Should Ireland join NATO?

Normal One

dere34 wrote: »

3. In the event of a loyalist insurgency we should obliterate the UVF and UDA, no 30 year prolonged conflict.

How will that work? What do you propose "we" do, in order to wipe out thousands of our own citizens, in a legal manner? That didn't work out very well for the brits, did it?

Irish_peppa

Could we ask for a 12 month trial membership and see how it worked out?

Timberrrrrrrr

dere34 wrote: »

Should Ireland join NATO in the event of a united Ireland? I believe we should for the following reasons:

1. Ireland is not neutral and that is a fact.
2. The DF needs a boost. We need equipment investment, tanks for the Army, frigates for the Navy, fighter jets for the Air Force. Committing to 2% is necessary for this.
3[b[. In the event of a loyalist insurgency we should obliterate the UVF and UDA,[/b] no 30 year prolonged conflict.
4. Scotland will join NATO when they become independent. If they join why shouldn't we? We are equally strategic.

How does this happen? If it's United ireland then why would NATO get involved with an internal struggle, they wouldn't take sides

Edgware

ronivek wrote: »

Because navy destroyers and fighter jets will help with a ‘loyalist insurgency’? The same way the British were able to leverage their Navy and Air Force against the IRA?

You do realise that the North Antrim Brigade U.V.F. have several heavily armed canoes hidden in a secret base off Rathlin Island.

dere34

dere34 wrote: »

Should Ireland join NATO in the event of a united Ireland? I believe we should for the following reasons:

1. Ireland is not neutral and that is a fact.
2. The DF needs a boost. We need equipment investment, tanks for the Army, frigates for the Navy, fighter jets for the Air Force. Committing to 2% is necessary for this.
3. In the event of a loyalist insurgency we should obliterate the UVF and UDA, no 30 year prolonged conflict.
4. Scotland will join NATO when they become independent. If they join why shouldn't we? We are equally strategic.

Points 1, 2 and 4 are defendable. Point 3 is the reason this thread is in Current Affairs and not Politics - previously it'd have belonged in the fun house that is AHs.

Ireland would offer very little to NATO. 2% of Ireland's MN inflated GDP would not offer much. In reality it would mean NATO troops/assets in Ireland (over here taking our women ).

However, it is slightly embarrassing relying solely on the UK to defend us considering our history. The Soviets Russia would definitely have an invasion plan drawn up for Ireland, possibly the UK also because of the likely Russian plan in the event of a non nuclear WW3 (or for as long as it remained non nuclear).

I also agree that us declaring neutrality is totally irrelevant in the event of a war and one side thought invading Ireland had strategic advantage. Totally.

However, I'd be on the side of staying out of NATO currently, but I'd not rule it out in the future.

Dravokivich

Aegir wrote: »

When?

Iraq and Afghanistan was NATO led without UN endorsement, wasn't it?

Dravokivich

Dravokivich wrote: »

Iraq and Afghanistan was NATO led without UN endorsement, wasn't it?

Iraq wasn’t NATO and Afghanistan was a UN mission.

Dravokivich

Aegir wrote: »

Iraq wasn’t NATO and Afghanistan was a UN mission.

Fair enough, I just recall the UN being against them and the US pulling a lot of weight to get both going.

Dravokivich

Dravokivich wrote: »

Fair enough, I just recall the UN being against them and the US pulling a lot of weight to get both going.

The UN was never against the intervention in Afghanistan. ISAF was created by a UN Security Council resolution after a request from the Afghan government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1386

Iraq, well that was different, but was not a NATO mission, but there were several NATO countries involved.

Zebra3

Gatling wrote: »

I'd call them brave men and women -


It's the reason why people and can rant and rave on the oul interweb because others have fallen to defend freedoms .

Of course you'd call them heroes. Gob****es giving up their lives in trenches and at Gallipoli for an unelected king.

Working class people going off to kill other working class people so empires can occupy other lands with their supremacist way of life. No surprise there.

Still waiting for you to tell us all why Irish taxpayers' money should be spent on stuff to "defend" Ireland.

Who is going to invade us?

The bogeyman?

Godzilla?

Rebel_Kn1ght

Aegir wrote: »

When?

NATO bombing of Belgrade?

Gatling

Zebra3 wrote: »

Of course you'd call them heroes.

Yes .

ExMachina1000

We have enough quangos of our own without joining some international ones

Aegir

Aegir wrote: »

Iraq wasn’t NATO and Afghanistan was a UN mission.

No, both were US invasions and then handed over to the respective organisations. The UN opposed both

Niner leprauchan

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

No, both were US invasions and then handed over to the respective organisations. The UN opposed both

You know there is a difference between NATO and the US don’t you?

brucky

If we did join NATO we may be precluded from expressing our true voice. Such as the letter of condolence we set on the death of Adolf Hitler. We must maintain our independence to become involved in international affairs as we see fit. The pen is mightier than the sword etc.

Zebra3

Gatling wrote: »

Yes .

Still waiting for you to tell us all who is likely to invade us.

statesaver

No. We should increase our funding for the Naval Service.

Gatling

Zebra3 wrote: »

Still waiting for you to tell us all who is likely to invade us.

Any number of countries have the capability to invade us not as if we have anything to stop then,

Bar a few keywords protesting war crimes ,war crimes ,

Would you ever come out from mother's skirt while we shoot ya but we're neural! But we're not bitch

Rebel_Kn1ght

Rebel_Kn1ght wrote: »

NATO bombing of Belgrade?

You’re right. I had presumed that was with UN backing, but it seems the Chinese and Russians threatened to veto it.

Gatling

statesaver wrote: »

No. We should increase our funding for the Naval Service.

Apparently we don't have the resources and numbers to keep the 6 ships we have at sea ,yet one gets sent to the med as a migrant taxi.

They could do with helicopters and smaller patrol type vessels

Fr_Dougal

Irish_peppa wrote: »

Could we ask for a 12 month trial membership and see how it worked out?

We could.

Then keep signing up with a new email address each year so we never have to pay for it.

Signore Fancy Pants

Zebra3 wrote: »

Still waiting for you to tell us all who is likely to invade us.

There is no current overt threat of military invasion to Ireland. Subversion, espionage, sabbotage, insurgency, etc....yes.

However, it is simplistic to argue against mitigating for future uncertainties.

As a poster earlier stated, globally Russia and China are the current known unknowns. China have been busily chipping away at global influence over the last few decades and have a vast capability. Are we a strategic foothold too far away from them? Yeah technically but thats "for now".

Russia on the other hand (NATO being the main coalition objectors) have been pushing their agenda for a long time also. It is not outside the realms of possibility that Russia views us as the weak link in Europe....because in many respects we are.

Membership of NATO and military capabilities in isolation "in general" are a deterrent. Im sensing the query of a "deterrent from what". Well the simple answer is "a deterrent from everyone and everything".

Yknow, I dont fcuk with bees, because they can sting me. Thats a deterrent.

However, NATO is somewhat being downgraded from a US angle due to redeployment or drawdown of troops and equipment from Europe. Mainly because the US is in effect subsidising or bolstering Europes military capabilities at the expense of the US taxpayer.

We also have the creation of PESCO, currently to "compliment" NATO but in reality it is a futureproofing exercise for the potential folding up of NATO.

Ultimately, Ireland like any modern country should have a capable military insurance policy in the event of hostile intent or threats against the state.

Is being a full member of NATO the appropriate course of action for Ireland? Is PESCO the way to go? Should we have zero military insurance policy because of the falsity that we are neutral/non alligned therefore not a threat.

There is a huge difference in not being a threat to anyone and not being strategically important to another state. Our geographical position alone in Europe could be viewed as advantageous to some.

In any case, wr arr part of the NATO Partnership for Peace (PfP) Programme and our Defence Forces have deployed on NATO missions.

I am in favour of strategic alliances which may benefit us as a nation in the future. We havr no idea what the security situation will benlike in 30 years time but theres no point planning for it in 29 years time.

Zebra3

You're looking at the world through those supremacist Anglo-Saxon glasses.

Neither China nor Russia are stupid enough to want to try to take over the world.

As for Russia in particular has absolutely no reason to invade Ireland given the territory it holds in between Lithuania and Poland.

And as we all know, signing up NATO isn't just about "defence", it's about being willing to commit war crimes.

The Irish people don't want that, and no Irish politician wants to get involved in that.

We are part of the UN and many members of our armed forces have served in UN operations with great professionalism. We don't need to send our kids abroad to slaughter to make scum like Cheney even richer.

So to summarise, there is no threat to Ireland.

Gatling

Zebra3 wrote: »

Neither China nor Russia are stupid enough to want to try to take over the world.

it's about being willing to commit war crimes.

Who's going to stop them if they did ?

Can't find that any where on the NATO website

Zebra3

Gatling wrote: »

Who's going to stop them if they did ?

Can't find that any where on the NATO website

Who's going to stop a heavily armed gang coming into my house tonight and murdering me if they want to?

Do I worry about that possibility? No. Why? Because I'm not an idiot. Or someone desperate to get Irish kids caught up in wars abroad that have nothing to do with them.

Gatling

Zebra3 wrote: »

Who's going to stop a heavily armed gang coming into my house tonight and murdering me if they want to?

One person could do it easily enough .


But yes if China and Russia and say north Korea decided they are going to take on the world who's exactly is going to stop them ,

Actually we would make a great launch pad ,no direct land route to mount a mobilsed counter offensive ,any large naval force could only come from a few EU states ,the same with air attacks leaving our little island an ideal spot for a little global conquest ,

riffmongous

Gatling wrote: »

One person could do it easily enough .


But yes if China and Russia and say north Korea decided they are going to take on the world who's exactly is going to stop them ,

And when America decides to take on the world we would be obliged to help them with it, no thanks

Gatling

riffmongous wrote: »

And when America decides to take on the world we would be obliged to help them with it, no thanks

But we expect others will come and save us ,

Signore Fancy Pants

Zebra3 wrote: »

You're looking at the world through those supremacist Anglo-Saxon glasses.So to summarise, there is no threat to Ireland.

"Supremacist Anglo-Saxon glasses"? That's not my view at all, so you can keep that assumption to yourself. Im neither pro-US nor pro-UK. Im also not a NATO flag waver but I will objectively consider all options based on their merits....not hot headed opinions.

Zebra3 wrote: »

Neither China nor Russia are stupid enough to want to try to take over the world.

That is just your assumption, based on what I dont know, limited knowlesge maybe. You have no actual knowledge of either states foreign policy or future intent, neither do I. However, they do have the capability for a push. Nobody said "take over the World", that is an illeducated and lazy comment which does nothing to support your assessment.

How is Crimea getting on? How is Russian influence in Syria and Libya going?

China have been inserting themseves in all regions over the last 2 decades. They have influence in key strategic areas throughout the Globe. I think you may be naive when it comes to China. While an "invasion" is unlikely to come from troops, China successfully utilises subversion, corporate espionage, techical exploitation and resource security from other states.

Zebra3 wrote: »

As for Russia in particular has absolutely no reason to invade Ireland given the territory it holds in between Lithuania and Poland.

You seem to just be focussed of tangible "boots on the ground" threats. Again, lack of awareness on your part. Russia have various uses and interests in Ireland including its geographical location and proximity to international assets.

Zebra3 wrote: »

And as we all know, signing up NATO isn't just about "defence", it's about being willing to commit war crimes.

The Irish people don't want that, and no Irish politician wants to get involved in that.

Explain to me how Ireland came to operate under NATO-led missions such as KFOR, SFOR & ISAF/RSM then.

Yeah Para 2 (4) of the NATO application form has an "opt in" box for 'war crimes' :rolleyes:

Zebra3 wrote: »

We are part of the UN and many members of our armed forces have served in UN operations with great professionalism.

Yeah I know, I'm one of them.

Zebra3 wrote: »

We don't need to send our kids abroad to slaughter to make scum like Cheney even richer.

Riiiiiiiight. So we get to the real reason for opposition towards NATO. You are just anti-US.

Zebra3 wrote: »

So to summarise, there is no threat to Ireland.

There are multiple and varied threats to Ireland from many Actors and entities, not all involve a troop "invasion"....to summarise.