think again. I've been studying it for over 25 years.

Mickey mouse, preliminary, paper plans don't come close to actual invasion and occupation.

As for "bar stool republicans"...you couldn't be more wrong. :pac:

Well then you should know that the UK would have been allowed over the border in a heartbeat should the Germans have decided to take Ireland. Whether or not Germany would have bothered (unlikely) is irrelevant - the fact is that it the UK were the "old enemy" for political reasons, but our closes ally in secret.

As a major history fan you should at least be knowledgeable enough, and have the analytical skills to realize that the Ire-v-UK scenario is never going to play out again. There's zero apatite in the populations and both nations are modern, developed, and have bigger fish to fry.

The UK are our biggest ally - the EU second. NATO is a sincere possibility and always has been for Ireland. It was used as a bargaining chip during the troubles (we'd join and therefore would de-facto recognize the North) and is now more about Ireland place in geo-politics, not a Anglo-Ireland issue.

I'm just perplexed that any "hard-pressed Irish taxpayer" would see a problem with Ireland having good relations with a strong friendly neighboring state that's allowing us to "piggy back" onto equipment contracts and further cooperation.

CrazyRabbit

Qualitymark wrote: »

Not in the least; it's the only moral position.

Irish troops have taken part in many peacekeeping missions, keeping warring sides apart and keeping civilians safe, but we have never joined a war of aggression. That's what neutrality means.

Yup...our peacekeeping actions are something we can be truly morally proud of.

I've no problem getting free equipment from the UK so long as we never have to use it in war.

If other countries valued peace as much as we do, and spent as little on their military as we do, the world would be a hell of a lot better.

Tony EH

Jawgap wrote: »

It was nothing of the sort - the plan was not for a British 'invasion' - the idea was that in the event of a German landing, the Irish would fight the first 48 hours, then call for British assistance - conveniently, 4 columns of British soldiers (based on country regiments as these were deemed like to be more acceptable to the Irish) would then advance into the South with Irish Army Liaison Parties.

In the event some 'domestic' resistance was encountered this was wholly to be a matter for the Irish Army to deal with.

The only potential variation to this, was the intervention of the RAF which would likely happen earlier - in fact the RAF were under orders in 1939/40 to attack any unidentified shipping approaching the Irish coast.

There were also well developed plans to extend air defence cover to Ireland, with Baldonnel becoming a sector station and Chain Home (RDF/Radar) Stations being set up around the coast.

If anyone needs the docs supporting all this I've got them on another computer.

All of which remained merely paper speculation though. I doubt there was anyone who took either the "British threat" or the "German threat" of invasion that seriously.

Both nations had enough trouble trying to deal with each other.

Jawgap

Tony EH wrote: »

Of course, and I am being a little facetious, but even so, it's still incorrect to say that Ireland was neutral "in favour of the Allies". The above had more to do in keeping Britain sweet than taking actual sides.

The intelligence sharing that went on.......Mahaffy's (the British military attache) contacts with the political establishment.......Archer's (Head of G2) ongoing communiocations with Mahaffy.......the provision of communications equipment....and the joint planning / meetings in London don't strike me as simply keeping the Brits sweet.

Both countries were being pragmatic, rather than one so worried about the other it needed to keep them onside.

Kermit.de.frog

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

That is so bad it's good

It's shocking

Precious flower

I'm pretty certain we were never neutral. :pac: We just claimed we were then assisted the side we thought were good.

Fukuyama

Tony EH wrote: »

Ireland's neutrality has served the country very well over the years and should continue to do so. Big yap about taking stances is nothing if your not going to put those words into action yourself.

BTW, our "western partners" don't have a glorious record when it comes to war.

Being neutral in 1980 is entirely different to today. The world is a different place and Ireland has a much different place in it.

I assume your last sentence is about me not being in the Army. Well, I could equally say the same thing about Ireland on the whole. How can Ireland continue to punch above its weight if it's not willing to get involved?

ISIS are abhorrent. And they're just the start of the next wave of conflict in Europe I reckon. Just because Ireland isn't number 1 on its list doesn't mean we shouldn't consider contributing.

Jawgap

Tony EH wrote: »

All of which remained merely paper speculation though. I doubt there was anyone who took either the "British threat" or the "German threat" of invasion that seriously.

Both nations had enough trouble trying to deal with each other.

Serious enough that communications protocols were agreed between both countries (including codes) to be followed, the departure from which would indicate an invasion (by the Germans) had taken place.

They also provided a second transmitter for use by the government (we only had one at the time that could reach London) as well as spare crystals, and they helped with the 'shopping list' of items the Army submitted for its re-equipping.

Fukuyama

Tony EH wrote: »

All of which remained merely paper speculation though. I doubt there was anyone who took either the "British threat" or the "German threat" of invasion that seriously.

Both nations had enough trouble trying to deal with each other.

Actual government/military plans, meeting and agreement are not "speculation" akin to tabloid gossip.

What do you "speculate" would have happened should Germans have began landing?

Tony EH

Dean0088 wrote: »

Well then you should know that the UK would have been allowed over the border in a heartbeat should the Germans have decided to take Ireland. Whether or not Germany would have bothered (unlikely) is irrelevant - the fact is that it the UK were the "old enemy" for political reasons, but our closes ally in secret.

As a major history fan you should at least be knowledgeable enough, and have the analytical skills to realize that the Ire-v-UK scenario is never going to play out again. There's zero apatite in the populations and both nations are modern, developed, and have bigger fish to fry.

The UK are our biggest ally - the EU second. NATO is a sincere possibility and always has been for Ireland. It was used as a bargaining chip during the troubles (we'd join and therefore would de-facto recognize the North) and is now more about Ireland place in geo-politics, not a Anglo-Ireland issue.

I'm just perplexed that any "hard-pressed Irish taxpayer" would see a problem with Ireland having good relations with a strong friendly neighboring state that's allowing us to "piggy back" onto equipment contracts and further cooperation.

There was NEVER going to be an German invasion of Ireland, except on paper. It was too hard to pull off and introduced yet another area of occupation that, frankly the Germans could do without. They simply didn't have the resources.

Likewise the British had no real interest in Ireland either and certainly weren't going to roll back to a situation where actual invasion and occupation became an option.

Once 1941 kicked in and the Germans were wrapped up in their main point of war, Russia, any idea of an invasion from either country was pretty moot.

I never said that an "Ire-v-UK" was going to play out again. The British have no interest in that.You have picked me up wrong.

I am completely in favour of Ireland having the most solid relations with the UK. She's our closest trading partner and it makes perfect sense.

However, we absolutely should NOT abandon out neutral status.

Fukuyama

Jawgap wrote: »

It was nothing of the sort - the plan was not for a British 'invasion' - the idea was that in the event of a German landing, the Irish would fight the first 48 hours, then call for British assistance - conveniently, 4 columns of British soldiers (based on country regiments as these were deemed like to be more acceptable to the Irish) would then advance into the South with Irish Army Liaison Parties.

Yeah I know. Perhaps the word "invasion" was wrong seeing as we'd be waving the British over the border.

I think we're both singing from the same hymn sheet - Operation Green (Nazi) and Plan W (UK), mostly?

Tony EH

Jawgap wrote: »

The intelligence sharing that went on.......Mahaffy's (the British military attache) contacts with the political establishment.......Archer's (Head of G2) ongoing communiocations with Mahaffy.......the provision of communications equipment....and the joint planning / meetings in London don't strike me as simply keeping the Brits sweet.

Both countries were being pragmatic, rather than one so worried about the other it needed to keep them onside.

Well the "pragmatic" is the word we can use and I'd agree. It made perfect sense for us at the time.

But it still isn't taking sides.

charlie_says

ken wrote: »

Take it from someone that knows. During the last 20 years military personal from damn near every African nation bar South Africa have done officer and U.N. training in Ireland. Soldiers from the Scandinavian countries have done U.N. training in Ireland. Its nothing new.

Yeah, cross training happens all the time between many nations. In fact is it not better to learn some war skills from someone more experienced in that without actually having to be in a war in the first place? Military policy is far from the political policy.

Also the neutrality question really depends on the Irish soldiers role in Mali, the article mentions the wide ranging peacekeeping experience of the IDF. Possibly that might be a clue?

Bit overboard to say the end of neutrality.

bear1

A thread in AH about Ireland not really being neutral anymore.... Nazis thrown in ASAP.

Beano

charlie_says wrote: »

Yeah, cross training happens all the time between many nations. In fact is it not better to learn some war skills from someone more experienced in that without actually having to be in a war in the first place? Military policy is far from the political policy.

Also the neutrality question really depends on the Irish soldiers role in Mali, the article mentions the wide ranging peacekeeping experience of the IDF. Possibly that might be a clue?

Bit overboard to say the end of neutrality.

PDF not the IDF.

The_Captain

prefer docx myself

pablomakaveli

This isnt exactly shocking. Irish soldiers have done training courses in the uk and british soldiers have done some in ireland for years now. Its not uncommon at all.

And getting free surplus equipment is a bonus. Some of that stuff could be crucial in saving an irish soldiers life in future peacekeeping missions.

Fukuyama

Tony EH wrote: »

There was NEVER going to be an German invasion of Ireland, except on paper. It was too hard to pull off and introduced yet another area of occupation that, frankly the Germans could do without. They simply didn't have the resources.

Likewise the British had no real interest in Ireland either and certainly weren't going to roll back to a situation where actual invasion and occupation became an option.

Once 1941 kicked in and the Germans were wrapped up in their main point of war, Russia, any idea of an invasion from either country was pretty moot.

I never said that an "Ire-v-UK" was going to play out again. The British have no interest in that.You have picked me up wrong.

I am completely in favour of Ireland having the most solid relations with the UK. She's our closest trading partner and it makes perfect sense.

However, we absolutely should NOT abandon out neutral status.

The British had a great deal of interest in Ireland - particularly when it came to securing Atlantic sea convoys and making sure their back was protected. As I said, a German invasion was always a plan Z. But the fact that cooperation between the UK and IRE existed is a testament to them being our biggest allies.

Anyways, why shouldn't we abandon out "neutral" status? It's not like we're actually neutral anyways.

When it comes to public opinion, you can be damn sure of which side the Irish populace would choose if a big situation ever arose. Makes sense to be able to defend ourselves and other states should they need it.

For example, lets say Russia decides to send troops into Latvia - a nation 1/3 the size of Ireland. There's a really worry in Latvia of this occurring. Chances are the US, UK and Germany would be the first in with the big guns.

However, surely it'd make sense to send in Irish troops post-invasion too who are experienced in peace keeping and did a great job in Kosovo?

Larger nations and those who are able should defend smaller nations. If Ireland was invaded we'd be begging for foreign, friendly troops to arrive. So if we want that card in our back pocket, we should be ready to contribute in some small way when others need it.

conorh91

namloc1980 wrote: »

I thought we were non-aligned as opposed to neutral. They are very different things.

They're not very different things, since there is no decisive definition of neutrality in the first place, and the entire concept of neutrality was made almost redundant in 1945 at the signing of the UN charter.

We're free to call ourselves neutral for as long as we like, it's a pretty meaningless term.

Fukuyama

pablomakaveli wrote: »

This isnt exactly shocking. Irish soldiers have done training courses in the uk and british soldiers have done some in ireland for years now. Its not uncommon at all.

And getting free surplus equipment is a bonus. Some of that stuff could be crucial in saving an irish soldiers life in future peacekeeping missions.

+1 They've come under repeated fire from extremists in Syria who couldn't give too ****s about UN Mandates.

There have also been injuries in the past while abroad. I recall a few soldiers being hurt when their jeep drove over an IED in Chad (I think?).

Our IED team and peacekeeping skills are taught to even US troops. We have good skills in this area and better yet, they're skills which can actually help poor, impoverished nations. Might as well pass them on and get free kit into the bargain!

Tony EH

Dean0088 wrote: »

The British had a great deal of interest in Ireland - particularly when it came to securing Atlantic sea convoys and making sure their back was protected. As I said, a German invasion was always a plan Z. But the fact that cooperation between the UK and IRE existed is a testament to them being our biggest allies.

The Royal Navy always had the western approaches covered as well as they could have been. Securing territory in Ireland would have made no real difference whatsoever.

Dean0088 wrote: »

Anyways, why shouldn't we abandon out "neutral" status? It's not like we're actually neutral anyways.

But that's just it though, we are. We don't take part in other countries wars and we don't align ourselves to the war causes of other nations. This SHOULD remain in effect. Especially, in the light of some of the actions of both the US and Britain in the last decade or so.

We don't need other people's fights.

Dean0088 wrote: »

When it comes to public opinion, you can be damn sure of which side the Irish populace would choose if a big situation ever arose.

So what? Being free to be politically or intelectually against something on a matter of principle is not the same as taking actual sides in a shooting war. We, as a nation are free to condemn the actions of any group or Nation, as a neutral country.

Dean0088 wrote: »

Larger nations and those who are able should defend smaller nations. If Ireland was invaded we'd be begging for foreign, friendly troops to arrive. So if we want that card in our back pocket, we should be ready to contribute in some small way when others need it.

Nations, large or otherwise, rarely, if ever, get involved in conflict to "defend smaller nations". By and large, the absolute prime motivation is national interest.

VinLieger

We are teaching them peacekeeping which we are reknowned for being one of the best at, this affects our neutrality in absolutely no way.

Classic case of the OP reading the title and not the substance of the article methinks

Iranoutofideas

So realistically what kind of surplus equipment are we likely to get?

Beano

Iranoutofideas wrote: »

So realistically what kind of surplus equipment are we likely to get?

some more scimitars would be nice.

Fukuyama

Tony EH wrote: »

The Royal Navy always had the western approaches covered as well as they could have been. Securing territory in Ireland would have made no real difference whatsoever.

No they didn't. Jesus, for someone who has apparently been studying history for 25 years you'd likely do ****e on an Ordinary LC Paper...

But that's just it though, we are. We don't take part in other countries wars and we don't align ourselves to the war causes of other nations. This SHOULD remain in effect. Especially, in the light of some of the actions of both the US and Britain in the last decade or so.

We're not Neutral. Have never really been. We allowed Russian planes to use shannon during the Cold War. Many US and NATO planes use it today.

We participated (quite heavily) in the NATO-Kosovo mission.

We're aligned with the UK when it comes to targeting the IRA on both sides of the border.

So what? Being free to be politically or intelectually against something on a matter of principle is not the same as taking actual sides in a shooting war. We, as a nation are free to condemn the actions of any group or Nation, as a neutral country.

Yeah, but talk is cheap. Contributing troops puts action behind the words. If Ireland was targeted, how much help would it be if other countries were all "politically or intellectually" against the invasion, but otherwise did nothing? :rolleyes:


[QUOTE
Nations, large or otherwise, rarely, if ever, get involved in conflict to "defend smaller nations". By and large, the absolute prime motivation is national interest.[/QUOTE]

Naturally. It's in Ireland interest to have a secure European Union. The NATO doctrine of "attack one, attack all" has served them quite well. And, it affords small nations like Lativa protection from un-friendly neighbors they otherwise could never have.

Ireland may face problems some day. Nobody knows what the world will look like in 20 years.

Yeah_Right

I have a question for anyone out there knowledgeable about the Irish military. Do the Irish Rangers ever get deployed into combat zones? And I don't mean in a peace-keeping role. For example, I know NZ contributes forces to UN peace-keeping missions but their SAS will also get sent. For example in East Timor, Kosovo and Bosnia. They were there on a peace-keeping mission but the SAS were also conducting offensive operations. Does the same thing happen with the Rangers?

Fukuyama

Iranoutofideas wrote: »

So realistically what kind of surplus equipment are we likely to get?

No tanks or aircraft. We've no need or capability to use, maintain or deploy them.

Likely to be better versions of stuff we already have, and more of them.

They developed some great IED resistant vehicles. Reckon we'll get some of them. And lots of un-used communications gear (they were giving it away to Libyan rebels!).

I doubt there'd be actual weapon systems involved.

Fukuyama

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I have a question for anyone out there knowledgeable about the Irish military. Do the Irish Rangers ever get deployed into combat zones? And I don't mean in a peace-keeping role. For example, I know NZ contributes forces to UN peace-keeping missions but their SAS will also get sent. For example in East Timor, Kosovo and Bosnia. They were there on a peace-keeping mission but the SAS were also conducting offensive operations. Does the same thing happen with the Rangers?

Nope.

They've done hostage rescue before though. They normally get sent first to find a good place to set up camp, secure the area etc...

Sometimes UN forces mandates can get changed and can wind up augmenting government forces (for example, UN forces actively attacked and defeated M23 rebels last year). If Irish troops happened to be deployed on a mission where that occurred, then they'd likely be used.

Karl Stein

Dean0088 wrote: »

ISIS are abhorrent. And they're just the start of the next wave of conflict in Europe...

Dean0088 wrote: »

surely it'd make sense to send in Irish troops post-invasion

Dean0088 wrote: »

If Ireland was invaded...

Or those bloody lizard-like beings that disguised themselves as humans but would munch on a live rat if they didn't know you were looking... you can never be too careful like.

Gatling

Beano wrote: »

some more scimitars would be nice.

A few masfiffs ,panters and a couple of warriors woud be nice ,

Tony EH

Dean0088 wrote: »

No they didn't. Jesus, for someone who has apparently been studying history for 25 years you'd likely do ****e on an Ordinary LC Paper...

Of course they did. A few ports in Ireland wouldn't have helped the Royal Navy that much. The convoys were being protected as much as they could have been.

Besides the U-Boat war was almost a complete non-starter for Germany. At no point in the war were they going to put a serious dent in Britain's ability to prosecute her war aims. Even during the "Happy Times", the Ubootwaffe were not achieving the tonnage required to do so.

Only twice, before 1941, did the U Boats sink their required monthly tonnage. The rest of the time they couldn't and after 1941, the Atlantic war was practically over for the Germans. There was only EVER going to be one result.

Simply put, there were never enough U Boats at sea at any one time and the vast, vast majority of shipping always got through.

Dean0088 wrote: »

We're not Neutral. Have never really been. We allowed Russian planes to use shannon during the Cold War. Many US and NATO planes use it today.

We participated (quite heavily) in the NATO-Kosovo mission.

We're aligned with the UK when it comes to targeting the IRA on both sides of the border.

None of which actually affects our neutral stance.

BoJack Horseman

Neutrality is only as real as the ability to defend it.

I only support neutrality if Ireland had the capacity to defend itself.

However as Ireland chose against that, neutrality if a myth & pointless.

Risteard81

Not only is this a breach of neutrality, it is in fact helping the enemy who continues to occupy our country. As such it is treason.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Not after this anyway


Giving training to the British army? We get their excess equipment for free?

Leaving aside the fact "neutrality" is a bit of a running joke given our actual alliances but this surely buries the notion once and for all.



Grand so. We'll take that aircraft carrier they have no planes for.

Fukuyama

Risteard81 wrote: »

Not only is this a breach of neutrality, it is in fact helping the enemy who continues to occupy our country. As such it is treason.

Ireland no longer claims NI as part of Ireland. There's was a bit vote and everything.

BoJack Horseman

Risteard81 wrote: »

Not only is this a breach of neutrality, it is in fact helping the enemy who continues to occupy our country. As such it is treason.

Which part is occupied?
the only territory dispute is Rockall, which I think can't support habitation/occupation.

Larbre34

A nice Type-23 (Duke Class) Frigate HMS Grafton was sold to Chile and renamed the 'Admiral Lynch'. We missed a trick there, it had Irish ship literally written all over it!

However other examples of the class are due for disposal, and I would expect Ireland to pick one up for free, preferably in time for 2016;)

bear1

Risteard81 wrote: »

Not only is this a breach of neutrality, it is in fact helping the enemy who continues to occupy our country. As such it is treason.

Which country is that?

BoJack Horseman

Larbre34 wrote: »

However other examples of the class are due for disposal, and I would expect Ireland to pick one up for free, preferably in time for 2016;)

An old Type-23 would be a bit out of our league tbh!