Is it time to join Nato

When there is a possible amendment to the constitution.

However, our joining of NATO comes with many strings attached and may have an impact on our policy of military neutrality in the future. And that is why it would be important to put it to the people of the country. Joining NATO makes us a target for NATO's enemies and something like that shouldn't be a thing to be blaise about.

It's only the armchair generals who won't be putting a tin hat on and going off to fight in the wars that NATO gets involved in that are looking for this. It'll give them something to yap about on the social media accounts.

China.

Chyna

Can you flesh that one out for us

No, our policy was never a "fiction". We are militarily neutral in that we don't get directly involved in other people's wars. That doesn't mean that we can't have or express an opinion on those wars or the conduct of the countries involved in them. Or that we can't send non-military aid which we do.

Since the foundation of the state, that policy has served us very well and it should continue.

However, getting involved in NATO changes the paradigm completely and it will inevitably place a target on our heads, whether we like it or not. More than likely what would happen, certainly in the short term, is we would become a static aircraft carrier for armed US military aircraft and personnel, much like Britain was in WWII. Because, realistically, we don't have anything else much to offer.

In any case, we aren't joining NATO. There's no political will for it and there's certainly no public desire to see it happening, that's for sure. So, it's all "moot", as Varadkar said last year.

So given its location and our location, why is being mentioned in a conversation about Nato? Is Nato going to swerve to being both an anti China and anti- Russia military alliance now?

I believe the constitution says something about us not being involved in war unless the government decides to, so not really any amendment needed.

Neutrality is not "enshrined" in our constitution, other than in reference to Article 29, section 4, subsection 9, which states that "The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union where that common defence would include the State."

Not Dublin 4's children.

Irish soldiers aren't there in a fighting capacity. They're there as Peace Keeping Forces. There's a very large difference between putting boots on the ground in an uneasy strategic situation and boots on the ground in an active shooting war.

And Ireland's commitments to Peace Keeping efforts are well regarded and renowned.

Sorry, no. There is no "agree to disagree" here. Irish troops are not involved in an active shooting war over there. They simply aren't there in a fighting capacity at all. They were assigned as part of Peace Keeping efforts along the armistice demarcation line as part of a UN operation which was developed in the settlement between the opposing forces. The troops are not there at the behest of a particular side. They aren't allies to or co-belligerents to either party. They are an entirely neutral element.

This has been the stance of Irish Defence Forces serving abroad since the 50's, whether that was part of UNOGIL, UNTSO, ONUC, UNFICYP, UNEF or UNIFIL.

We do not send Irish troops to these hot zones to fight for a particular side.

They can engage if attacked. In other words they can DEFEND themselves. But they are not there to fight. they are there to patrol hot spots of contention and keep the peace which occurs largely through their presence. But there's nothing in any UN Peace Keeping effort to say that the elements employed on them can't use arms to defend themselves. That would be madness.

And, BTW, the military is all about semantics. The meaning of things become very important when life and death is at stake in a foreign land.

Perhaps not. But, as I said, it will, more than likely, will make us a target for NATO's enemies where we otherwise wouldn't be. Simply put, we have more to be worried about if we join NATO than if we continue on our present policy.

For the record I think the idea that Russian Forces landing anywhere in Ireland is absolute nonsense too, given the fact that they couldn't even handle a campaign in the next door neighbour's backyard. Not to mention the fact that they have absolutely no interest in doing so either.

The Russian invasion threat to Ireland is overblown and the realm of fantasy but they are a threat to our national security nonetheless

The thought struck me earlier that just as we are living between ice ages( a distant but inevitable concept) we are probably living in a period between invasions from our nearest neighbour. I’m telling ye it will happen again the Brits will be back. We mightn’t see it if we are lucky but our future generations will. It’s only a few short years since 30,000 British soldiers were stationed a few miles up the road. And only 83 years since they last seriously thought about invading. If British needs dictate that Ireland needs to be secured for their interests then that’s what will happen.

They are bigger and more powerful than us and are right beside us have a contiguous land border and they have that imperial mindset baked into their DNA lying latent and somewhat silent at the moment but there nonetheless.

And I don’t hear the RAF complaining about having to patrol our skies. And I don’t hear British military or politicians complaining about us not pulling our weight militarily. On the contrary it suits them to the ground. A strong Irish army and airforce etc would raise more than a few eyebrows across the pond.