Invasion of Independent N.I. in 1986

Stars and Stripes

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 since we're hearing so much how Britain could have been dropping on Dublin within the hour etc then why didn't they do it during the troubles when the IRA launched countless attacks and returned back to the south if Britain was such a superpower indifferent to the rest of the world ?

knucklehead6

i wonder though...

Lets think about this.

The invasion of an independent NI would only have happened after a number of circumstances had come to pass.

The Loyalist/Unionists created so much hassle that the powers that be in Westminster decided "Fcuk this sh1t, the Northern Irish are every bit as bad as the Southern Irish.... lets pull our forces out and be done with spending money to keep a bunch of crazies afloat." thus removing the subsidies and also saving the money it cost to have the crown forces there in the first place Likelihood? Not very, but lets allow it just for the terms of the discussion

After the withdrawal of the BA, the removal of subsidies etc, the right rev Ian Paisley declares N.I. to be independent of the UK. Likelihood? Plausible, if Westminster had behaved as mentioned above. I think they'd have stayed in the commonwealth though

The security forces of the new Independent State of Northern Ireland, bolstered by former loyalist terrorists, start a policy of ethnic cleansing, burning out catholics etc. Likelihood? Given the first two circumstances have come to pass in this hypothetical scenario, plausible.

It's at this point that the Irish invade.

Having said that, i think it would be far more likely that the British would come back, rather than the Irish invade. A joint operation with crown and Irish forces working side by side would be highly unlikely, i would think a UN peacekeeping force would be far more likely.

ohnonotgmail

knucklehead6 wrote: »

i wonder though...

Lets think about this.

The invasion of an independent NI would only have happened after a number of circumstances had come to pass.

The Loyalist/Unionists created so much hassle that the powers that be in Westminster decided "Fcuk this sh1t, the Northern Irish are every bit as bad as the Southern Irish.... lets pull our forces out and be done with spending money to keep a bunch of crazies afloat." thus removing the subsidies and also saving the money it cost to have the crown forces there in the first place Likelihood? Not very, but lets allow it just for the terms of the discussion

After the withdrawal of the BA, the removal of subsidies etc, the right rev Ian Paisley declares N.I. to be independent of the UK. Likelihood? Plausible, if Westminster had behaved as mentioned above. I think they'd have stayed in the commonwealth though

The security forces of the new Independent State of Northern Ireland, bolstered by former loyalist terrorists, start a policy of ethnic cleansing, burning out catholics etc. Likelihood? Given the first two circumstances have come to pass in this hypothetical scenario, plausible.

It's at this point that the Irish invade.

Having said that, i think it would be far more likely that the British would come back, rather than the Irish invade. A joint operation with crown and Irish forces working side by side would be highly unlikely, i would think a UN peacekeeping force would be far more likely.

Given that the DUP would have been the minority protestant party in 1986 i'm not sure the rev Ian would be in any position to declare N.I. independent. and i'm pretty sure he was never the right rev Ian Paisley. He had no truck with those anglicans.

knucklehead6

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Given that the DUP would have been the minority protestant party in 1986 i'm not sure the rev Ian would be in any position to declare N.I. independent. and i'm prety sure he was never the right rev Ian Paisley. He had no truck with those anglicans.

Oops!! Sorry, i got that wrong.
Who would it have been?

ohnonotgmail

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Oops!! Sorry, i got that wrong.
Who would it have been?

Jim Molyneaux. And he is probably the last unionist i could see declaring an independent N.I.

Stars and Stripes

No one still has answered that if Britain could have been dropping bombs on Dublin within the hour etc then why didn't they do it during the troubles when the IRA launched countless attacks and returned back to the south if Britain was such a superpower indifferent to the rest of the world ? But anyway .....

knucklehead6 wrote: »

i wonder though...

Lets think about this.

The invasion of an independent NI would only have happened after a number of circumstances had come to pass.

The Loyalist/Unionists created so much hassle that the powers that be in Westminster decided "Fcuk this sh1t, the Northern Irish are every bit as bad as the Southern Irish.... lets pull our forces out and be done with spending money to keep a bunch of crazies afloat." thus removing the subsidies and also saving the money it cost to have the crown forces there in the first place Likelihood? Not very, but lets allow it just for the terms of the discussion

After the withdrawal of the BA, the removal of subsidies etc, the right rev Ian Paisley declares N.I. to be independent of the UK. Likelihood? Plausible, if Westminster had behaved as mentioned above. I think they'd have stayed in the commonwealth though

So as before - 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 ? Come one now, give us a good laugh knucklehead6

The security forces of the new Independent State of Northern Ireland, bolstered by former loyalist terrorists, start a policy of ethnic cleansing, burning out catholics etc. Likelihood? Given the first two circumstances have come to pass in this hypothetical scenario, plausible.

Funny enough during the entire troubles we were always been told how the RUC and UDR were supposed to be impartial and any accusations of sectarian thuggery and collusion was supposed to be only the Provos propaganda Since the expulsion of 400,000 or 500,000 Catholics would make the rest of the people of Ireland slightly angry to put it mildly, been outnumbered 6:1 and trying to start an all out sectarian war wouldn’t be such a bright move would it.

And again how would you fund these ‘security forces’ in this new found pariah state ? I wouldn’t be too sure of the RUC and UDR been to quick to take up the gun after a British withdrawal as I remember the RUC before the Good Friday Agreement openly saying they wouldn’t accept disbandment nor even the changing of the cap badge – until Mo Mowlem hinting that refusal would jeopardise their lump sum and pensions and that quickly died out. So now the RUC are gone without a shot been fired of course. Indeed in August 1969 20 or so IRA men armed with handguns and bolt action rifles kept the RUC and unionist mobs at bay down on the Lower Falls

It's at this point that the Irish invade.

Having said that, i think it would be far more likely that the British would come back, rather than the Irish invade. A joint operation with crown and Irish forces working side by side would be highly unlikely, i would think a UN peacekeeping force would be far more likely.

Getting the UN involved would have been the way but Lynch and FF and FG didn't send the army in because the Gombeen men in the 26 govt - despite their rhetoric for 5 decades regarding a United Ireland - as it would have disturbed their cosy, corrupt, conservative, catholic set-up, and didn't want their profitable political life and little fiefdoms disturbed in anyway.

sparky42

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

No one still has answered that if Britain could have been dropping bombs on Dublin within the hour etc then why didn't they do it during the troubles when the IRA launched countless attacks and returned back to the south if Britain was such a superpower indifferent to the rest of the world ? But anyway .....

Do you really need someone to explain the difference between the actions of a Terror group whose membership was illegal in the Republic and the military force of a Sovereign State?

Getting the UN involved would have been the way but Lynch and FF and FG didn't send the army in because the Gombeen men in the 26 govt - despite their rhetoric for 5 decades regarding a United Ireland - as it would have disturbed their cosy, corrupt, conservative, catholic set-up, and didn't want their profitable political life and little fiefdoms disturbed in anyway.

Or it was because the Republic throughout this period was P!ss Poor and whose military couldn't match the UK military a force designed and spec'ed for World War 3... No NATO nation would have given a F**K about the UK smacking the crap out of a suicidal nation if there was an attempt to attack the UK. We would most likely got some Soviet support but of what value other than empty words (even if the Republic accepted them) is questionable and most likely to harden the views against the Republic.

4ensic15

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

No one still has answered that if Britain could have been dropping bombs on Dublin within the hour etc then why didn't they do it during the troubles when the IRA launched countless attacks and returned back to the south if Britain was such a superpower indifferent to the rest of the world ? But anyway .....

To do so would have been declaring war on Ireland. Not alone would they have terrorists who were a tiny minority causing trouble, they would have brought the entire Irish state against them. The British were UN NATO and from 1973, EEC members. They would not want the hassle that would flow from attacking a sovereign state. They had enough trouble trying to keep the lid on trouble in 1919 to 1921 when they controlled the machinery of the Irish state. They had their own police, military civil servants, judiciary and many supporters amongst the population in 1919 to 1921. Even they they had difficulty. 50 years later it would have been even more difficult. Apart from the international condemnation, they would have face the prospect of battle with the Irish state now having its own trained military and resources.

Stars and Stripes

sparky42 wrote: »

Do you really need someone to explain the difference between the actions of a Terror group whose membership was illegal in the Republic and the military force of a Sovereign State?



Or it was because the Republic throughout this period was P!ss Poor and whose military couldn't match the UK military a force designed and spec'ed for World War 3... No NATO nation would have given a F**K about the UK smacking the crap out of a suicidal nation if there was an attempt to attack the UK. We would most likely got some Soviet support but of what value other than empty words (even if the Republic accepted them) is questionable and most likely to harden the views against the Republic.

So he states first that Britain respects the south's sovereignty and then says they wouldn't a F**K about !!!

And as for this gung ho army "designed and spec'ed for World War 3" - they spent more than 25 years trying to militarily defeat the Provisionals and couldn't but thankfully it was ended with the Good Friday Agreement. For God's sake they couldn't travel around south Armagh by land for most of the troubles FFS. And since you mentioned the Soviets and what you term "empty words", as the Suez crisis which someone mentioned earlier, when the Soviets said the their paratroopers etc might be on their way to Egypt if Britain didn't call it off - the British govt starting complying in no time with a humiliating climb down.

sparky42

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

So he states first that Britain respects the south's sovereignty and then says they wouldn't a F**K about !!!

Guess you do need an explanation as to the difference between the sovereign forces of one nation attacking another and the responses that brings and the acts of a terror group

And as for this gung ho army "designed and spec'ed for World War 3" - they spent more than 25 years trying to militarily defeat the Provisionals and couldn't but thankfully it was ended with the Good Friday Agreement. For God's sake they couldn't travel around south Armagh by land for most of the troubles FFS. And since you mentioned the Soviets and what you term "empty words", as the Suez crisis which someone mentioned earlier, when the Soviets said the their paratroopers etc might be on their way to Egypt if Britain didn't call it off - the British govt starting complying in no time with a humiliating climb down.

Did you ever see MBT's deployed to NI? CAS? Heavy Artillery? Naval Gunfire support/embargo? That is what they could bring to bare in a state versus state action without any issue, what was deployed through the Troubles was what the UK had spare after meeting it's NATO demands, and those forces alone could still have offered battle to the Defence Forces. The Provo's were an annoyance to the UK and never raised themselves to the level of a national threat that required heavy military counteraction, again a state invasion is a totally different matter.

And the UK withdrew from Suez as mainly the US threatened to collapse their economy, a threat they wouldn't bring if Ireland attacked the UK.

Stars and Stripes

sparky42 wrote: »

Guess you do need an explanation as to the difference between the sovereign forces of one nation attacking another and the responses that brings and the acts of a terror group

It was a terror group from one jurisdiction almost almost daily at times launching attacks into another. If as you try to claim Britain was such a superpower indifferent to the rest of the world - then they'd have thrown caution to the wind and invaded the border counties etc without a thought. Could you imagine the an actual superpower like the US ignoring daily attacks launched from Canada or Mexico ??

Did you ever see MBT's deployed to NI? CAS? Heavy Artillery? Naval Gunfire support/embargo? That is what they could bring to bare in a state versus state action without any issue, what was deployed through the Troubles was what the UK had spare after meeting it's NATO demands, and those forces alone could still have offered battle to the Defence Forces. The Provo's were an annoyance to the UK and never raised themselves to the level of a national threat that required heavy military counteraction, again a state invasion is a totally different matter.

And the UK withdrew from Suez as mainly the US threatened to collapse their economy, a threat they wouldn't bring if Ireland attacked the UK.

"The Provo's were an annoyance to the UK" when the troubles was Britain's longest conflict in the last century on BBC news probably every second night of the week. Wasn't Thatcher herself and half her cabinet almost killed out at Brighton, the closest to wiping out the British govt since Guy Fawkes, indeed weren't several of her colleagues in attacks killed like MP's Airy Neave, Ian Gowe, Anthony Berry etc. When someone is trying to kill you it does tend to focus your mind. In explosive expert's A. R. Oppenheimer's IRA: The Bombs and the Bullets: A History of Deadly Ingenuity, he estimates the mega explosions in London, Manchester etc were the largest bombing campaign of a European city since WW2. So much for you trying to say there were a mere " annoyance ".



And as for America and the run on the pound, I didn't mention it as it's of financial concern but proof again of Britain's weakness in the world in 1956 - never mind 1986. The thoughts of the Red army in 1956 who had primarily defeated Germany in WW2, killing probably more Germans in one major battle than Britain did in the whole war, undoubtedly was the main factor in the Brits sh!tting their little pants and pulling out of Suez ASAP.

tac foley

Let's have a little constraint here, Gentlemen, and inject a modicum of realism into what is rapidly becoming science fiction.

The UK was never at war with the Republic of Ireland, and was never on a war-footing in Northern Ireland either, despite the comments made here.

The troubles in Northern Ireland were treated like any guerilla war might be, albeit with the HUGE constraints on operating within the sovereign territory of the UK.

So -

NO tanks, even light tanks like the Scorpion/Scimitar.

NO massed infantry, like those used in general WARFARE.

NO rounding up of village-loads of people for questioning.

NO use of mortars against dug-in terrorists.

To Mr Stars and stripes, who is currently on my ignore list, open warfare, as organised by a nation with a modern Army as the British Army was organised in 1986, would have been something beyond your comprehension.

Remember that in 1982, the British Forces travelled 8000 miles to beat the living s*ite out of another modern Army, and caused them almost a thousand dead, and THEY were dug-in and prepared for what was coming their way.

But the Anglo-Irish War of 1986 never happened, and the omadáns whose idea it was have passed into history.

tac

Stars and Stripes

tac foley wrote: »

Let's have a little constraint here, Gentlemen, and inject a modicum of realism into what is rapidly becoming science fiction.

The UK was never at war with the Republic of Ireland, and was never on a war-footing in Northern Ireland either, despite the comments made here.

The troubles in Northern Ireland were treated like any guerilla war might be, albeit with the HUGE constraints on operating within the sovereign territory of the UK.

So -

NO tanks, even light tanks like the Scorpion/Scimitar.

NO massed infantry, like those used in general WARFARE.

NO rounding up of village-loads of people for questioning.

NO use of mortars against dug-in terrorists.

To Mr Stars and stripes, who is currently on my ignore list, open warfare, as organised by a nation with a modern Army as the British Army was organised in 1986, would have been something beyond your comprehension.

Remember that in 1982, the British Forces travelled 8000 miles to beat the living s*ite out of another modern Army, and caused them almost a thousand dead, and THEY were dug-in and prepared for what was coming their way.

But the Anglo-Irish War of 1986 never happened, and the omadáns whose idea it was have passed into history.

tac

Here we go again, I stated by me on post #27 and again on #29 - " Obviously in a full conventional attack on Ireland Britain would have the numbers on their side and the RAF etc ". But my contention is with some like you with your "that the first RAF bombs would have been dropping on Dublin within the hour." - and this when it was the unionists mouthing about declaring UDI, of which Dublin would only have been against so what the feck would be the point in attacking Dublin :rolleyes:

What I am stating in an August 1969 situation, the Irish army going into say the Bogside Derry would have sparked off an International Incident like Suez which would have to be put to the UN to discuss and vote before Britain could take any action just like the Falklands which you mentioned. Since it’s over 40 years ago in the past who knows how things would have turned out, but I think it’s a pity it wasn’t internationalised until the 90’s with Bill Clinton’s envoy and the Good Friday Agreement sponsored by the EU and USA and as an international treaty lodged at the UN.

I know it's a wiki but this might explain "An international incident is a seemingly relatively small or limited action or clash that results in a wider dispute between two or more nation-states." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_incident