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
1142143145147148152

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 19,186 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Germany invaded Norway to forestall the British. They had no interest in Norway previous to British intentions to cut off Swedish iron ore shipments from Narvik.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,186 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    An airborne invasion is nothing compared to beachhead landing. During the period it was only light forces that could be dropped and as soon as Germany tried that, the British would have mobilised and invaded too, which is something that the Germans absolutely did not want. In any case, Germany had no interest in an invasion of Ireland and couldn't afford to waste the resources on such an endeavour. An endeavour that would have tied up German forces needlessly. Germany preferred Ireland to be neutral as that was the most agreeable situation for them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,001 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997



    The point being. They used ships (and Air) to get to Norway. They could have done that in Ireland. Beach landing isn't the only way to do it.

    But true they wouldn't have for many reasons some of which you mention. But there's was nothing physically stopping them getting to Ireland. That is true of anyone today. Very little stopping anyone reaching our shores, or airspace. Same think it wouldn't make much sense today either. Then again people do stupid things all the time.



  • Registered Users Posts: 475 ✭✭delusiondestroyer




  • Registered Users Posts: 19,186 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Any German attempt at landing in Ireland, no matter how they tried would have been a disaster for Germany. It would have prompted a British invasion which would have tied up German forces in a useless battleground that would have yielded paltry results for them. Also, after June 1941 any ideas of any kind of possible invasion of Ireland became null and void, not that there was any solidity to them in the previous years.

    In addition, if you know anything about the German naval action in Norway, you'll know just how costly it ended up being for them.

    Norway wasn't something that the Germans wanted to pursue. They did so only out of necessity and it cost them. As far as Ireland was concerned, that necessity wasn't there.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,287 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/norway_campaign_01.shtml

    Scharnhorst was torpedoed and seriously damaged by the escorting destroyer Acasta. ... Shortly afterwards Gneisenau was also torpedoed by the submarine Clyde, and by the end of the campaign the German navy had only three cruisers and four destroyers operational. This was not a force that could contest the command of the Channel to cover a cross-Channel invasion,

    At the Second Battle of Narvik the Royal Navy were taking out an average of one German destroyer an hour. Without air supremacy there's no way the Germans could have fended ten times that firepower.


    As an EU member we have mutual defence treaties. EU total defence spending in 2021 was €214Bn about the same as China but they'd have severe logistical difficulties here. EU spending is way more than Russia, India, Saudi combined.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,001 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Kind hard to claim Germany hadn't the ships. Then describe a naval battle and landing which at the end of the day they won.

    Just saying...

    Of course they had a lot less ships after 😁

    Post edited by Flinty997 on


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,579 ✭✭✭20silkcut



    what a tone deaf comment.

    contrast the history of Europe in the last 70 years with the 70 years before that when NATO did not exist. Death and destruction on an industrial scale . Thankfully the history of Europe since 1949 has been vastly different and far more peaceful.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,186 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    That's the point. They BARELY managed to win the day at sea and lost a sizeable amount of their naval power doing so.

    "On land I am a hero. At sea I am a coward" - Adolf Hitler



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,001 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Well it's bit like some people saying the russians can't do an amphibious landing then they sail a small flotilla down the english channel to the ukraine and do exactly that. Germans, Russians, Chinese perfectably able to put troops on our shores. Is there any point in doing it. Not a lot no. When did that ever stop a crazy person. That said, it's not something I'm remotely concerned about.

    We have plenty more valid reasons to patrol and police our shores and air space.



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


    Getting troops onto foreign shores is simple. It's the keeping them there which is tricky.

    Made a bit easier if the distance across water is short and no opponents land masses along the route inbetween where you need to do your resupply runs. Big ocean crossings and hostile islands along the way and it's pretty much impossible.





  • Yes they won, ie, they invaded and ended up occupying Norway. But tactically it was a disaster for the German navy. In addition to the destroyer losses and damage to the Scharnhorst & Gneisenau mentioned above, they also lost the heavy cruiser Blucher, and two other cruisers, Karlsruhe and Koenigsberg.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,001 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    That's the cost of successfully occupying Norway for the duration of the war. How many ships were lost to the air and U-boat attacks from Norway. How much raw materials did that occupation contribute to the German war effort.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,689 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    I see the FAI have stood up to be counted against Russia.

    Oh no, will they be sanctioned for their breach of neutrality.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,097 ✭✭✭Roger Mellie Man on the Telly


    Sweden joining recently got me wondering whether the part of Ireland not currently a member should join NATO?

    I think I'd sleep more soundly as a member, but have no idea what benefits membership offers. Appreciate any pearls of wisdom from you wise Boards folk.





  • How can a neutral country be a member of a military alliance?

    What would we provide of benefit seeing as we are not willing to fight in wars? If a NATO member is attacked all members respond to defend.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,097 ✭✭✭Roger Mellie Man on the Telly


    "If a NATO member is attacked all members respond to defend"

    So membership would be beneficial if Ireland was to suffer an act of aggression...





  • Not without having the means to adhere to our own commitments. There’s also a min GDP spent on military that is required of members I think it’s 2% of overall.

    We would likely be immediately protected by some NATO member states anyway as we are a valuable ally.





  • I mean we for a fact have the UK and USA’s backing at least.



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,408 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Not if you're gaming us by, as post evidences, skirting by & not being a member or having commitments but expecting to be protected anyway as a 'valuable ally'



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,036 ✭✭✭Notmything


    For a start we're not really neutral, more like militarily non-aligned and even that's not really true.

    We've a massively under resourced military, lacking any serious hardware and equipped primarily as light infantry. We have no lift capacity to move troops and can only deploy a max of 12 troops without dail approval.



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,408 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Signing on with NATO means access to purchase NATO hardware.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,097 ✭✭✭Roger Mellie Man on the Telly


    This is shocking. Unbelievable I find. The Irish defence forces could be easily overwhelmed with no certain recourse to military assistance.



  • Registered Users Posts: 34,825 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    Basically a school kid running to his bigger brother in the schoolyard to deal with the bully. As a nation it's embarrassing.



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,408 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Yeah that’s what Ukraine and Israel both thought. Then they each eventually learn what partisanship is without article V to invoke.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭silliussoddius


    That's why you never hear any criticizing them or the level of their military spending.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,036 ✭✭✭Notmything


    We can do that without being in NATO as it is.

    I'd love to see us having a properly equipped military, I spent 14 years in it so it's something I care about.

    But the reality is the government can say what it wants but it's not matching it by spending the money needed.

    Personally I'm on the fence about joining NATO but if it was a vote I'd probably go yes, purely because it guarantees us a level of protection rather than the current "sure the US/UK will defend us" view that seems to be the case.



  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 76,135 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Threads merged



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


    There certainly is a debate to be had about should we or should we not join NATO. But what IMHO there should be no debate about is that we need to get serious about resourcing our military and intelligence capabilities to an effective level.



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


    The UK would defend Ireland if asked as for them not to would be leaving themselves wide open. Nobody is militarily attacking Ireland unless they plan to subsequently attack the UK, so the UK would be responding as if they were directly under attack.

    There isn't any major requirements of what Ireland needs to have militarily hardware wise to be able to join NATO, just spend about 2% on "something" which could include a nice shiny new lead for the regimental dog, increasing pension for existing military, or hiring a new gardener for an army base. You don't have to spend money on jets, or boats or nukes.

    Ireland doesn't have much to offer NATO though these days. In the 50s it would have been a valuable asset to join the club and give locations for US radar stations and maybe another runway, now there isn't much additional use for an extra bit of land on the edge of Europe as NATO has it covered already. But any additional country joining the club would be good for the club, just not really a lot to be gained for Ireland or NATO these days from Irelands membership.

    Ireland joining would then make it a target for a hostile state to poke a soft NATO country in order to test their response and resolve. At the moment Ireland doesn't have that target painted on them, and it's probably best to stay that way.



Advertisement