Is it time to join Nato

Gatling

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120544261#Comment_120544261

We should join Nato just see to people having a stroke

greencap

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120544277#Comment_120544277

Post 3584. "tell me how. (is it submarines?)"

A strange sub based special forces Walter Mitty raid for no conceivable reason is not a reason to join an alliance with Turkey and the Tories/DUP/UVF.

It also sounds very unlikely to succeed. Too much imagination.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120544278#Comment_120544278

We should join if it makes sense for our security needs in the 21st century and beyond. Increasingly, it's stacking up that it does.

Threat vectors in the 21st century are becoming more complex with hybrid warfare. If Russia wants to treat us as a party to the Ukraine conflict because of a benign utterance of our foreign minister, they're telling us we're a legitimate target in their eyes. Probably time to listen up and take them at their word.

Gatling

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120544345#Comment_120544345

Ohhh the Tories are todays greecaps bogey man ,

Lads the Tories are coming

greencap

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120544361#Comment_120544361

Big Tory fan are you?

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120544345#Comment_120544345

I never said it is likely, in 2023 not particularly. But you're the one claiming to have a crystal ball to know all things.

Do tell us how our Defence Forces could detect and stop a submarine borne special forces raid though. Answers on the back of a dissident republican pamphlet please.

You weren't even aware any army with a sub fleet and special forces regularly train such operations and enjoy said capability.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120544375#Comment_120544375

I don't think anyone in this thread particularly is.

But they're still better people than dissident republicans who murder young journalists in the street and have the gall to parade around at Easter - better than Russia whom you soft-soap their fascist behaviour.

greencap

All this freaking out because I pointed out the fact that Russia can't really move significant forces around the seas without being spotted.

And that can be verified by anyone.

A simple look at some of the marine traffic tracking sites, a little dive into the world of open source intelligence, and a bit of a google into commercial and national surveillance and imagery satellites will do.

Its very difficult to move ships around un-noticed these days.

I don't know how the DF could "detect and stop a submarine". There are a lot of things which can't be stopped. Doesn't mean we start dipping into the budget to buy our own submarines just in case, or start joining alliances on the basis of low probability events.

Some people on here would have anti-submarine helicopters flying around the coasts, while hospitals and schools go unbuilt. Its ridiculous.

Gatling

Again @greencap if those ships on your tracking apps turn of their Marine transponders this is what you will see ,you can Also hide and Thermal and IR signatures quite easy these days .

You don't seem to a great deal of knowledge in what your claiming

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120544605#Comment_120544605

Some people on here would have anti-submarine helicopters flying around the coasts, while hospitals and schools go unbuilt. Its ridiculous.

Nobody suggested anything of the sort. And nobody suggested buying submarines.

The fact is, NATO is likely the cheaper of the two options for Ireland's defence needs. It's acknowledged by the Government that maintaining our neutral posture for what it's worth now requires significant investment. So maintaining you're precious and doctrinaire take on neutrality is going to require significant hard cash. Or, like Iceland or Luxembourg, we could take Article 5 treaty guarantees, develop some useful interoperability capacity with NATO, and have serious deterrance across all vectors for much cheaper.

Russia di*king around in our maritime area isn't a low probability event, they're already doing it. And they're likely doing it because we have critical infrastructure and are the softest of all targets on the periphery of Europe.

You're still huffing and puffing from a juvenile dissident republican perch, and not even remotely taking the security of the state into your calculations. It's plain as day.

greencap

Its not about turning off your transponder.

Its about the inevitability of being noticed by others, with or without their transponders on. Transponders don't really come into it. The seas are simply very crowded, the odds of being noticed by other ships are too high.

Then you put surveillance satellites, and communications detection satellites on top of those odds. And its virtually impossible. How would any ship plan to not be seen. It would be like trying to plan a way to walk through an apartment complex without being seen.

https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/osint-analysis-six-russian-ships

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/new-nuclear-sleuths/602878/

The following applies to ships equally.

"Tracking nuclear threats used to be the sole province of secret agents and analysts at high-powered government intelligence agencies. Not anymore.

Today, the world of new nuclear sleuths is straight out of the Star Wars bar scene.

Peering into the hidden nuclear activities of North Korea, Iran, and other suspected proliferators are journalists, hobbyists, professors, students, political-opposition groups, advocacy groups, nonprofit organizations, for-profit companies, think tanks, and former senior government officials with informal links to international weapons inspectors, American policy makers, and intelligence leaders.

Among this wildly eclectic mix of individuals and organizations, some are amateurs. Others have extensive expertise. Some are driven by profit, or political causes. Others are driven by a mission to protect the United States and reduce global nuclear risks. Nearly all harbor an obsessive interest in nuclear secrets and finding creative ways to unlock them. Together, these self-appointed watchdogs are transforming American nonproliferation efforts—and largely for the better. Yet they also create new challenges for the U.S. government, which once enjoyed a near-monopoly on detailed surveillance imagery of hostile countries with nuclear ambitions. American intelligence agencies must now operate in a world where highly revealing information is sitting out in the open, for anyone to see and use."

... so just get over it. its damn hard to hide big movements of equipment these days. Thems the facts, so put your feels aside.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120544746#Comment_120544746

If Russia (or insert any other country for that matter) wanted to use a maritime threat vector against a country with zero defence capacity or without a security treaty with a country that does have a defence capacity, they don't give a sh*t if they're spotted coming or not. If they did want to excercise stealth, they are perfectly capable of doing so via submarine borne special forces detatchments.

They were having a blast in our maritime area loitering around trans-Atlantic communications cables because we're a non-NATO country that refuses to invest in defence. And there's zero deterrance against them doing so.

And you want it to keep it that way - because you're on the record as being against defence spending, and you're implacibly opposed to NATO because you think the UVF are involved somehow.

You're the one operating off feels, dissident republican conspiracy theory feels. Soft-soaping Kremlinite fascism is just a bonus track, but very on-brand.

Gatling

I read nerd speak gibberish,

Which equate to I've no idea what I'm saying but it sounds like what people say in computer games ,it must be realistic

greencap

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120544756#Comment_120544756

One thing at a time.

The issue was that we're hugely liketly to see any significant sized threat long in advance. That's what got you all in a little tizzy.

Lets just accept that fact first. Im sure at this stage you don't object to that fact.

If you do then go ahead and say why (submarine special forces on inflatable boats raiding the coast at night aside - we dont have to go there again).

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120544765#Comment_120544765

we're hugely liketly to see any significant sized threat long in advance

Nobody has to accept anything you say because you're demonstrably wrong (yet again). We didn't see the Russian navy d*cking around over the communications cables until they were there. And we had no deterrance, and they were present because we lack even a modicum of deterrance.

In the aerial domain, Russian jets regularly skirt our airspace, and are only prevented from d*cking around deep in it by the Tory RAF/UVF.

And you apparently like it that way because you operate off a dissident republican conspiracy theory charcuterie board. You know, your pals that go on Kremlin sponsored jollies to Moscow.

greencap

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120544775#Comment_120544775

Didn't we?

I mean I do recall them being on the news, some 400(?) odd km's away from the coast.

I think its fair to say that most Russian navy ships are being watched regularly by now. Certainly by various intelligence agencies. And probably by many private individuals, and commercial groups.

Don't you?

robinph

We didn't see the Russian navy d*cking around over the communications cables until they were there.

Exactly how many ships of the Russian Navy appeared off the Irish coast?

How many ships would be needed to stage an invasion of Ireland?

How many ships, and planes, would be needed to maintain the supply lines to that invading force?

Where are these ships and planes travelling past to get to Ireland?

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120544799#Comment_120544799

Ask your dissident friend. He's the one saying we don't need any security spending at all. Seems to have it all figured out.

Defence Forces and indeed security treaties are all about contingiency planning for various threat vectors, be they high or low probability. I never said an invasion of Ireland is a high-probability event, quite the opposite if you've paid attention to the thread. But elements of hybrid warfare against the state are verifiably not low-probability events. And we're going to see more of them across multiple vectors.

But if you want to talk invasion and a low-probability invasion hypotheses, a tip-of-the-spear initial penetration and decapitation event on the state would be extremely low-effort for a state like Russia if they ever wanted to. After that, we'd be pretty easy to digest. We are essentially defenceless and there is no deterrence like Article 5.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120544775#Comment_120544775

And we had no deterrance

Probably worth noting that they were perfectly legally entitled to be there.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120545037#Comment_120545037

Quite true. But there's a distinction between excercising freedom of navigation and d*cking around with critical subsea infrastructure.

If people people believe that the Russians weren't at least letting the state know they have the means and the brazenness to target the infrastructure, well, I'll leave them to their delusions.

AerLingus747

@greencap nobody needs to hide anything... you just need a force against a country who has no legitimate backup... point and case Sweden between 2019-2022 with Gotland, a country more militarily advanced than Ireland, but, neutral in this period.

The Russian's had been ramping up the rhetoric that Gotland was their land (similar to what they had been drumming up during the same period with regards to Ukraine, Belarus and various other Baltic states)...

On the back of this, Sweden had numerous submarine sightings within national limits, multiple airspace incursions, along with maritime incursions.... the Russian's regularly sailed multiple and fully loaded Ropucha landing ships close to Gotland (which they had no reason to do) for **** and giggles to see what the Swedish would do...

What did the EU do.... nothing..

What did NATO do .... nothing (technically they had no obligation, but by NATO, I include their Baltic neighbours)..

The Swedes were told by the Americans and Germany that they're on their own until the Russian's actually did anything.. even then they said a response would probably be limited, unless mainland Sweden was attacked...

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120545037#Comment_120545037

True, but I can guarantee if you sailed as close to Murmansk or Kaliningrad (which is also free navigation) as the Russians have been sailing to Ireland, you'll have a very frostier response....

this "ah well, they're allowed be there, leave em to it" response needs to stop before it becomes the norm

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120545293#Comment_120545293

What would this "frostier response" entail?

The response would be surveillance. That is it. Should we have greater surveillance abilities? Yeah, probably.

AerLingus747

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120545346#Comment_120545346

Russian intelligence run a host of trawlers which like to get involved when civilian ships get too close to sensitive Russian sites.. upping the ante is boarding by Russian Navy to "search" ships under the guise of territorial protection, or drugs/weapons shipment searches (which they're technically allowed to do might I add).... upping from that, there has been reports of threats to people and boats....

General harassment which they wouldn't get in kind around Ireland... general harassment which goes a long way in dissuading negative interest, which we don't have a capability of doing.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120545416#Comment_120545416

But even if we had the capability we probably also wouldn't do that because we're not a rogue state. The Admiral Kuznetsov was allowed sail completely unperturbed through the English Channel! Though you could argue that whole affair damaged Russian interests given how much of a jokeshop it was.

It goes without saying the Russian navy also wouldn't do that to a significant foreign military convoy.

I think people are overestimating exactly what types of Russian skulduggery would be deterred by NATO membership.

greencap

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120545293#Comment_120545293

Yes I recall something about that. As far as I remember Sweden didnt ask the EU for any help. They just strengthened their forces on the island. Which is a short hop from Russia/kaliningrad. That body of water and that short distance making it exceptionally difficult for Russia.

Anyhoo. Defending Ireland is the another topic.

I was merely pointing out that moving a group of ships from Russia to Ireland un-noticed is virtually impossible these days.

A fact which brought much digression, and caused one user (who shall remain un-named) to do a poo.

AerLingus747

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120545720#Comment_120545720

I think you're underestimating the amount of skulduggery that is happening already, that Ireland is powerless against and get snippets of updates if there happens to be a NATO monitoring mission on said assets, or from whatever the CASA or PC-12's pick up.

Kuznetov had every right to transit the Channel.... it was also one of the most monitored events through the English channel that year... if it stopped over national infrastructure you can be guarantee it would be investigated closely... in fact, the carrier and all support vessels were advised to move quickly and in unison through the Dover straights, which meant support vessels and the ocean going tug had to take shelter off the coast of France while the carrier caught up, they had a NATO vessel monitoring them 24 hours within a few hundred yards.

AerLingus747

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120545833#Comment_120545833

Sweden were told before they asked, this was iterated a number of times after the sub incident off Stockholm in 2014 onwards...

You're also missing the point of where Sweden at least had that capability to increase land and anti sub warfare without input from outside...must be nice to be able to do that independently.

You're also missing the point that you don't have to hide if no one is going to do anything about it initially..

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120546397#Comment_120546397

Perhaps, but my point is not that it doesn't happen at the moment. Its that it will continue to happen.

I've mentioned it before, but Russia unleashed a chemical weapons attack on NATO soil. They have been emboldened (and one hopes that is coming to an end) and happily commit whatever transgressions they want in Europe and being a member of NATO hasn't stopped them from doing so to anyone. Obviously being a member of NATO would have stopped them invading Ukraine, but that is not the risk we are talking about us facing.

I'm all aboard with us having better capabilities for surveillance. I just think there is a habit of over-emphasising the deterrent effect of being a NATO member.

j2

This thread is too long a d retarded to catch up on. Are people here really saying ireland should be in nato?

Gatling

The RAF had to scramble typhoons as Russian bomber/s headed towards our airspace and the North today ,

Tories sending jets to Ireland again😂😂😂