Future hypothetical - would Ireland go to war?

OS119

this place is a quiet as a nuns knickers, so lets have some fun.

note, this isn't in the walter mitty section because, well, it is a viable threat.

next Monday morning, an Al Quaida cell hot off a flight from Pakistan's North West Frontier sets off half a dozen suicide bomb attacks on Dublins' public transport network and slaughters Two Hundred Irish citizens in five minutes.

two fundamental questions - one political, one military:

i) will, when the dust clears and the bodies are buried, the body politic and the electorate demand a significant overseas military response?

ii) if they did, what would be the scale and scope of that response?

ground rules for (ii):

its got to be realistic, its probably going to have to be quick - the Irish public aren't going to demand dead enemies and then patiently wait 12 months for them to start piling up, and while you can have additional funding and whatever legislation you want, buying F-16's and AH-64's is off the cards as much for the time lag as for the shocking cost.

seamus

The Irish have a very different outlook though than the Americans.

If this did happen, I don't think you would have most Irish people banging down TD's doors demanding that we slaughter hundreds of muslims in retaliation. We tend to not think in those terms. Our first reaction would probably be to find out why it happened in the first place (i.e. what did we do that made us a target) and then press our government to fix that. We have a tendancy to submit to external will/forces rather than the "fight till the end, screw the cost" attitude of the Americans, and the Brits to a lesser extent.

It would however create a massive boost in support for military involvement with/from the EU.

iceage

WTF??

Half of the PDF/RDF would probably quit, join the BA looking for some payback. Massive rise in recruitment.

Fratton Fred

I would say it would be option iii) Blame the British and Americans, do nothing and ask the EU for a few million to help re-build.

It would be a good excuse for Willie to take the company jet to the US a few times and maybe there would be a bit of chest beating and maybe the odd beating of innocent muslims but other than that, I would expect very little to be honest, the only realistic thing that could happen would be to increase the size and public awareness of the support for the war in Afghanistan.

OS119

seamus wrote: »

Our first reaction would probably be to find out why it happened in the first place (i.e. what did we do that made us a target)

what happens if the answer is "be western, and have soft security" and nothing more?

i'm also somewhat puzzled as to why you think that 'running off and slaughtering loads of Muslims' would form part of a coherant military plan for anyone who isn't a crack smoking lunatic from FreeRepublic.com...

seamus

OS119 wrote: »

i'm also somewhat puzzled as to why you think that 'running off and slaughtering loads of Muslims' would form part of a coherant military plan for anyone who isn't a crack smoking lunatic from FreeRepublic.com...

I'm not talking about a "coherent military plan", I'm talking about what the Irish public would want, which is effectively what the Government would seek to do.
If you look at the US after 11/09/2001, the Joe on the street was basically of the opinion that all muslims were potential terrorists and it was time to just send a whole pile of guys to the middle east and make **** of them.
I don't think we'd be the same. There's be the same anti-muslim sentiment, but I don't think the public's first reaction would be, "Let's bomb the f*ckers".

concussion

The probable outcome would be a demand for tighter security and an increase in intelligence gathering/liaseing with international sources to prevent it happening again. Also massive political fallout over why it happened in the first place. I don't think people on the streets are going to demand immediate military action in retaliation but I could see, at the far end of probability, troops being withdrawn from UN peacekeeping missions and a battalion of troops going to Afghanistan under the auspices of ISAF.

Local-womanizer

As concussion pointed out it would most likely result in tighter security.

Would also most likely result in the Goverment working more closly with the U.K. and U.S. regarding intellagence.Would hardly think the DF would mobilise overseas against the insurgancy tbh.

But hasent Bin laden said he would attack any body assisting in the war against muslims,Shannon for Example.And isent Chad a Islamic Country?Its not like extremists groups need much of an excuse.

MG

If we say yes to the Lisbon treaty, the kiddies will be off to war anyway.

Fratton Fred

Local-womanizer wrote: »

As concussion pointed out it would most likely result in tighter security.

Would also most likely result in the Goverment working more closly with the U.K. and U.S. regarding intellagence.Would hardly think the DF would mobilise overseas against the insurgancy tbh.

But hasent Bin laden said he would attack any body assisting in the war against muslims,Shannon for Example.And isent Chad a Islamic Country?Its not like extremists groups need much of an excuse.

I think any headline grabbing target would suit tbh.

MG wrote: »

If we say yes to the Lisbon treaty, the kiddies will be off to war anyway.

that's if they are even born in the first place, after all their parents start having abortions.

borisbullrunner

i think the first thing the irish public would demand would be extremely tight security. alot of irish people, being a traditional country, are already sceptical and weary of foreigners. i think an attack thought to be formed by the enemies of all the western world would prompt a severe public retaliation against the muslim community here.

including the demand to stop them coming in on national flights and the likes. next to happen would be we'd lower our neutral stance somewhat, to join in americas war on terror.

sadly we've not got much of a military compared wit america and britain due to lack of population. but the soldiers we do have would be more than capable of doing the same job as americans.

hopefully we never do get attacked by masked scum, but if it did happen i would hope that we will stand up and fight our hiding enemies!!!

Veni, Vidi, Vici.

cushtac

borisbullrunner wrote: »

including the demand to stop them coming in on national flights and the likes. next to happen would be we'd lower our neutral stance somewhat, to join in americas war on terror.

Joining a war wouldn't lower our neutrality somewhat, it would finish it completely.

borisbullrunner

not really, because we wouldnt be fighting a soverign nation. we'd be fighting separitists who have no concern for human life, and after an attack on our homeland and obvious defiance of our neutrality id be willing to lower my neutrality to make these terror cells pay

cushtac

borisbullrunner wrote: »

not really, because we wouldnt be fighting a soverign nation. we'd be fighting separitists who have no concern for human life, and after an attack on our homeland and obvious defiance of our neutrality id be willing to lower my neutrality to make these terror cells pay

We'd be picking a side in a conflict, we'd definitely cease to be neutral. Besides, where do you think these terrorists are? Unless they were homegrown, taking them on would require going to other countries.

borisbullrunner

aye of course we would. wed be givin up a position of neutrality because wed be seeking to bring them to justice. but not actually going to war with a soveriegn statwe so would not be open war. wed seek the help of the nations that the "people" are thought to be from

cushtac

borisbullrunner wrote: »

aye of course we would. wed be givin up a position of neutrality because wed be seeking to bring them to justice. but not actually going to war with a soveriegn statwe so would not be open war. wed seek the help of the nations that the "people" are thought to be from

And what if that country didn't want to help, as was the case in Iraq?

Leadership

cushtac wrote: »

Joining a war wouldn't lower our neutrality somewhat, it would finish it completely.

Ireland is not a neutral country I believe the official line is non alignment.

I would say that Ireland would change its policy completely and join NATO. Increasing and supporting the DF is no go so we would rely on the other nations military power.

borisbullrunner

well if they dont wanna help we break ties wit countries not willing to help bring terrorists to justice. i don mean in an american way like wit cuba. i just mean show we're not happy wit their choices. join nato and become a power agianst terror

cushtac

Leadership wrote: »

Ireland is not a neutral country I believe the official line is non alignment.

I'm well aware of that, but my point is we're either neutral or we're not. You can't involve yourself in a conflict and still claim to be neutral.

Leadership

cushtac wrote: »

I'm well aware of that, but my point is we're either neutral or we're not. You can't involve yourself in a conflict and still claim to be neutral.

Ireland did not join NATO due to the British occupation of NI. That I believe was was the primary reason for non alignment.

borisbullrunner

ye but we wouldnt be wagin war, we'd merely be trying to bring terrorists to justice. we have soldiers in chad as peacekeepers. does that mean we're not neutral? no of course not because we're not waging war, we're trying to stop it

cushtac

borisbullrunner wrote: »

ye but we wouldnt be wagin war, we'd merely be trying to bring terrorists to justice. we have soldiers in chad as peacekeepers. does that mean we're not neutral? no of course not because we're not waging war, we're trying to stop it

If it's not war then why are the US & it's allies fighting the war on terror? But seeing as you can't tell the difference between what's going on in Chad and the GWOT I'll give up.

neilled

Leadership wrote: »

Ireland did not join NATO due to the British occupation of NI. That I believe was was the primary reason for non alignment.

Correct. I believe that there was attempt to get a separate defence treaty with the yanks, I will need to double check the source though. Irelands neutrality was something that was more pragmatic than anything.

borisbullrunner

yes i can see the difference. but wat im saying is that just because we're hunting somone for justice it doesnt mean we're neutral. it just means we dont take kindly to terrorist attacks on our country. which is right. doesnt mean wed be non neutrals

OS119

borisbullrunner wrote: »

yes i can see the difference. but wat im saying is that just because we're hunting somone for justice it doesnt mean we're neutral. it just means we dont take kindly to terrorist attacks on our country. which is right. doesnt mean wed be non neutrals

yes it does.

neutrality (or indeed non-aligment) is not just a matter of what you tell yourself you are, but also of what others percieve you to be.

you cannot possibly say with a straight face that an Irish Infantry battle group could fly to Afghanistan on NATO aircraft, operate from NATO bases, use NATO logistics, use NATO ISTAR assets to find their targets, hit them using NATO air and Artillery support, and then claim to be neutral (or non-aligned) - because you'd have to be smacked off your tits to do so.

you could perhaps make such a claim if you had your own AT fleet, and could mount expeditionary warfare entirely on your own with no assistance from anyone, but until then you'd be faced with the choice of joining NATO and accepting that you aren't neutral (or non-aligned), or doing fcuk all.

borisbullrunner

but you wouldnt be sending huge fleets to attack a country. wed be askin the places where these people are thought to be to hand them over to us. or else send a diplomat to sort out a deal. but there would be no attack on the sovereignty of a nation nor would there be illegal military operations carried out that the country doesnt know about. therefore it would not be breaking from neutrality because we wouldnt be setting up an expeditionary force. merely asking for the extradition of possible terrorists

cushtac

borisbullrunner wrote: »

but you wouldnt be sending huge fleets to attack a country. wed be askin the places where these people are thought to be to hand them over to us. or else send a diplomat to sort out a deal. but there would be no attack on the sovereignty of a nation nor would there be illegal military operations carried out that the country doesnt know about. therefore it would not be breaking from neutrality because we wouldnt be setting up an expeditionary force. merely asking for the extradition of possible terrorists

But what if that country says no and refuses to hand them over or allow Irish troops in?

And neutrality doesn't depend on the size of the force you send.

OS119

borisbullrunner wrote: »

but you wouldnt be sending huge fleets to attack a country. wed be askin the places where these people are thought to be to hand them over to us. or else send a diplomat to sort out a deal. but there would be no attack on the sovereignty of a nation nor would there be illegal military operations carried out that the country doesnt know about. therefore it would not be breaking from neutrality because we wouldnt be setting up an expeditionary force. merely asking for the extradition of possible terrorists

hahahahahahahah!

that bang you just heard was me laughing my head off.

good luck with that in Pakistan - a failed state where the Government doesn't have any say in what happens in the western HALF of the country (and almost certainly would tell you to fcuk off for fear of losing what territory it does control), or Afghanistan, another failed state where the government has no say in what happens in the southern TWO-THIRDS of the country, and what say it does have in the north is 'interpreted' by the local authorities in the different provinces - which is a subtle version of the Pakistan situation.

the former soviet republics of central asia are so corrupt/chaotic you'd get nowhere through diplomatic means - the only non-military options there are a) forget it, or b) ask the Americans to put your suspect in the diplomatic bag if they get a chance. the phrase used for that course of action is called 'extraordinary rendition'.

and, err.... well, those are the countries where your boys will be hiding.

so what are you going to do?

karenk83

seamus wrote: »

I'm talking about what the Irish public would want, which is effectively what the Government would seek to do.

when the f### do the Irish government ever do what the people want. They would cower in the corner like they always have afraid of upsetting some of the most evil people on the planet instead of standing up to them. Kinda reminds you of a similar reaction to Hitler. Oh yea and they couldnt possibly wage war against an enemy of Britain's because bitterness is so much more important than anything else.

irishbambi

If we yes is voted to the Lisbon, would conscription be brought into Ireland?

concussion

No