Should Ireland join NATO?

Signore Fancy Pants

Zebra3 wrote: »

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.

Its idiotic not to have a plan for the worst. So you'd quite happily sit there and be murdered instead of having a plan or at least a deterrance or mitigation measure?

Yeah, with this level of argument I'd be wasting my time if I debated anymore with you on this, Agree to disagree.

Have a good one.

Dravokivich

Aegir wrote: »

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

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm

According to NATO there is no difference.

"Collective defence means that an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies."

They even say in their website it was in response to 9/11, which is what lead to the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. And that seemed to be announced 2 months before the UN Council item you referenced earlier.

riffmongous

riffmongous wrote: »

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

Thats not how it works. Its only if someone attacks America would you be obliged to go to their defence. Their defence, not their attack.

riffmongous

Deleted User wrote: »

Thats not how it works. Its only if someone attacks America would you be obliged to go to their defence. Their defence, not their attack.

Sure, and there's also a get out clause if the Americans (or Turkey/UK ) provoke it right?

Just for example say by unilaterally seizing Iranian oil tankers

Signore Fancy Pants

riffmongous wrote: »

Sure, and there's also a get out clause if the Americans (or Turkey/UK ) provoke it right?

Just for example say by unilaterally seizing Iranian oil tankers

That's not a NATO action though.

riffmongous

Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »

That's not a NATO action though.

No, but it's an example of how a NATO member could provoke an attack on it, triggering article 5 which would drag Ireland into a war it has no business being in

Signore Fancy Pants

riffmongous wrote: »

No, but it's an example of how a NATO member could provoke an attack on it, triggering article 5 which would drag Ireland into a war it has no business being in

Not completely accurate.

Each individual member state has (relative) autonomy over what contributions they make (if any). Its based on their capabilities, availability, home nation responsibilities and mission specific roles.

Its not just front line troops. Its comms, medics, naval assets, SOF, logistics, transport, engineers, HQ element etc.

It would be highly unlikely that the Defence Forces would be deployed en masse upon triggering Article 5. Even then, its a select few.

It would be very very very very very far from dragging Ireland into a war.

riffmongous

Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »

Not completely accurate.

Each individual member state has (relative) autonomy over what contributions they make (if any). Its based on their capabilities, availability, home nation responsibilities and mission specific roles.

Its not just front line troops. Its comms, medics, naval assets, SOF, logistics, transport, engineers, HQ element etc.

It would be highly unlikely that the Defence Forces would be deployed en masse upon triggering Article 5. Even then, its a select few.

It would be very very very very very far from dragging Ireland into a war.

It's not just about the DF, Ireland itself would be involved, with all the political effects that would cause, internationally and nationally.

ronivek

Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »

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

And precisely which of these threats would spending billions on a fighter jet program defend against?

Gatling

ronivek wrote: »

And precisely which of these threats would spending billions on a fighter jet program defend against?

But it's ok for us to fund some African tinpots fighter jet program

ronivek

Gatling wrote: »

But it's ok for us to fund some African tinpots fighter jet program

Remind me which African fighter jet program we have funded?

joseywhales

Why on earth would we want our children to die in a foreign land?

If we really wanted to be strategic we would be training in insurgency and guerilla warfare. Anti-occupation tactics, maybe invest in some smart mines for the ports etc. We cannot defend the Island we need to make it the maximum pain possible to occupy ahead of time. If we want some training, maybe we could talk to Taiwan. Either way, our best defense will always be diplomacy.

Signore Fancy Pants

ronivek wrote: »

And precisely which of these threats would spending billions on a fighter jet program defend against?

Well since you are asking, I personally am against the procurement of a fighter jet programme due to associated costs and staffing. So you can direct that argument to someone else.

But if you cant understand the purpose of a nation having one, then I cant help with that.

sandbelter

I think we're also missing a key question. Even if you did have a threat...would you even then consider NATO? Consider:

Macron called it brain dead for a reason.

The no vote my four members against the Iragi war (what ever you think of the merits of the war) showed that response maybe conditional.

The US has a track record of cutting and running...just ask the South Vietnamese, Kurds and current Afghan government. Trump himself has made it clear he's ambivalent about it unless it benefits the US.

His latest brain waive is to take NATO into the Middle East. I mean what could possibly go wrong with this Trumpfart? :rolleyes:

The current Greek/Turkey stand off NATO is sidelined and its France and the EU that are more active in asserting their members sovereignty. So even if Ireland did sense a threat, I'm not sure NATO is the answer, EU/PESCO is more aligned to our needs and disinclination to get involved militarily in other nations affairs.

For the record I don't think Russians are a threat, they are far more focused on ensuring Vladivostok doesn't become Haishenwai again.

Ubbquittious

Would be great to join now, in fact any eligible nation should join at this point. We are all phukt if the Rooskies/Chinese advance any further

rob316

No way, NATO offers no value to us and we would add nothing to them. The furthest island west of Russia is useless to NATO. 2% GDP spend on defense would be so reckless for a country desperate for far better public services and has no credible national security threat.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118692335#Comment_118692335

I've posted this in the other thread. Nato sets targets, but each individual country has complete discretion on how much they spend.

Narango

Gatling

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118692335#Comment_118692335

But yet the government found 3 billion + to help Ukrainian refugees coming here ,yet the defense budget for the whole country and waters and skies is currently sitting at 0.2 % of our GDP

nigeldaniel

We could afford it all right to join NATO if we looked into it. The anti-NATO lot are just self-interested types with an inflated notion of their own importance. There is one in every town and village in Ireland.

Beasty

There's a much larger more recent thread on this - no need to have two threads running in parallel so this one is closed