Is it time to join Nato

The definition by the Red Cross is pretty clear, do you have a better one?

No matter how you cut it Ireland in this conflict is not Neutral given the definition of the word itself. In fact, I would go on to argue that Ireland is not really Neutral at all, but a pretend Neutral country if one wants semantics.

A neutral country wouldn't allow American planes to refuel at Shannon.

A neutral country wouldn't allow the RAF to patrol its airspace.

A neutral country wouldn't deploy military personnel to Afghanistan.

To be really semantic about it, a neutral country wouldn't be a member of the EU and be a party to common defence policy, especially TEU Article 42.7

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Consolidated_version_of_the_Treaty_on_European_Union/Title_V:_General_Provisions_on_the_Union%27s_External_Action_Service_and_Specific_Provisions_on_the_Common_Foreign_and_Security_Policy#SECTION_2:_PROVISIONS_ON_THE_COMMON_SECURITY_AND_DEFENCE_POLICY

Yes, the power swap has flagrantly ignored our neutrality when it suits them.

Well if it were up to the populists, Ireland wouldn't be in the EU. But I guess some want to revise that history, eh?

Ireland voted to join the EEC mark, which became the EU.

You finding that hard to accept?

I wonder how your party feels about SSM or women's rights mark? Have they evolved or are they still conservative, religiously bigoted, sexist chauvanists?

Yes, because an aircraft carrier always acts alone and never has any support vessels, radar, sonar, or even have the ability to launch helicopters or surveillance aircraft to see such an attack coming!?

Come off it. One does not simply sneak up on an aircraft carrier or a battle group containing an aircraft carrier. And this is not even talking about the ability to use satellites or drones.

Nope, teacher says mark must try harder!

Article 5 was never enacted against any other nation - and certainly not against a nation with the ability to cause global nuclear war. It was used as an excuse to go into a poor part of the middle east, and kill millions of innocent people in the name of a "war against terror". As far as I'm aware, there is no nation called "terror".

We still have no idea if NATO would jump to the defense of a small nation, if that defense could potentially cause ww3 / nuclear war. NATO much prefers to pick fights with enemies that have very little ability to fight back.

Historically, Ireland struggled to co-opt any other large nations to help us break free from under the boot of British colonialism. We did try, but failed to gain any strong military commitment from anyone. It's not hard to understand why tbh, as when it comes to a tiny nation such as ours the juice simply isn't worth the squeeze as they say.

We have no real reason to think that dynamic has changed much, particular in the era of nuclear armed superpowers. Until article 5 is fully tested in this regard, we will never know how real that commitment actually is.

We did perfectly fine against one of the most powerful empires in history. NATO military intervention most likely would have made things far worse in our struggle against the Brits. Just look at the mess they've left behind everywhere else they've intervened.

US intervention and military aid in Ukraine, is doing nothing other than turning their beautiful nation into a smoldering pile of rubble. Thanks, but no thanks!

Sweden and Finland are already in the Partnership for Peace, as is Ireland.

I stand by what I said. I think NATO will break up in a few years with the USA seriously loosening if not cutting completely its ties and getting much closer to its two most dependent allies Britain and Israel.

The main European countries will coalesce further building on existing NATO links to bring about a new Euro-Centric defence alliance. Britain will have nothing to do with that; it is America's willing stooge.

We in Ireland will have a big choice to make. And it won't be pleasant. They are only bad alternatives. And staying out of either alliance may not be an option.

But we have to think beyond NATO. It's coming to the end of its life. And why wouldn't it? It's a military alliance and every military alliance in history is terminal.

Over150,000 dead, Taliban back in power and the poor facing famine...yeh great job NATO

At least they actually tried to make a difference and rebuild the country..

If the afghans didn't want to fight for themselves what more could have been done, considering the military investment that went into building the new afghan army ,

Now look where they are back to Soviet times

They did what most invasion/colonial/imperial forces did, went in for their own ends and left, leaving a bigger mees behind them. Woo hoo NATO

Ah, so it the Americans that is at fault for the destruction of Ukrainian cities then, not the Russian missiles or artillery shells?

Sorry, but if you think you can start peddling this nonsense in this thread now, you can go **** right off, seeing as you are banned from the other threads, for peddling this nonsense.

I don't share the same pessimism about NATO. As I said, it looks stronger than ever but one thing I do agree with is a stronger lead by EU nations, especially Germany.

In other words, we the Irish people may not have much of a choice here. If we want to be fully participating members of the EU we will have to play ball and align ourselves with whatever the EU says when it comes to defence. There will be no more sitting on the fence and taking a free ride.