Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is it time to join Nato

Options
1132133135137138152

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,102 ✭✭✭greencap


    "Mr Higgins’s comments are the latest in a series of remarks that have strayed into politically contentious ground and have irked the Government privately.

    Last June, he described housing in Ireland as "our great, great failure", saying "It isn't a crisis anymore — it is a disaster."

    Feels good. Someone with a voice calling out the bullsht, and just for the sake of it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,688 ✭✭✭Economics101


    If Michael D is right in calling Housing as our great failure, that's easy to do. Remember 2 things:

    1. Does he have reasonable solutions to this problem: what are they? (this is for another thread)
    2. Being right on housing has absolutely nothing to do with NATO or defence policy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,839 ✭✭✭Polar101


    They did have 2,500 soldiers in Afghanistan (altogether, not at the same time) and participated in combat operations with the Americans.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,102 ✭✭✭greencap


    1. In this context he doesn't have to have a solution, thats the govt's job, and they stink at it. And he called it like it is. Best he can do.
    2. Both are important issues. You can call bullsht on two non-directly-connected issues. Besides its the newspaper which is connecting the two, not me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,578 ✭✭✭Field east


    Would I be correct in saying that none of the countries that send soldiers on peace keeping are members of any organisation like NATO?



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,657 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    No. France, Germany, UK etc send troops on UN peacekeeping missions.



  • Registered Users Posts: 535 ✭✭✭Scipri0


    Other countries and even NATO ones do it as well as already mentioned above.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,688 ✭✭✭Economics101


    Micheal MArtin undertandably annoyed at Michael D:

    And Michael D made some pretty juvenile remarks about Louise Richardson, who chairing the forum.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,094 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    And how does joining NATO stop any of that activity. Other than Ireland would still be incapable of doing anything about it and would have to more formally ask for the UK to carry on doing what they are doing already.

    Germany being a NATO member didn't stop the gas pipelines being attacked, and absolutely no reason to think it would have any impact whatsoever on if data cables get attacked if there is a NATO member connected at both ends rather than it just being the US connected at the far end as now.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭Risteard81


    Claiming it's "not a military alliance" is questionable I would have said.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,688 ✭✭✭Economics101


    OK, I get your drift: might as well let those Russians do what they want no matter what.





  • So you want us to join NATO because we can’t do the job (protect the cables, monitor our airspace etc) ourselves?



  • Registered Users Posts: 510 ✭✭✭AerLingus747


    in the grand scheme of it, it's probably the quicker, cheaper, more reliant option on the table currently



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,688 ✭✭✭Economics101


    Yes. No small country can defend itself unaided against much bigger potential adversaries. That's why there are defence alliances to enhance collective security.

    The only viable alliance at the moment happens to be NATO.



  • Registered Users Posts: 510 ✭✭✭AerLingus747


    why would they stop an attack that they were happy to let happen :-P



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,688 ✭✭✭Economics101


    So he's had to apologise. He maintains that as a political scientist and sociologist (🙂) he was familiar with Louise Richardson's work. Which makes his insulting reference to her really inexcusable.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,094 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    How is joining NATO going to stop any of that happening? It doesn't stop these things from happening to existing NATO members, why would a new NATO member with essentially zero military of their own make any difference?

    The only change it would make is to bump Ireland up the list of potential targets to either Russia type hostile nations, or makes Ireland be noticed as a potential target for terrorist attacks that are looking for a soft NATO target to hit.



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    And if say a country like Russia or China decided to attack us ,we are considered the weakest link in Europe we have next to no defensive capabilities at all ,at least with Nato membership we could call article 4 and then possibly Article 5 if we required it ,we could also have Nato forces stationed here too if needed, could be a solution and cheaper then buying 4th fighter jets .

    And if you think we are not already a target when over 40 countries regularly use Shannon airport including the Russians .

    If things go tits up it's safe to say we will be the first country to fall without a shot ever been fired



  • Registered Users Posts: 535 ✭✭✭Scipri0


    If someone wanted to cut the cables then they can do so and they don't even need to be in Irelands EEZ, they could just go further out into the atlantic and cut them there. People who think Ireland can protect the cables by increasing defence spending are blowing smoke up your arse and while we depend on them they're not Irelands alone to protect.

    Post edited by Scipri0 on


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭eire4


    The EU is many things (mostly positive IMHO) however being a military alliance is not one of them.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling




  • Registered Users Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭Risteard81




  • Registered Users Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭eire4


    Well of course your entitled to that opinion of the EU it is one of the positives of living in a democratic free and open society as we do in Ireland. I myself and I think most Irish people differ and see the EU and our membership of it as mostly positive.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,094 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Ignoring the virtual impossibility of either China or Russia being able to launch and sustain such an invasion considering Irelands location on the planet, what would the purpose of such an invasion be?

    Nobody could claim their invasion of Ireland is for the purposes of reclaiming lost lands, or freeing their people and there isn't even any natural resources that someone could have their eyes on such as oil to justify such an attack. The only potential reason for an attack on Ireland would be to subsequently attack UK/ EU. And they are not going to sit idly by and watch it happen.

    In bygone eras then invading Ireland as a route to then conquer other lands, or just as a land grab, would have been possible and made sense. Now there are ways or communication somewhat faster than sending smoke signals and of detecting what other countries are up to it's just not going to happen.

    Ireland isn't getting invaded by anyone, other than a retreating UK/EU looking for somewhere to then escape across the Atlantic, or the US coming the other way round to retake UK/ EU.

    Yes, Ireland is a soft target. But it's not actually a target at all at present. The only thing joining NATO does is make Ireland a target.


    I live in a NATO country and my taxes get spent on providing cover for Ireland, regardless of if they are asking or not. I fully support the reasons for NATO existing and the likes of Sweden and Finland joining makes sense. Just see no reason for Ireland to join. Spend money on increased defence capabilities, but no need to do so as part of NATO.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,657 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Ireland has not been a useful launching point for an invasion of Britain since about the 1500s at latest.

    I do still think there is an argument for joining NATO on the basis of general western alignment, but I agree its not necessary. I'm very much rather the discussion about joining was framed in the manner of acknowledging a partnership, membership of the "Western Order" anyway and lack of neutrality that already exists. Framing it as necessary to resist invasion seems absurd and apart from anything else if unlikely to get much traction.



  • Registered Users Posts: 535 ✭✭✭Scipri0


    The cables don't just materialized off the Irish coast. They're crossing the entire atlantic ocean from the north american continent to europe. They can be intercepted in any spot across that vast distance way outside countries EEZ so when people say that we should increase spending to defend those cables then they're not telling the whole truth as it's physically impossible for Ireland to do.

    Post edited by Scipri0 on


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,908 ✭✭✭.Donegal.


    Being in nato didn’t help Germany much when their gas pipes were blown up under water recently.

    I don’t see the point in us joining NATO. Russian spent 10 months trying to take a town bakmhut. His hands are full. I don’t think Ireland will be high up on list of places to take and their army is stretched to the limits and will take years and years to recover.

    Who else china? They’re all about a different island Taiwan. I certainly don’t fear a Chinese invasion anytime soon, if you do perhaps see a professional.

    Not being in nato spared us 20 years in Afghanistan for absolutely nothing in hindsight, taliban back in total control.

    If we bordered Russia I’d be all for it but we don’t. There’s also the possibility of complex issues arising that you mightn’t care about but would cause a stir for example British soldiers being stationed on this side of the border. That wouldn’t go down well with a portion of the population whether or not it would bother you personally.

    There’s more chance of the Brits coming over the border to take the entire country again than there is of the Russians or the Chinese invading us. I think joining NATO would be stupid, we’d have more chance of getting roped in to something stupid like Afghanistan than getting help because we were invaded. I just don’t see any benefits in joining. The government should concentrate on helping the soldiers and improving our capabilities instead of poncing around with this and pretending they’re totally against joining.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,657 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Not being in nato spared us 20 years in Afghanistan for absolutely nothing in hindsight, taliban back in total control.

    No one was forced to be in Afghanistan due to NATO - it was not an Article V mission. It was not a NATO led affair, and when NATO did take over it was with the backing of the UN under ISAF and Ireland were a part of it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    @.Donegal. Not being in nato spared us 20 years in Afghanistan for absolutely nothing in hindsight, taliban back in total control....

    Irish troops served in Afghanistan.....

    And if you were born in that 20 year period in Afghanistan you lived in peaceful times and less likely to die a horrific death



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,296 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight



    For our size we have a lot of soft power. Joining NATO would throw all that away in return for being junior partner in a very expensive organisation.


    Suggestion that NATO is the only viable alternative means you may not know that we signed up to a better one ages ago - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM:mutual_defence This gives us the benefits without the financial or political obligations.

    The Treaty of Lisbon strengthens the solidarity between European Union (EU) Member States in dealing with external threats by introducing a mutual defence clause (Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union). This clause provides that if a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States have an obligation to aid and assist it by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.

    This obligation of mutual defence is binding on all Member States. However, it does not affect the neutrality of certain Member States and is consistent with the commitments of countries that are NATO members.

    Which means we are already under the French nuclear umbrella. Also Spain, Italy and France have aircraft carriers. The EU has a lot of very quiet submarines. The UK and US would take a dim view of unwanted guests in our neighbourhood.



Advertisement