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

Ireland - now considered one of most vulnerable countries in the EU (defense wise)

1222324252628»

Comments

  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,082 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Iceland is in NATO and has an American base on the island.

    This is all a bit conspiracy tinged. It is a fact that Ireland is massively out of kilter with the rest of Europe in terms of defence spending and the murmurings from our partners in Europe are not emanating from a void.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 545 ✭✭✭dirk_dangler


    So riddle me this, Iceland is in NATO and does not have a Military, spends ZERO on defense, but Ireland which is neutral and not in NATO is not pulling its weight on spending on defense, is that the gist of it?😂

    Can you not see the hustle at work, the greedy pig politicians wanting kickbacks/jobs for increasing Irelands spending to defend from a nonexistent enemy.

    Our partners in Europe can get their act together and defend the southern Mediterranean border from the invading hordes, only when they get that under control can they dare criticise Irelands defense spending, the cheek of them!😂

    Post edited by dirk_dangler on


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,082 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Iceland is in NATO so you've fallen down at the first hurdle there.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 545 ✭✭✭dirk_dangler


    Correct a mis type, so now answer the question



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,082 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Iceland houses a US airbase and officially engages with NATO to cover their air and land vulnerabilities. We just have shady background deals to let the RAF cover our airspace and are pathetic at covering our seas.

    Your "mistype" fundamentally alters the situation.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 545 ✭✭✭dirk_dangler


    The pro increased military are delusional, "we need big army to defend against invaders"

    So we are invaded tomorrow by France, we swap the shower of bastards in Dail Eireann for the shower of bastards in Palais Bourbon, my life wont change one bit.

    They expect me to fight for Simon Harris, get the **** outta here😂

    ______________________________________

    Warned: Uncivil. Please try to make your point without resorting to name calling.

    Post edited by Big Bag of Chips on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 545 ✭✭✭dirk_dangler


    Shannon is practically a US air base , lets not kid ourselves.

    So here is what we do, scrap all military spending like Iceland, make Shannon an official US air base and be done with all this talk of increased military spending for a nonexistent threat, if Iceland can do it so can we.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,082 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Shannon is practically a US air base , lets not kid ourselves.

    No it isn't, not even remotely close. If you think so you are deeply misguided and don't understand the first thing about what housing a US airbase means.



  • Registered Users Posts: 378 ✭✭highpitcheric


    Do we not house a defacto US airbase too? on the down low.

    About 3 million US military passengers have passed through Shannon.

    Now thats a target.

    And the US would have been very aware when setting out plans to land at Shannon that WE certainly can't defend those US troops from the air.

    But the UK, their nato partner, could.

    Are we not also engaging with nato to cover our air vulnerabilities? on a quid quo pro basis.

    You cant have a pop at Ireland from the air without also being seen as a threat to nato.

    Post edited by highpitcheric on


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,553 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    US intervention in the case of Ireland being invaded? It would of course depend on who invaded us.

    If a US enemy like Russia or China invaded us we could expect to be supplied with the weapons to defend ourselves.
    If a US special ally like Israel invaded us we could expect the US to supply the weapons used to invade Ireland.
    Both scenarios are, thankfully highly unlikely.
    The strength of the Irish lobby in the states is consistently overestimated by Irish people.


    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,572 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    I'd prefer to see Ireland being neutral but do some deals with individual countries like Norway or France even , invest in Drone technology and share time with them with friendly partners for equipment sharing, the idea that we would be invaded is down there with being hit with a meteor or predicting climate change.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,689 ✭✭✭greenpilot


    This has been the only solution/argument that has ever made sense. Our policy's, militarily and strategic, have always been hypocritical. We are fantastic at running with the hare, hunting with the hound.

    Take Shannon, for example. There were so many Russian crew, engineers, ground-crew etc working in the Russian compound at Shannon, up to the early 90's, that we in the game dubbed the area in the town " The Russian Village". Many a night was spent in the Oaks oogling the dubious female Aeroflot employee's frequenting the pub.

    Aer Rianta allowed countless AN-124 aircraft into Shannon and provided a maintenance facility and even Engineers. Due to the technological constraints of Russian aircraft at the time, they needed to stop to fuel at Shannon on the way to the US and Cuba. How were Aer Rianta paid? Fuel. A jetty was built in order to receive tankers of Jet A-1 which travelled all the way from the Soviet Union to little old Ireland. My Dad was in the security forces and the stuff that was going on in Shannon town in the 70's and 80's was, shall we say, interesting.

    According to one source, The compound consisted of maybe a dozen twin houses, each half with four bedrooms, a living room with attached kitchen and three bathrooms. The houses were fully furnished and there was a mandatory weekly cleaning service included in the rent.

    There was also a big central house with furnished apartments, the management office, a small gym and a sauna.

    Ireland has always stretched our interpretation of "Neutral". Live near Shannon and have a free afternoon? Drive around the facilities, factories and industries, especially the ones parallel to the runway, and Google the names of each business you see. It's an eye-opener when you see what is being researched, tested and manufactured there.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,553 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Do you honestly think if, for example, Poland, invaded Ukraine the American response would have been the same or more “thoughts and prayers”.

    I agree with you that the clamour to increase defence spending in Ireland is a red herring. We could quadruple defence spending and still be defenceless.

    As regards Ireland always being close to the US, that relationship is predicated on political expediency. Americas interests will always come first. If it is in their interests to protect us they will if it isn’t in their interests they won’t.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,041 ✭✭✭Christy42


    It isn't about the Irish lobby. It is about our position. Our location means a hostile fleet based here could severely damage trans Atlantic trade and makes the UK very vulnerable to attack.

    Hence the US can't afford to have a hostile force here. And if the army invading is somehow friendly with the US/UK then no amount of deals would make other countries come to our aid and we can't buy enough equipment to deal with a US back force.

    People put too much stock in defense treaties. Countries only make defense treaties with countries they have a vested interest in defending for some reason or other and would like to do so anyway. If that interest in defense is removed then they will just ignore the defense treaty. NATO is important in eastern Europe to discourage Russian aggression and give political cover for deploying troops but even outside of NATO the US supplies equipment and training to Ukraine.

    I think we should formalise it but it is more of a technicality and would need some exception to the gdp requirement since ours is over inflated.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,553 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Why would Poland invading Ukraine in contravention of NATO doctrine be a big deal? If invading other countries contravenes NATO doctrine, NATO countries have contravened NATO doctrine without consequence for years.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,553 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Oh sorry, I thought you were suggesting there would be serious consequences if a NATO member invaded another country. Obviously that is not the case.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Registered Users Posts: 711 ✭✭✭scottser


    If we as a nation are vulnerable to any sort of attack, it's from lies on social media aimed at exploiting the more stupid and violent of us. This has proven far more effective than bombing a train or poisoning a school or whatever. Ergo, protect yourself from terror attacks by calming the **** down and stop being so **** stupid.

    ___________________________________

    Warned: Uncivil language

    Post edited by Big Bag of Chips on


  • Registered Users Posts: 711 ✭✭✭scottser


    If any of those cnts want us to protect their underwater cables then they should equip and pay us to do it.

    ______________________________________

    Warned: Uncivil. The site has a swear filter for a reason.

    Post edited by Big Bag of Chips on


  • Registered Users Posts: 378 ✭✭highpitcheric


    I think some of yis need to be a bit more accurate in assessment of our defenses.

    To say theyre sufficient would be an overestimation.

    But the rhetoric of them being completely nonexistant is also erroneous, as an underestimation.

    Another error is the disregard for our location. Our rather paltry ~7500 personnel should not be viewed in comparison to a continental.

    Any invader does not have access to their full forces when travelling here, but rather has only access to a small fraction of their full number if theyre sending an expeditionary force.

    So on arrival that paltry 7500 can be a relatively large number. Compared to what you can ship.

    There are few who can manage to move what would be needed to get here, land and get the job done.

    And even in the event of victory theres the small matter of normalising and administrating this place in such a way that its somehow a profitable venture, so that it was worth the effort and losses.

    Its a short list of countries which could conceivably do all this. I personally think only US, UK and France have such abilities.

    And of course even after all that, Brussels wont be impressed that you nicked a member state. And would possibly make it all very unprofitable for you, in order to set an example.

    Tldr our location is a force multiplier.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,604 ✭✭✭20silkcut



    Our terrain is completely unsuitable for large 70 ton tanks and infantry vehicle columns to traverse as well. Unlike the North European plain. We have too many blanket bogs and soft wet ground that would swallow leopard and Abrams tanks for sport.

    The only realistic physical invasion threat is our neighbor to the East. They were contemplating it strongly in 1940 for their own security reasons and could well do so again if they feel threatened or in danger of invasion themselves from the continent.

    The biggest threats to this country currently are coming from the misinformation sphere sowing discontent.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 101 ✭✭L Grey


    Not sure if it would be even worth it.

    Even if we increase spending, get in new ordnance etc - our conventional military would still get thrashed by most countries militaries.

    No doubt the government would be long gone. Either dead or scarpered.

    It would be guerilla warfare that would be way more effective; and it would be the average person fighting that type of campaign.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,553 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Some years ago I read that the Irish army had enough ammunition for the, then number of soldiers to fire constantly for 14 minutes.

    As long as any invasion doesn’t last longer than 14 minutes we should be grand.

    The figure for the British Army is 10 days.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,572 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    oddly enough this would be the same as the amount of credit we would have in a debt crises, which is more likely? lol

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 754 ✭✭✭thatsdaft


    You missed the bit where you ass is then force drafted sent to die in a trench somewhere over yet another war Putin has started



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 754 ✭✭✭thatsdaft




  • Registered Users Posts: 160 ✭✭Tippman24


    Iceland is sort of vital to NATO given its location. It sits beside the GIUK (Greenland/Iceland/UK) gap into the North Atlantic.Thus any Russian Sub trying to enter the shipping lanes of the Atlantic has to pass close to this area. The USNAVY and Air Force have aircraft monitoring this area. Many years ago the UK and Iceland had a bit of a dispute about the fishing grounds around Iceland where the Royal Navy was deployed to protect their trawlers. After a few months of this, Iceland told USA that unless matter was resolved, the bases on Iceland would be closed. I think thay the yanks told the Brits that the bases were more important than the fish. British were forced to accept that Iceland had right to act in its own territorial waters.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,928 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    Regardless of all the talk here there is absolutely no way the populace in general would accept the tax increases necessary to fund a proper defensive military here.



  • Registered Users Posts: 378 ✭✭highpitcheric


    How many minutes of constant fire does an invading force have, given that they have to ship everything.

    As for UK, not much we can do about them spending wise. Throw 5 billion at the defence budget same end result. Why bother. Spend it on something more worthwhile.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,553 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    I totally agree. Also given the huge waste and over runs in many public budgets in Ireland we would likely spend more for little benefit if the military budget was increased.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 378 ✭✭highpitcheric


    Yep. Better spent on our ambulance service.

    A young guy, father of 3, died recently after a 2 hr wait.



Advertisement