Could we hold our own against an invasion...ever?

Fukuyama

Hey Guys,

Been doing a lot of research into Irish history and many thanks to those who replied to my other thread asking for good sourses on the Provos.

Anyways, I've read up in detail about the whole wishy washy "we cannot stand by" possible invasion of border areas by the Irish army during the battle of the bogside in '69 which is no widely regarded as a laughable plan which would have led to the slaughter of the troops involved and the bombing and further slaughter of the South should the DF have fought back.

And it got me thinking, in the year 2010, could the DF ever hold their own or at the very least fight back to an extent that we're not a complete push over?

We share a border with Britain so it's not inconceivable that in the future we might fall out (I dont want to talk about why because this thread will spiral into the usual nonsense). So if Britain, or any other country, were to launch an invasion against us do we stand a chance?

I think the general (however misinformed) attitude towards the army is "ohhh....THE ARMY!! lol" but I do know Irish troops are quite well trained and well equipped infantry-wise.

Could we win on home soil? Or would Dublin be occupied within hours or days and us left as a laughing stock?

bad2dabone

nope.

we'd be more set up for an armed resistance afaik.

Teferi

I don't think we could stand and fight. It would be back to guerilla warfare. We're awfully good at that.

I don't think it's anything to do with how well trained our troops are because the UK could literally just throw bodies at us until we run out of bullets and people. Their armed forces are far, far larger than us. We've got 10,000 active personnel, they have a quarter of a million.

Look how the taliban/warlords of Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting the British and US. Nearly 10 years since they start of both conflicts and they are still being harried by them.

Fukuyama

I guess that pretty much makes sense. We're always going to be a small army.

I suppose, if the IRA, Taliban etc.... a bunch of comparatively ill trained fighters can keep big armies such as the US, UK tied up for years then a Guerrilla war fought by the DF would be quite devastating.

I imagine they would be fighting under the DF cap for the first year or there abouts until the weapons they snatched from the armories began to ran out. Then it would be good old fashioned IRA style ...

Bomb making and IED knowledge would be natural to the DF.

Would civil disorder play its part. The bogside tought us that populations can muster and force back security forces. So if Ireland were invaded, after the initial shock and awe of it all, surely the main cities would be filled with rioting whilst the country side and urban areas are harsh fighting zones?

Teferi

Dean0088 wrote: »

Would civil disorder play its part. The bogside tought us that populations can muster and force back security forces. So if Ireland were invaded, after the initial shock and awe of it all, surely the main cities would be filled with rioting whilst the country side and urban areas are harsh fighting zones?

I'm not trying to be funny but we can't even protest a shit government properly so I'd say we'd be inviting the British into our houses for tea. :pac:

I'd say you'd get a large amount of the population willing to riot and generally help a hand. There would be a smaller (although still quite large) population with split loyalties - they could have family who live/work in Britain, relatives who are born in Britain etc.

Fukuyama

I'm not trying to be funny but we can't even protest a **** government properly so I'd say we'd be inviting the British into our houses for tea.

I'd say you'd get a large amount of the population willing to riot and generally help a hand. There would be a smaller (although still quite large) population with split loyalties - they could have family who live/work in Britain, relatives who are born in Britain etc.

I both agree and disagree with you.


I think the reason we arent protesting (as much) over the recession is because.... its not that much of a suprise for Ireland. The country had a good decade of prosperity in what was a 800 years of poverty. Back to mormal.

Also, whats there to protest about? Many people say dont bail out the bank, they deserve it. But if we dont then the whole country will flop. It's a catch 22 and most people see that.

As for national identy against an invading force, I think many civilians would stand up. A small scale version would be what happened in 2006 hen an orange order march in disguise was going to march past the GPO - pretty much our only national monument for the struggle. It wasnt just a small bunch of scum bags...many decent people started off in a sit down protest and fought back against efforts to allow the march. The sum robbed new runners from foot locker. Now multiply that by a thousand and have it happening every night and day all over the country.

A split may occur at first ... possibly ... but history tells us that Britain cant control any country where they're not wanted and no matter what they do it'll end up being a bad decision which'll turn the population against them. Maybe not as far as taking up arms, but they'll surely support those who do and cause civil disorder and impede the occupation.

CokaColumbo

I think it can be taken for granted that guerrilla warfare would the most beneficial course of action to be taken in the event of an invasion.

Does PDF and RDF training reflect this though? I read that the focus, in terms of strategy, is on conventional warfare only. Is this correct?
Is there any emphasis on guerrilla strategy & tactics?

randomuser77

Dean0088 wrote: »

I guess that pretty much makes sense. We're always going to be a small army.

I suppose, if the IRA, Taliban etc.... a bunch of comparatively ill trained fighters can keep big armies such as the US, UK tied up for years then a Guerrilla war fought by the DF would be quite devastating.

I imagine they would be fighting under the DF cap for the first year or there abouts until the weapons they snatched from the armories began to ran out. Then it would be good old fashioned IRA style ...

I'm guessing that the DF would probably rely on guerilla tactics alright in this sort of scenario. However, I'm not sure if they'd do it in quite the way you've envisaged.

I'd imagine that it's more likely that they'd split up into small groups and attempt to mobilise support in the towns and cities rather than try to fight it by themselves. If they do it this way then they can spread their expertise (bomb making and such) to the people who would resisted anyway while ensuring a coherent leadership to what would otherwise be a disjointed struggle.

onemorechance

No need to worry about an invasion, we are now great friends with the British and if any other country tried to invade, the best army in the the world is right next door, ready to help us out!

randomuser77

CokaColumbo wrote: »

I think it can be taken for granted that guerrilla warfare would the most beneficial course of action to be taken in the event of an invasion.

Does PDF and RDF training reflect this though? I read that the focus, in terms of strategy, is on conventional warfare only. Is this correct?
Is there any emphasis on guerrilla strategy & tactics?

I'm guessing the Irish Army Rangers would have training in this sort of thing. Even if it's not specifically intended for this purpose, the sort of small unit tactics they learn should definitely be analogous. In fact, they are perfect for the implementation of the plan that I mentioned above.

OS119

Dean0088 wrote: »

I guess that pretty much makes sense. We're always going to be a small army.

I suppose, if the IRA, Taliban etc.... a bunch of comparatively ill trained fighters can keep big armies such as the US, UK tied up for years then a Guerrilla war fought by the DF would be quite devastating.

I imagine they would be fighting under the DF cap for the first year or there abouts until the weapons they snatched from the armories began to ran out. Then it would be good old fashioned IRA style ...

Bomb making and IED knowledge would be natural to the DF.

Would civil disorder play its part. The bogside tought us that populations can muster and force back security forces. So if Ireland were invaded, after the initial shock and awe of it all, surely the main cities would be filled with rioting whilst the country side and urban areas are harsh fighting zones?

there's an element of self-deception in this thinking - the idea of 'organised insurgency' only has any relevency in the most unlikely possible scenario (that of a complete territorial invasion and long-lasting take-over), but in the realms of more realistic scenario's it is of no use whatsoever.

it seems to be 'this is what we can fight against, so we've decided that this is what any enemy is going to do'. having a defence policy that relies on any enemy to do both the most unlikely, and most ill-advised thing possible is more than just a little bit 'speshul'.

a vastly more likely possible threat would be have either a Maritime blockade, or to have a foreign power take control of a west coast airfield to prosecute a conflict over the Atlantic - its been suggested here before as a 'future threat', was certainly a NATO contingency plan, and was an Allied contingency in WWII.

if a NATO airborne force took Shannon, and NATO sea-power and air-power kept it supplied, quite what use would civil disturbance in Dublin be? or IED's?, or even 'Terrorism-lite'?

Fukuyama

randomuser77 wrote: »

I'm guessing that the DF would probably rely on guerilla tactics alright in this sort of scenario. However, I'm not sure if they'd do it in quite the way you've envisaged.

I'd imagine that it's more likely that they'd split up into small groups and attempt to mobilise support in the towns and cities rather than try to fight it by themselves. If they do it this way then they can spread their expertise (bomb making and such) to the people who would resisted anyway while ensuring a coherent leadership to what would otherwise be a disjointed struggle.

Percisely. Ireland would be too small for the DF to go it alone. They might survive in the initial weeks and months but forming small groups and getting civilians in would be top priority as soon as we're occupied.

As for training - they might not recieve "right lads, in case we're invaded we're gonna teach yas guerilla tactics" but I'm sure the top brass are more than familiar with it and would have played out paper wars... Ambushing is fairly basic and I imagine there would be no problem in bothe the PDF and RDF (what little could be mobilised) engaging in it.

Bomb-making would be taught and civillians mustered up from the towens and cities to join in on the fighting. Gradually increasing in number.

The ARW would also be invaluable, I imagine, in harrasing the enemy as well as forming small fighting groups from civilians.

Fukuyama

OS119 wrote: »

there's an element of self-deception in this thinking - the idea of 'organised insurgency' only has any relevency in the most unlikely possible scenario (that of a complete territorial invasion and long-lasting take-over), but in the realms of more realistic scenario's it is of no use whatsoever.

it seems to be 'this is what we can fight against, so we've decided that this is what any enemy is going to do'. having a defence policy that relies on any enemy to do both the most unlikely, and most ill-advised thing possible is more than just a little bit 'speshul'.

a vastly more likely possible threat would be have either a Maritime blockade, or to have a foreign power take control of a west coast airfield to prosecute a conflict over the Atlantic - its been suggested here before as a 'future threat', was certainly a NATO contingency plan, and was an Allied contingency in WWII.

if a NATO airborne force took Shannon, and NATO sea-power and air-power kept it supplied, quite what use would civil disturbance in Dublin be? or IED's?, or even 'Terrorism-lite'?

I was more so referring to Ireland being occupied totally. Let's say if someting was to kick off in Europe again over a dispute with Russia concerning the Middle East. Surely, nowadays having a big giant Ireland sized hole in Europe would be concern for NATO. We're perfect to position missile systems and troops as well as use our facilities.

Also, let's say something like your scenario did happen. A small force takes over shannon airpot ... The Irish army would surely resist this fiercly with support from the population.

I'm sorry but the scenario you suggested couldn't last long and would either end in

a) NATO withdraw within a few weeks because of resistance

or (more likely)

b) they're forced to pour more resources into Shannon and continually spread out their area of control to both combat the resistance and to secure the surrounding counties. Eventually taking all of Ireland would be necessary because leaving the rest is just giving a heaven for the DF to regroup and keep attacking and allowing other forms of resistance to gain momentum.

Thankfully, it is unlikely. For now. Without sounding like a nut job - look at whats happening in Greece and now the EU. The Euro is going down the toilet and several people have suggested that France and Germany would pull out of the Euro Zone whilst still getting the profits off the loans to Greece because they're from German banks...

Most conflicts whereby neutral countries are occupied (ww2 anyone?) start off with economic and social disdain. So to say its the least likely scenario is far fetched. I'm not saying its the most likely either ... Just in five or ten years if the recovery flops... who knows?

Fukuyama

onemorechance wrote: »

No need to worry about an invasion, we are now great friends with the British and if any other country tried to invade, the best army in the the world is right next door, ready to help us out!

So the defence of Ireland relies on Britain. What if, on a global basis, things went belly up. Britain have their own problems at the minute with the Sterling in the toilet. Do they realy need to come to the rescue of Ireland? Especially considering it'll be themselves kicking the door in should Ireland be identified as a security risk.

onemorechance

Dean0088 wrote: »

So the defence of Ireland relies on Britain. What if, on a global basis, things went belly up. Britain have their own problems at the minute with the Sterling in the toilet. Do they realy need to come to the rescue of Ireland? Especially considering it'll be themselves kicking the door in should Ireland be identified as a security risk.

The air defence of Ireland does actually currently rely on Britain. Ireland was considered a security risk to Britain up to the nineties, and may still be with the Real IRA attempting to continue their terrorist campaign, yet they did not "kick the door in".

Morpheus

If there was a threat of an invasion it would be IN THEIR (Britains) INTEREST to assist us to initially beef up our DF, secure our own country by providing logistics and probably equipment support and eventually probably their own units to work alongside ours.

Bill2673

Its a numbers game, no?

I certainly think we'd fend off a Manx invasion. And if the Icelandics had a pop at us, we would come through that. I think we'd fight off the Belgians, or the Estonians. I don't know how we'd fare if the Croats invaded. If the French decided to invade we'd definitely lose out.

Question is so hypothetical as to be unanswerable in my view.

If football is an extension of war, then I don't think our army would rank nearly as highly in the military world as our soccer team does in the football world.

(And thats the way it should be in my view. Spending money on arms we won't use would be irresponsible - South Africa spent €100mn on submarines last year....that should help them bigtime when the US invades, but in the mean time they've got 50mln people in poverty).

Fukuyama

onemorechance wrote: »

The air defence of Ireland does actually currently rely on Britain. Ireland was considered a security risk to Britain up to the nineties, and may still be with the Real IRA attempting to continue their terrorist campaign, yet they did not "kick the door in".

The IRA were combated by both Britain and Ireland - thus they wouldn't have really needed to as they were both cooperating, for the most part.

However, lets say if Sinn Fein had of gotten into government in the 70s/80s and declared the republic a safe heaven for the IRA, supplied them with weapons and training from the DF and given them all the means necessary to continue kicking the **** out of the Brits. THAT would have warranted an invasion.

Ireland was considered a security risk because of the activities of the IRA - not because of any large scale aggression between the republic and Great Britain.

onemorechance

Bill2673 wrote: »

If the French decided to invade we'd definitely lose out.

Google: "french military victories"

Bill2673

Still think they'd take us in a war though :-)

There are only two occasions I can think of where a small country fended off a prolonged, concerted invasion by a large country....

Finland, against Russial; Vietnam, against China.

In both cases the defending army was well trained. In both cases, the attacking army was poorly trained and poorly equipped (especially in the latter). And in the first case, weather played a large part.

onemorechance

Dean0088 wrote: »

However, lets say if Sinn Fein had of gotten into government in the 70s/80s and declared the republic a safe heaven for the IRA, supplied them with weapons and training from the DF and given them all the means necessary to continue kicking the **** out of the Brits. THAT would have warranted an invasion.

Roughly £100,000 was donated by the Irish government to "Defence Committees" in Catholic areas and, according to historian Richard English, "there is now no doubt that some money did go from the Dublin government to the proto-Provisionals". (English, Richard (2003). Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA. Pan Books. pp. 119. ISBN 0-330-49388-4.)

Dean0088 wrote: »

Ireland was considered a security risk

Morpheus

BELGIUM????

Are you mad!?

Their airforce alone is massive compared to us. . . you sir, are probably joking!? :pac:

Bill2673

this is so hypothetical and vague to be unanswerable.

Are you asking in simple terms, could we defend the country against a British invasion? Is that the question?

The answer is, who bloody cares its not going to happen. And no, of course we couldn't, any more than Britain couldn't defend itself if the US invaded it.

Bill2673

Morpheus, no I'm not mad.

You speak as if knowing the size of Belgian airforce is as commonplace as knowing that Tesco sells vegetables.

Ok, then Luxembourg then......or do the luxemburgers have an arsenal of nuclear weaponry.

And if they do have a large air force, what a waste of money. No wonder the their govt was bankrupted (almost) in the 1990s.

And if they don't, nice ironic humour dude.

Lando Griffin

Bill2673 wrote: »

Are you asking in simple terms, could we defend the country against a British invasion? Is that the question?

.

We would probably hold our own until Saturday at least; but then all the men would have to watch Man Utd, Liverpool etc and all the women would tune into X Factor giving ample time for the Brits to suppress us.

It wasn't me!

Neutral countries (actual neutral countries) tend to spend heavily on their militaries, because they're obliged to defend themselves, not being able to rely on external assistance and alliances. Think of it like house insurance: If you never get robbed or suffer water damage or a fire, then you spent all that money for nothing, but if you didn't, you'd be a fool.

onemorechance

Lando Griffin wrote: »

We would probably hold our own until Saturday at least; but then all the men would have to watch Man Utd, Liverpool etc and all the women would tune into X Factor giving ample time for the Brits to suppress us.

It sounds they have have already supressed us! But who cares, because Britains Got Talent!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gHvATmUsSg

Bill2673

Is that true for all neutral countries, or just switzerland. (ps, Belgium isn't neutral, if that is what you are referring to).

It wasn't me!

Bill2673 wrote: »

Is that true for all neutral countries, or just switzerland. (ps, Belgium isn't neutral, if that is what you are referring to).

It's a generic pattern. If you're obliged to provide for your own defence because nobody else will bother to help you, then you need to spend a lot of time and money ensuring that you're capable of handling it yourself. Look at the Swedish air force for example.

Fukuyama

onemorechance wrote: »

Roughly £100,000 was donated by the Irish government to "Defence Committees" in Catholic areas and, according to historian Richard English, "there is now no doubt that some money did go from the Dublin government to the proto-Provisionals". (English, Richard (2003). Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA. Pan Books. pp. 119. ISBN 0-330-49388-4.)

Nope.

100,000 in Irish aid for field hospitals, taking in refugees and other costs. 50,000 of those other costs were used by Haughy and his cronies to import arms into Dublin which were supposedly for the DF but were heading to the IRA up North. They never made it as it was discovered in what would become the arms crisis.
I imagine some money was skimmed off the top my people up north and was used wrongfully while it should have gone to assisting the communities. Not enough to warrent a security threat as it wasnt as if our government wer handing the IRA a blank cheque.

onemorechance

Attempting to arm the IRA is not a security threat!

GHOST MGG2

sure we cant even repel the swine flu for fecks sake:-)
never mind a foreign invader

LookBehindYou

We were invaded already, Nigerians were paid to invade us by our own government.




now wait for the pc brigade.

Manic Moran

there's an element of self-deception in this thinking - the idea of 'organised insurgency' only has any relevency in the most unlikely possible scenario (that of a complete territorial invasion and long-lasting take-over), but in the realms of more realistic scenario's it is of no use whatsoever.

This man speaks the truth. Guerilla warfare is only going to work in occupied territory. A limited conventional invasion will require a conventional force to push it back out. Ireland is theoretically capable of fielding a force sufficient do deal with a limited attack, but currently does not.

Also, let's say something like your scenario did happen. A small force takes over shannon airpot ... The Irish army would surely resist this fiercly with support from the population.

I'm sorry but the scenario you suggested couldn't last long and would either end in

a) NATO withdraw within a few weeks because of resistance

or (more likely)

b) they're forced to pour more resources into Shannon and continually spread out their area of control to both combat the resistance and to secure the surrounding counties.

Why? There could be a force 5,000 strong in Cork, if they leave Shannon alone, what harm can they do?

The attacker just needs to hold Shannon, an area a few miles around it, and, to a looser extent, the area a few miles beyond that. As long as the airfield isn't being attacked, what is attacking the odd patrol going to do?

And if they do have a large air force, what a waste of money. No wonder the their govt was bankrupted (almost) in the 1990s.

Three of these...


And 17 of these.


Of course, they didn't pay full price on them.

Is that true for all neutral countries, or just switzerland. (ps, Belgium isn't neutral, if that is what you are referring to).

The notable neutral countries in Europe were Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, Yugoslavia, Holy See, and Ireland. With the Holy See being a bit of a special case, the other nations (bar Ireland) had/have hefty militaries.

The smallest militaries tend to be those of countries which are part of alliances, such as Iceland and Luxembourg.

NTM

Locust

The attacker just needs to initially bomb our DF bases, then missile strike our electricity stations, gas supply, water treatment simultaneously overnight and leave us for a few months and we're stuffed.

We can be taken out quite easily as a nation at the present time by a fictitious neighboring enemy- what is the attackers objective?
As mentioned if its to strike at the UK via the back door - They just need to hold an Airport or a base or two no point in total occupation.
God forbid a chemical/bio attack we'd all be goneski.

For total occupation/war our problem would be supplies/logistics. ARW need to be supplied and transported. Nearly all our stuff is imported. A simple naval embargo would scale down the DF's capabilities quite quickly.

old_aussie

NO.

Blitzkrieg, it would be all over for Ireland in 24 hours.

All airfields and sea ports bombed.

Electricity knocked out.

Irish attack a few enemy patrols, enemy retaliates by wiping out an entire town to teach Irish a lesson.

Who would come to the rescue of the Irish?

English say Irish hate us so feckem, USA says Irish always put ****e on us, so feckem.

China just laughs.

NATO says we're busy elsewhere with other more important problems and just ignores Ireland, as Irish people don't want to support NATO when needed.

DylanJM

Who would come to the rescue of the Irish?

English say Irish hate us so feckem

Do you think England would be happy having Ireland occupied by a hostile forces when part of the UK sits on our island?

OS119

DylanJM wrote: »

Do you think England would be happy having Ireland occupied by a hostile forces when part of the UK sits on our island?

i think the UK would be very unhappy with the idea of any unfriendly party having either significant land forces in the RoI, or having any maritime assets (Submarines, Mine-laying vessels, Maritime patrol/Anti-Shipping/Anti-Submarine aircraft et...) based on Irish territory, but i think the UK, and indeed the rest of NATO would be very happy to have friendly maritime/air space forces on the west coast of the RoI - those forces being of the RoI would be the best option, though they'd not say no to a NATO-RoI agreement to base NATO ASW/AD assets in the RoI should both parties feel that was appropriate...

the question is perhaps the UK/NATO attitude were the Atlantic to be again the vital battlespace that it has been in the last two European wars - i somehow doubt that there has been a single senior European or American naval officer in the last 100 years who hasn't thought how useful it would be to be able to base maritime patrol/ASW aircraft on the west coast of Ireland and to be able to refuel and replenish his ships at Galway...

SlabMurphy

Dean0088 wrote: »

Hey Guys,

Been doing a lot of research into Irish history and many thanks to those who replied to my other thread asking for good sourses on the Provos.

Anyways, I've read up in detail about the whole wishy washy "we cannot stand by" possible invasion of border areas by the Irish army during the battle of the bogside in '69 which is no widely regarded as a laughable plan which would have led to the slaughter of the troops involved and the bombing and further slaughter of the South should the DF have fought back.

And it got me thinking, in the year 2010, could the DF ever hold their own or at the very least fight back to an extent that we're not a complete push over?

We share a border with Britain so it's not inconceivable that in the future we might fall out (I dont want to talk about why because this thread will spiral into the usual nonsense). So if Britain, or any other country, were to launch an invasion against us do we stand a chance?

I think the general (however misinformed) attitude towards the army is "ohhh....THE ARMY!! lol" but I do know Irish troops are quite well trained and well equipped infantry-wise.

Could we win on home soil? Or would Dublin be occupied within hours or days and us left as a laughing stock?

An invasion form whom ? Ok, I understand your just having a bit of a harmless discussion, but in reality, who or why would anyone be bothered. I'd doubt if the Taliban or North Korea are going to have a sea and air bourne invasion of us. As to your question, well a small country like Ireland would have about as much chance as Belgium if the French invaded or Denmark if the Germans invaded, though doubtless we'd do much better than Belgium or Denmark with a guerilla campaign as the expertise already exits

As for the August 1969 situation, your talking about the "If Lynch had invaded the North sh!te" on RTE. Typical tripe from RTE as usual, the whole agenda of the programme and it’s conclusions would be the worst case scenario for nationalist Ireland. I mean if the Brits could have launched a wholesale carpet bombing on both sides of the border, - why didn't they do it during the troubles ? How come guys like my user name Slab Murphy and co. could bomb and shoot Brits at will - and then the following day drive around in a tractor or even ring up the Brits or RUC from a pub on the south side of the border to taunt them about it ? Why could the IRA turned large parts of West Belfast & Derry into no go areas for the Brits between 1970 and 72, South Armagh the same for almost 25 years - no mass bombings there ?

The REAL reason why Lynch didn't invade - because the Gombeen men in the 26 govt didn't want this as it would have disturbed their cosy, corrupt, conservative, catholic set-up, and didn't want their cosy little state been distrubed in anyway. These quisling bast@rds have absolutely not the slightest care or concern for the ordinary people of Ireland, we seen it in 1969 and we are now seeing it again with NAMA etc as they ditch the country so to protect themselves and their corrupt cronies at the expense of everyone else :mad:.

Manach

Given that Ireland's last military conflict on the island was a civil war - it might be appropriate to ask what lessons had been learnt from that, if the hypothetical invading power were non-state sponsored irregulars.

johngalway

If "a force" with the capability to seize Shannon and blockade the entire island did do such a thing, it makes me wonder why people think the Defence Forces could shift them. Surely such a force would have the assets and technology available to find and destroy any meaningful Irish force before they could finish their breakfasts.

SlabMurphy

onemorechance wrote: »

No need to worry about an invasion, we are now great friends with the British and if any other country tried to invade, the best army in the the world is right next door, ready to help us out!

" the best army in the the world is right next door " How many wars has the best army in the world won on it's own since, say WW2 ? ( where they got hammered until the Soviets and Americans joined in ). Let me see......... the Falklands :eek: Where they fought over two bits of rock against part time conscripts.

SlabMurphy

Manach wrote: »

Given that Ireland's last military conflict on the island was a civil war - it might be appropriate to ask what lessons had been learnt from that, if the hypothetical invading power were non-state sponsored irregulars.

1969 - 1994 in the six counties wasn't a " military conflict " ?

Manach

Offhand, they had favourable results in counter-insurgency operations in Yeman, Malaysia and Sierra Lorne? The bulk of the UK forces would have been stationed in Western Germany during the Cold War, so they'd have limited in their responses.

Manach

SlabMurphy wrote: »

1969 - 1994 in the six counties wasn't a " military conflict " ?

Fair point. I was thinking only of the 26 counties.

It wasn't me!

Politics aside, it really is laughable to deny that British infantry units are superbly capable soldiers. If Slabmurphy wants to do that, it's just displaying an extremely blinkered view of things. You don't have to like thm to respect them.

SlabMurphy

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Politics aside, it really is laughable to deny that British infantry units are superbly capable soldiers. If Slabmurphy wants to do that, it's just displaying an extremely blinkered view of things. You don't have to like thm to respect them.

Saying their capable and saying their the best in the world are two very different things.

cyrusdvirus

Lads, it already happened....i think there's a thread in Walter Mitty about a novel called Dark Rose..... read it and weep...

It wasn't me!

SlabMurphy wrote: »

Saying their capable and saying their the best in the world are two very different things.

Personal opinion then really, isn't it?

troubleshooter

SlabMurphy wrote: »

An invasion form whom ? Ok, I understand your just having a bit of a harmless discussion, but in reality, who or why would anyone be bothered. I'd doubt if the Taliban or North Korea are going to have a sea and air bourne invasion of us. As to your question, well a small country like Ireland would have about as much chance as Belgium if the French invaded or Denmark if the Germans invaded, though doubtless we'd do much better than Belgium or Denmark with a guerilla campaign as the expertise already exits

As for the August 1969 situation, your talking about the "If Lynch had invaded the North sh!te" on RTE. Typical tripe from RTE as usual, the whole agenda of the programme and it’s conclusions would be the worst case scenario for nationalist Ireland. I mean if the Brits could have launched a wholesale carpet bombing on both sides of the border, - why didn't they do it during the troubles ? How come guys like my user name Slab Murphy and co. could bomb and shoot Brits at will - and then the following day drive around in a tractor or even ring up the Brits or RUC from a pub on the south side of the border to taunt them about it ? Why could the IRA turned large parts of West Belfast & Derry into no go areas for the Brits between 1970 and 72, South Armagh the same for almost 25 years - no mass bombings there ?

The REAL reason why Lynch didn't invade - because the Gombeen men in the 26 govt didn't want this as it would have disturbed their cosy, corrupt, conservative, catholic set-up, and didn't want their cosy little state been distrubed in anyway. These quisling bast@rds have absolutely not the slightest care or concern for the ordinary people of Ireland, we seen it in 1969 and we are now seeing it again with NAMA etc as they ditch the country so to protect themselves and their corrupt cronies at the expense of everyone else :mad:.

South Armagh was not a no go area. This is BS. The army had more troops in South Armagh then any other part of the north.

As for carpet bombing the border, you are clearly off your head.

I think you need to ask yourself why only 9 South Armagh members were killed by the British army(south Fermanagh had 53 PIRA members killed) and why Slab was arrested and not shot dead by the SAS even though he was in possession of weapon and allowed to take the pee like he did........you obviously get your knowledge from the papers.

DylanJM

the question is perhaps the UK/NATO attitude were the Atlantic to be again the vital battlespace

OK so if we talking about NATO using Ireland a major base due to a large scale conflict I don't really see the problem. The way I see it is, in a conflict of that size it ould be in our best interests to let NATO set up a base on the west coast.