Invasion of Independent N.I. in 1986

knucklehead6

I think we have all heard of the much maligned Operation Armageddon in the time of Jack Lynch, but this one was new to me, a plan for an invasion of an newly declared Independent Northern Ireland

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/state-papers-officials-feared-unionist-declaration-of-independence-1.2937842

knucklehead6

tac foley wrote: »

In your dreams.

I'm betting that the first RAF bombs would have been dropping on Dublin within the hour.

tac

As soon as I saw it was you who replied I knew the post would be along those lines.

And while I don't doubt that you are quite probably right there is an interesting intellectual exercise in the option that an Independent NI would have kicked HMG out along with Her Majesties Armed Forces. In which case RAF bombs may not have been dropping...

Gatling

Did I read somewhere that the Defence forces who would have been sent across the border would have to try sieze weapons and ammunition to keep the mission going .

Jawgap

I'm not sure why Dublin would be subject to air attack in the wake of Belfast doing a "Rhodesia" and a UDI?

If anything there'd have been more of a co-ordinated response ála Suez....I'm sure Thatcher would've been happy to fight to the last Irishman to secure NI

tac foley

Gentlemen, I'll have to bow out of this conversation at this point, if you'll forgive me.

The whole premise is just too near the bone for me - I'm sure you'll understand.

tac

sparky42

I'm more interested in what "air assets" were planned for the air assault?
TBH I think this was barely even a paper plan, I can't see how the DF could have been able to carry out such an operation even without the UK having forces involved.

ohnonotgmail

knucklehead6 wrote: »

As soon as I saw it was you who replied I knew the post would be along those lines.

And while I don't doubt that you are quite probably right there is an interesting intellectual exercise in the option that an Independent NI would have kicked HMG out along with Her Majesties Armed Forces. In which case RAF bombs may not have been dropping...

how exactly do you think they might have done that?

ohnonotgmail

sparky42 wrote: »

I'm more interested in what "air assets" were planned for the air assault?
TBH I think this was barely even a paper plan, I can't see how the DF could have been able to carry out such an operation even without the UK having forces involved.

6 magisters, a puma, 1(?) gazelle and some alouettes. Not likely to put the fear of god into anybody. were the magisters capable of carrying weapons?

knucklehead6

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

how exactly do you think they might have done that?

I'm not saying it would have happened over night, but if it HAD happened it would have been after a sustained period of political unrest/pressure.

I was too young to fully appreciate the goings on up there at the time, hell to my young mind a man of god (Paisley) had to be on the side of good and not evil, peace not war etc. It was quite an awakening when I realised that he was a firebrand.

As for the maritime invasion/air stirkes, the mere thought of them is cause for giggles. We do not and did not have the infrastructure to support such ventures.

I honestly reckon that if there had been an invasion it would've been a close run thing. And i don't know which side would've won out in the end.

sparky42

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

how exactly do you think they might have done that?

Think it was more in the view that a UDI was declared and Maggie said "**** it, the place is a ****hole anyway, we're done with you" and withdrew rather than Loyalists forcing out the BA.

sparky42

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

6 magisters, a puma, 1(?) gazelle and some alouettes. Not likely to put the fear of god into anybody. were the magisters capable of carrying weapons?

Think like the PC9's they might have been able to carrry some small amount, but unguided so I couldn't see them be allowed to engage any targets.

Gatling

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

were the magisters capable of carrying weapons?

Guns and open to correction 3in rockets

riffmongous

sparky42 wrote: »

Think it was more in the view that a UDI was declared and Maggie said "**** it, the place is a ****hole anyway, we're done with you" and withdrew rather than Loyalists forcing out the BA.

Yeah

The eight-page document prepared over six months in 1985/86 states it would be “more prudent than alarmist” to consider the consequences of a British withdrawal, pointing to the “reckless disregard” shown by the UK under similar circumstances in Israel/ Palestine and India / Pakistan.

knucklehead6

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

6 magisters, a puma, 1(?) gazelle and some alouettes. Not likely to put the fear of god into anybody. were the magisters capable of carrying weapons?

Was the puma not just eased for the papal visit?

ohnonotgmail

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Was the puma not just eased for the papal visit?

the papal visit was in 1979. we didnt lease the puma until '81.

Stovepipe

The duty rumour was that the elements of the Irish Govt wanted to provoke a UN intervention, by making an armed crossing in the direction of Derry . Needless to say, they knew full well that the British military would wipe the floor with the Irish Army. The saner elements of the Govt were also afraid of their ****e for what it might provoke among the armed Loyalist/Unionist factions. The Army Staff knew that the Republic was essentially defenceless against any kind of aerial reprisal and that any large movement of equipment would be a sitting target for the RAF. There were all sorts of crazy idea running around in the late Sixties/early 70s, about Southern intervention and what was really scary was that some people took them seriously..... As for ammunition, the Army did move a huge amount of what it had to the Border area barracks, as well as men and equipment, because it was in line with plans dating back to the Emergency for dealing with crises; ie, move what we have to where something might kick off.

knucklehead6

Stovepipe wrote: »

The duty rumour was that the elements of the Irish Govt wanted to provoke a UN intervention, by making an armed crossing in the direction of Derry . Needless to say, they knew full well that the British military would wipe the floor with the Irish Army. The saner elements of the Govt were also afraid of their ****e for what it might provoke among the armed Loyalist/Unionist factions. The Army Staff knew that the Republic was essentially defenceless against any kind of aerial reprisal and that any large movement of equipment would be a sitting target for the RAF. There were all sorts of crazy idea running around in the late Sixties/early 70s, about Southern intervention and what was really scary was that some people took them seriously..... As for ammunition, the Army did move a huge amount of what it had to the Border area barracks, as well as men and equipment, because it was in line with plans dating back to the Emergency for dealing with crises; ie, move what we have to where something might kick off.

This was the mid 80's though. And, as Sprky42 said, the whole thing was predicated on the BA/RAF/RN not being in country...

riffmongous

What was the strength of the UDR at the time?

sparky42

knucklehead6 wrote: »

This was the mid 80's though. And, as Sprky42 said, the whole thing was predicated on the BA/RAF/RN not being in country...

And not giving a crap as to what happened after they left I guess.

ohnonotgmail

riffmongous wrote: »

What was the strength of the UDR at the time?

around 6,000. half of them reservists.

Frogeye

I recall many years ago seeing a piece in the newspaper from the other viewpoint... a plan by the loyalists to hold 3 counties of the north in the event of a British pull out... I remember it pointed out that the Irish army had artillery and some air capability...

Tried googling it but couldn't find anything. Does anyone else remember seeing this? would have been in the late early 90s maybe?

Frogeye

knucklehead6

sparky42 wrote: »

And not giving a crap as to what happened after they left I guess.

An unlikely scenario to be sure, but contingency plans are needed...

I'm sure the US has a contingency plan to invade Canada. Not mexico though, we know what they're plan is there, and it won't involve Reagan telling someone to tear down this wall. :rolleyes:

knucklehead6

Frogeye wrote: »

I recall many years ago seeing a piece in the newspaper from the other viewpoint... a plan by the loyalists to hold 3 counties of the north in the event of a British pull out... I remember it pointed out that the Irish army had artillery and some air capability...

Tried googling it but couldn't find anything. Does anyone else remember seeing this? would have been in the late early 90s maybe?

Frogeye

it was probably based on the religious demographics of the 6 counties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Northern_Ireland#/media/File:Religion_Northern_Ireland_Districts_2011_Census.png

AllthingsCP

knucklehead6 wrote: »

An unlikely scenario to be sure, but contingency plans are needed...

I'm sure the US has a contingency plan to invade Canada. Not mexico though, we know what they're plan is there, and it won't involve Reagan telling someone to tear down this wall. :rolleyes:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039453/How-America-planned-destroy-BRITAIN-1930-bombing-raids-chemical-weapons.html

USA planned invasion of Canada and planned conflict with UK

4ensic15

The "plan" was more in the nature of a feasibilty stud. It called for 6 fully resourced brigades, which were not available at the time or at an time after. 1986 was the depths of the mid 90s recession and there was no question of any expansion of the Df to be in a position to execute the "plan". A plan, to be called such, would have to say how existing resources were to be used to carry it out. A number of politicians had been calling for intervention in the North in 1969. this was after years of keeping the PDF in an emaciated state. Producing a "plan" like this is a way to tell the politicians to pay up or shut up.

Stars and Stripes

knucklehead6 wrote: »

I think we have all heard of the much maligned Operation Armageddon in the time of Jack Lynch, but this one was new to me, a plan for an invasion of an newly declared Independent Northern Ireland

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/state-papers-officials-feared-unionist-declaration-of-independence-1.2937842

"15 leading members of the Ulster Unionist Party resigned their parliament seats in protest." Didn't resign their salary's of course.

I remember that time well, that dundering oaf Garret Fitzgerald was the Taoiseach and I can see his hand in this miss match of a report where he like Haughey and the rest of the gombeen men and woman in FG/FF/LP were terrified of a United Ireland and any possible change to their corrupt, rotten, cronyist little set up. Meanwhile we had Paisely up in the north with yet another of his little paramilitary clowns " Ulster Resistance " posing as starting Armageddon etc They gave us Peter Robinson's ' invasion ' of Clontibret Co. Monaghan attacking a disused customs shed or something for which Robinson was caught by the Guards and brought to Dundalk court where the Local Republicans hammered the sh!t out of them running them out of town. And Robinson the martyr got a few days in Limerick Womens prison for his daring raid on the Free Sate !!

Stars and Stripes

Stovepipe wrote: »

The duty rumour was that the elements of the Irish Govt wanted to provoke a UN intervention, by making an armed crossing in the direction of Derry . Needless to say, they knew full well that the British military would wipe the floor with the Irish Army. The saner elements of the Govt were also afraid of their ****e for what it might provoke among the armed Loyalist/Unionist factions. The Army Staff knew that the Republic was essentially defenceless against any kind of aerial reprisal and that any large movement of equipment would be a sitting target for the RAF. There were all sorts of crazy idea running around in the late Sixties/early 70s, about Southern intervention and what was really scary was that some people took them seriously..... As for ammunition, the Army did move a huge amount of what it had to the Border area barracks, as well as men and equipment, because it was in line with plans dating back to the Emergency for dealing with crises; ie, move what we have to where something might kick off.

I think your talking about the situation in August 1969 rather than 1986. I have no doubt that in a man for man situation it would have been far from the case of the Brits wiping " the floor with the Irish Army ". Obviously in a full conventional attack on Ireland Britain would have the numbers on their side and the RAF etc But something Britain couldn't do so without permission of international opinion, effectively America. Not a hope would the British in 1969 or 1986 get the go ahead from Washington, someone mentioned Suez in the thread which was the last time Britain tried to unilaterally throw it’s weight around like a world power in 1956, read up on it, end of that little fantasy.

As for the Loyalist/Unionist factions in 1986, we had the fiasco of Paisley's Ulster Resistance and " Ulster Says No " campaign etc threatening yet again bloodbaths and Armageddon etc. The loyalist Johnny Adair's and the rest of that sub human rabble wouldn't last p!ssing time without British collusion arming and directing them. In reality unionists are the ones obviously who a British withdrawal fearful of the Provisionals, INLA etc taking advantage of the new position, a situation no one should want I must say. It's not the IRA who feared British withdrawal - but unionism.

sparky42

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

I think your talking about the situation in August 1969 rather than 1986. I have no doubt that in a man for man situation it would have been far from the case of the Brits wiping " the floor with the Irish Army ".

At any time given our funding of the Irish Military the UK forces could "wipe the floor" without breaking much of a sweat. If Ireland launched any aggression towards what is internationally recognised as UK territory then they would be fully entitled to use what ever force they deemed needed to defend said territory. At which point a military lacking air defence, armour, modern communications, supplies etc gets shattered.

Stars and Stripes

sparky42 wrote: »

At any time given our funding of the Irish Military I have no doubt that in a man for man situation it would have been far from the case of the Brits wiping " the floor with the Irish Army ". . If Ireland launched any aggression towards what is internationally recognised as UK territory then they would be fully entitled to use what ever force they deemed needed to defend said territory. At which point a military lacking air defence, armour, modern communications, supplies etc gets shattered.

As stated that in a man for man situation " it would have been far from the case of the Brits wiping " the floor with the Irish Army " but again as stated in a full conventional attack on Ireland Britain would have the numbers on their side and the RAF. But that would be the glorious history of British army i.e. beating the fuzzy wuzzy's, Johnny Foreigner etc - attack a small country when you have far superior numbers and weaponry. It would be like Ireland attacking Luxembourg or something !!

But tell me, if the British could have attacked Ireland unilaterally - why didn't they do so during the entire troubles when for 25 years the IRA launched thousands of attacks from across the border ?? Unless of course they were afraid of no approval from Washington and the international community, end of. It was 1986 not 1886.

donvito99

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

But tell me, if the British could have attacked Ireland unilaterally - why didn't they do so during the entire troubles when for 25 years the IRA launched thousands of attacks from across the border ?? Unless of course they were afraid of no approval from Washington and the international community, end of. It was 1986 not 1886.

How should Ireland have avoided international condemnation if it had invaded NI and not - as you contend - been wiped out within any extended period of operations in another country?

Ireland unilaterally invading the UK would have left Nixon/Reagan in a pretty straightforward position really.

tac foley

If the Republic of Ireland had been ill-advised enough to have invaded UK territory in 1986 - as Argentina had done in 1982 - they could have expected to have been treated the same way.

The UK had no need to ask Washington for their permission to defend their own sovereign territory at that time, and would have not needed to ask Washington in the event of an invasion from what was previously thought to have been a friendly nation.

It would have been short, not at all sweet, and would have left a very bad taste in the mouths of both sides for the foreseeable future, making the positions of Irish citizens serving in the UK Armed Forces totally untenable, and likely beggaring Ireland with reparations for their act of aggression.

As the Republic was not then, and still not now, part of NATO, in spite of all the support offered [and gratefully accepted] by NATO forces in various locations, attacking a NATO member is never a good idea and the RoI would have been in for some hard times - most of Europe is in NATO, as I'm sure you know. The tourism trade would have died right there, unless the usual ghouls wanted to visit the inevitable ruins.

And although Irish peacekeeping forces were in operation all over the place, asking for a peacekeeping force to act between RoI and UK would have been embarrassing, to say the least.

tac

knucklehead6

tac foley wrote: »

If the Republic of Ireland had been ill-advised enough to have invaded UK territory in 1986 - as Argentina had done in 1982 - they could have expected to have been treated the same way.

The UK had no need to ask Washington for their permission to defend their own sovereign territory at that time, and would have not needed to ask Washington in the event of an invasion from what was previously thought to have been a friendly nation.

It would have been short, not at all sweet, and would have left a very bad taste in the mouths of both sides for the foreseeable future, making the positions of Irish citizens serving in the UK Armed Forces totally untenable, and likely beggaring Ireland with reparations for their act of aggression.

As the Republic was not then, and still not now, part of NATO, in spite of all the support offered [and gratefully accepted] by NATO forces in various locations, attacking a NATO member is never a good idea and the RoI would have been in for some hard times - most of Europe is in NATO, as I'm sure you know. The tourism trade would have died right there, unless the usual ghouls wanted to visit the inevitable ruins.

And although Irish peacekeeping forces were in operation all over the place, asking for a peacekeeping force to act between RoI and UK would have been embarrassing, to say the least.

tac

Tac, this is about an independent NI, not about a sovereign part of the UK.


Anyway, I thought you'd left this thread??

donvito99

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Tac, this is about an independent NI, not about a sovereign part of the UK.

But what is an independent N.I.? Devolution? Full political autonomy, but a part of the UK? Or just a part of the commonwealth?

Either way, invading an "independent" N.I. would, as tac reasonably points out (and the DF strategists in agreement) lead to a decisive rout of Irish DF personnel.

tac foley

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Tac, this is about an independent NI, not about a sovereign part of the UK.


Anyway, I thought you'd left this thread??

Shucks, I musta come back somehow. Anyhow, you're right, and I'm wrong.

Sorry.

I WILL go now.

tac

riffmongous

donvito99 wrote: »

But what is an independent N.I.? Devolution? Full political autonomy, but a part of the UK? Or just a part of the commonwealth?

Either way, invading an "independent" N.I. would, as tac reasonably points out (and the DF strategists in agreement) lead to a decisive rout of Irish DF personnel.

It's described at the start of the thread and in the link

The eight-page document prepared over six months in 1985/86 states it would be “more prudent than alarmist” to consider the consequences of a British withdrawal, pointing to the “reckless disregard” shown by the UK under similar circumstances in Israel/ Palestine and India / Pakistan.

ZeroThreat

The difference with India/Paki and Israel/Palestine being that N.I. was right next door to Britain, providing much less scope for operating with "reckless disregard" via total withdrawal unless they wanted to take some of the 'splash damage'.

knucklehead6

ZeroThreat wrote: »

The difference with India/Paki and Israel/Palestine being that N.I. was right next door to Britain, providing much less scope for operating with "reckless disregard" via total withdrawal unless they wanted to take some of the 'splash damage'.

We all know that it didn't happen, and would never happen in the way described in the brief, so it's probably more one for Walt land than here.

But it still does make you think, would the PDF have been able to take and hold enclaves (without BA/RN/RAF involvement, because Tac is right, that would have been a short victorious war for the Crown forces) in the faceof an armed insurgency?

Stars and Stripes

donvito99 wrote: »

But what is an independent N.I.? Devolution? Full political autonomy, but a part of the UK? Or just a part of the commonwealth?

Either way, invading an "independent" N.I. would, as tac reasonably points out (and the DF strategists in agreement) lead to a decisive rout of Irish DF personnel.

Exactly,what real plans had the unionists for this ' Independent ' NI - a six or 4 or 3 county ' Ulster ' ? How did they plan to run this economy without the British govt doing it for them ? How would they have trade relations with the south for whom NI is inextricably economically linked ? As a pariah state like Rhodesia how would it apply to join the EEC (EU) ? Would it be recognized by the UN and international opinion especially America ? In fact it's ridiculous and only the usual mouthing and blathering of our unionist friends.

As for "lead to a decisive rout of Irish DF" yeah sure, Paisley and Ronbinson who got their ar$es ran out of Dundalk by the local Republicans never mind the Irish Defense Force's !!

tac foley

It would have been the most appalling thing to happen for any two close-neighbour nations who, in spite of differences, have been so closely entangled through history for good and bad. I'm thinking of the numbers of Irish actually living full-time in Great Britain - ca. 400,000 in 1986.

What would have happened to them? Round-ups and internment? Wholesale deportation to a neutral country for repatriation to the Ould Sod? Without Irish nursing expertise, the NHS may well have gone to its knees. Even hospital support was either Irish or Jamaican/other Caribbean. When my mom was a domestic supervisor at St Thomas Hospital London, around 60% of her 200+ staff were Irish - very few were English.

Let's be grateful that this lunacy did not happen, even if it 'woulda bin just great to show them Brits the way home' kind of wishful thinking.

tac

tac foley

knucklehead6 wrote: »

We all know that it didn't happen, and would never happen in the way described in the brief, so it's probably more one for Walt land than here.

But it still does make you think, would the PDF have been able to take and hold enclaves (without BA/RN/RAF involvement, because Tac is right, that would have been a short victorious war for the Crown forces) in the faceof an armed insurgency?

Not an insurgency [look it up] but an invasion of a sovereign nation by another sovereign nation.

The Republic would still be paying the reparation today.

And long-term - who would trust you now?

Bears thinking about, that.

tac

Esel

We are talking about a post-UDI scenario.

If the UK armed forces hadn't moved to suppress the UDI (tacit acceptance of same?), why would they move against the Irish Army?

tac foley

You can bet your life that in spite of a declaration of UDI there would be a teeny-weeny little clause in there somewhere there to take into account the latent aggression and intentions of a hostile republic, especially one with a long history of fostering/fomenting a united Ireland by force of arms - remember that PIRA was doing it for YOU, or so they say. At that time even your own government/politicians had their eyeballs firmly fixed on trying to bring about a united Ireland one way or another.

With that in mind, I'm betting that the planes would have been in the air within minutes of the first Republican PDF boot setting foot in any of the six counties. They would not have been dropping leaflets.

It would be very interesting to learn what the British plans entailed for dealing with such an event, but you can bet it would not have been pleasant.

tac

riffmongous

tac foley wrote: »

You can bet your life that in spite of a declaration of UDI there would be a teeny-weeny little clause in there somewhere there to take into account the latent aggression and intentions of a hostile republic, especially one with a long history of fostering/fomenting a united Ireland by force of arms - remember that PIRA was doing it for YOU, or so they say. At that time even your own government/politicians had their eyeballs firmly fixed on trying to bring about a united Ireland one way or another.

With that in mind, I'm betting that the planes would have been in the air within minutes of the first Republican PDF boot setting foot in any of the six counties. They would not have been dropping leaflets.

It would be very interesting to learn what the British plans entailed for dealing with such an event, but you can bet it would not have been pleasant.

tac

In the worst case scenario though (which is what the invasion plan was based on, "‘unrestrained assault’ on nationalists"), that would amount to providing air cover for ethnic cleansing

tac foley

Terble.

Am't you glad it didn't happen?

tac

knucklehead6

tac foley wrote: »

It would be very interesting to learn what the British plans entailed for dealing with such an event, but you can bet it would not have been pleasant.

tac

Probably what you think... we'd still be clearing the rubble from the streets today after being bombed back to the stone age, then a retaliatory invasion, resulting in a Korean style DMZ being implemented

knucklehead6

riffmongous wrote: »

In the worst case scenario though (which is what the invasion plan was based on, "‘unrestrained assault’ on nationalists"), that would amount to providing air cover for ethnic cleansing

Ethnic cleansing of the N.I. Catholics, covered by the RAF?

riffmongous

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Ethnic cleansing of the N.I. Catholics, covered by the RAF?

That is my understanding of the scenarios outlined so far.

Stars and Stripes

Some of our wannabe imperial super power friends here seem to forget that there are maybe 800,000 unionists living in Ireland and tens of thousands of English people living in the south, nationalist Ireland would quickly reply in kind to any mass expulsion of Irish people. You just have to look at the burning of the British embassy (technically British soil) after Bloody Sunday to see what kind of backlash could arise.

But for the Brits to start an expulsion of Irish citizens would go down well with the the rest of the world especially the EEC/EU now wouldn't it of which Britain was a member. But they'll probably tell us that Britain would tell Johnny Foreigner off and threaten the Germans, French and Italians of immediate and terrible war blah, blah, blah And as for America, one telephone call from Washington and then would be the end of that little plan

knucklehead6

riffmongous wrote: »

That is my understanding of the scenarios outlined so far.

I dunno.

I think the crown forces would have shown some restraint.

The Irish Army would have been destroyed, of that there's no doubt. The Naval Service too, as well as the Air Corps

I think the DMZ would be a more likely scenario

riffmongous

knucklehead6 wrote: »

I dunno.

I think the crown forces would have shown some restraint.

The Irish Army would have been destroyed, of that there's no doubt. The Naval Service too, as well as the Air Corps

I think the DMZ would be a more likely scenario

Well I also agree, I don't think they would have been so quick to bomb either in that case. I meant if they did bomb, it would look like a shield for ethnic cleansing.

Stars and Stripes

riffmongous wrote: »

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Ethnic cleansing of the N.I. Catholics, covered by the RAF?

That is my understanding of the scenarios outlined so far.

Wasn't UDI supposed to be our unionist friends seceding from the UK so why the hell would the RAF be attacking nationalist areas ? Wouldn't it be the unionists threatening secession that the Brits would be attacking ? A unionist dream of course, they often at orange marches etc drunkenly called for the RAF to carpet nationalist areas such as West Belfast, the Bogside, south Armagh etc. Lovely people our unionist friends eh, though nowadays with the increasing Catholic population they are now hoping to convert some of them to unionism !!