Door is open for Ireland to join Nato, says military alliance's chief

G Power

this will be very bad for us here and if we did join up what would be next?? we are witnessing the nails being hammered into Irelands coffin and nobody gives enough of a rats ass to try do anything about it.

As I've said before, the problems we face that should have us all out on the streets protesting go much deeper than austerity :eek::eek:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2013/0211/1224329906320.html

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) would welcome any application by Ireland to join the organisation, its secretary general has said, although he stressed that the decision to seek membership was a matter for each individual country.

In an interview with The Irish Times ahead of the first visit to Ireland by a Nato secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Nato had an “open-door policy” towards membership of the organisation.

“Our door remains open for European countries, European democracies that fulfil the necessary criteria and can contribute to Euro-Atlantic security, but of course it’s for individual partners to decide how they want to develop their relationship and partnership with Nato.”

Bilateral programme

While Ireland is not a member of Nato, it has ties with the organisation through the Partnership for Peace Programme (PFP), a bilateral programme that allows for Irish forces to be used for peacekeeping and crisis management where there is a UN mandate and parliamentary approval.

Mr Rasmussen travels to Dublin tomorrow for an informal meeting of EU defence ministers at Dublin Castle.

He will also deliver a speech at the Institute of European Affairs tomorrow evening at which he is expected to call for further co-operation between Ireland and Nato, particularly in the area of military training and capability.

Highlighting the participation of Irish defence forces in UN-led operations over the last 50 years, including in Afghanistan, Mr Rasmussen is expected to outline how Ireland has benefited from its relationship with Nato, arguing that the PFP has allowed Ireland to contribute to international missions, something it would be unable to do on its own.

Mr Rasmussen said he would “absolutely” welcome any decision by Ireland to seek membership of the organisation, although he said “it is for Ireland to decide its relationship with Nato or any other organisation . . . We have a very well functioning partnership between Ireland and Nato, a partnership that fully respects Ireland’s policy of neutrality,” he said.

Mr Rasmussen also said Nato had “no intention” of intervening in north Africa. “I don’t see a role for Nato in Mali, because the UN Security Council has adopted a resolution according to which an African-led stabilisation security force should take over in Mali.”

However, he welcomed the EU’s decision to send a training mission to the North African country, adding that the best international response to crises was “a question of a smart division of labour, so that we do not compete with each other, but complement each other”.

Crisis in Syria

Mr Rasmussen defended Nato’s approach to Syria. “Very often I am asked, ‘Why is it that you could collect a successful operation in Libya and why not in Syria?’ and the answer is, there is a clear difference.

“In Libya we had a United Nations mandate, we had support from countries in the region, but in Syria these conditions are not fulfilled. Even the opposition in Syria doesn’t request a foreign military intervention. You have to make decisions case by case. Each and every time you have to ask yourself whether a military intervention will lead in the right direction, and in Syria, obviously, we need a political solution.”

Nato currently has 28 member states.

Nato: What it's for

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was founded in April 1949 in the aftermath of the second World War, as the cold war between the capitalist West and communist East was tightening its grip on international relations.

Nato is headquartered in Brussels and has 28 member states and 22 associated nations, one of which is Ireland, participating in the Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme.

PfP is a voluntary association for – mainly but not exclusively – military co-operation and planning, civil emergency planning and disaster relief.

The organisation was opposed by the Warsaw Pact, a military alliance between the Soviet Union and eastern European communist states founded in 1955, after the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) was inducted into Nato.

Critics charge that the pact was essentially an instrument of Russian domination of eastern Europe following the second World War.

In 1956, Russian troops invaded Hungary and ousted a liberalising government there; in 1968, pact troops invaded Czechoslovakia for the same purpose.

The pact fell apart following the collapse of communism and ceased existence in 1991. Nato member states were expected to be democracies.

The founding member states of Nato were: the United States, Britain, France, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Portugal. They were joined in 1952 by Greece and Turkey, in 1955 by Germany, 1982 by Spain, 1999 by the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary, by Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. Finally, in 2009, Albania and Croatia joined.

In essence, the alliance is a mutual defence organisation whose essential fundamental principle, Article 5 of the establishing treaty, is that an attack on one member state is an attack on all. The 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US is the only occasion in which Article 5 has been invoked, leading ultimately to the deployment of the Nato-led, United Nations-mandated ISAF, the interim stabilisation force in Afghanistan.

Nato is governed day to day by the North Atlantic Council in Brussels drawn from member states’ permanent representative delegations in Brussels.

The alliance also has a parliamentary tier, the Nato Parliamentary Assembly of 257 delegates from the 28 Nato member countries, and meets twice a year. It sets the broad strategic goals of the alliance.

Nato remains the world’s largest military alliance and accounts for about half of all defence spending.* - PETER MURTAGH

G Power

and Nato most certainly did not have a mandate for what they actually did in Libya!! far from it and even Putin is shown on video asking why they were going all out when it was only supposed to be protecting the airspace end of.

Sky King

Yeah I am sure NATO would make great use of our one army tank and bloody Cessna 172s!

ejmaztec

We might get some new sticks with nails in the end and teflon coated pitchforks.

Lyaiera

I have no problem with military intervention in the right circumstances. However for all their flaws I think the UN is much better placed than NATO for an Irish military to cooperate with. I think the Irish military do very well for themselves on an international stage and I would hope it's one area the politicians can hold strong on.

Where To

I'd love to see the local FCA deployed to North Korea. The sight of them guys parading across Pyongyang on St.Patrick's Day morning would have the DRK quaking in their boots.

awec

G Power wrote: »

this will be very bad for us here and if we did join up what would be next?? we are witnessing the nails being hammered into Irelands coffin and nobody gives enough of a rats ass to try do anything about it.

Sigh.. sensationalist rubbish. A poor attempt at whipping up hysteria.

Lapin

The sooner we join NATO the better.

Its time we grew up as a nation, shook off the cowardice of neutrality and took our place on the global stage.

Our defence forces (of which I am proud and will not reduce to the butt of jokes as others do) are shamefully under resourced and have been treated as a plaything by successive governments.

In other countries the job of Defence Minister is sought after, here it was traditionally given to the lad who just about made in into the cabinet. Look at Willie O'Dea FFS. It doesn't even have an exclusive minister of its own anymore as its current custodian, Alan Shatter is also Minister for Justice. A post that inevitably takes up far more of his time given the events of recent weeks.

As an island nation, with our territorial waters consisting of an area 10 times our land mass it is a scandal that we have such a poorly equipped Air Corps and Navy.

Joining NATO can only compel us to address this, and the sooner we do it the better.

donegal_road

remember the rumour about NATO funding the building of Knock Airport

squod

NATO should join Tayto.

LostBoy101

I can understand why NATO want Ireland to join. The experience in Northern Ireland is valuable help for NATO's operations and I think at one stage the US sent over some bomb squad soldiers to be trained by our Bomb Disposal Unit.

c_man

NATO members need a minimum spend/quality of defence force before joining iirc, we couldn't afford it plain and simple.

Conmaicne Mara

I wouldn't have a problem ever with Ireland joining NATO.

conorhal

c_man wrote: »

NATO members need a minimum spend/quality of defence force before joining iirc, we couldn't afford it plain and simple.

That would be my primary concern, how many hospitals would we have to close just so that Shatter and his FG cronies could get hard...

Were there not requirement regards military spending in the Lisbon Treaty though? I'll have to look it up.

As for neutrality, it has it's benefits, I've no real desire for find myself standing in a muddy field in France because some anarchist nutter shot an archduke somewhere I've never heard of who had a defence treaty with country A and us with country B, and I have to go and fight sombody elses war. No thanks.

ejmaztec

Where To wrote: »

I'd love to see the local FCA deployed to North Korea. The sight of them guys parading across Pyongyang on St.Patrick's Day morning would have the DRK quaking in their boots one holey sock.

fyp

Problem123456

I say why not..
Maybe they will give us some second hand jets.

RATM

Lapin wrote: »

The sooner we join NATO the better.

Its time we grew up as a nation, shook off the cowardice of neutrality and took our place on the global stage.


As an island nation, with our territorial waters consisting of an area 10 times our land mass it is a scandal that we have such a poorly equipped Air Corps and Navy.

Joining NATO can only compel us to address this, and the sooner we do it the better.

Since when is neutrality cowardice ? I'm very proud of our neutrality and think we should keep it that way- it has served us well so far. The only people who have ever had a problem with our neutrality is other countries because we won't join their dirty wars for resources.. Fact of the matter is if every country in the world followed our stance then there would be world peace. Now thats never going to happen but at least we're the ones showing others the way.

And what is wrong with how our navy and air corps do their jobs ? They do them very well IMO- the Navy have been very active this year boarding and seizing foreign fishing boats- they're doing an excellent job. And I am sure they are not just finding these lads by coincidence - they do have radar and GPS you know. And as for drug running well you are far better combatting that on land when the drugs arrive that wandering around randomly in a boat hoping you come across them. As you said the our sea is 10 times the size of our land so strategically it makes sense to tackle that problem on land, not at sea.

Joining NATO would cost us billions. We can barely afford the cost of a childrens hospital and you want us to go wasting billions spending on weapons that are completely unnecessary - last time I checked nobody is attacking Ireland. By staying neutral we'll keep it that way- the Tube bombers in London did what they did because of British actions in the Middle East- do you really want Islamic jihadists to be operating on the streets of Dublin ? Because if we join a dirty war then by extension we ourselves become the enemy and a legitimate target. No thanks, lets keep our noses out of matters that don't concern us.

DazMarz

We join NATO at our own peril. We have a very small army (albeit a well-trained one) and coupled with a pretty non-existent air force and a navy that is more akin to a coast guard service, I cannot see what we would offer NATO.

Other than if a war broke out that NATO countries were involved in, we'd be sending Irish troops overseas to aid the war. Manpower is all we could offer, but very little else.

Irish neutrality is a very good thing and is nothing to be ashamed of. The most crucial example of this was during World War II. Had we entered the war on either side, it would have been curtains for Ireland pretty quickly; enter on the side of Britain and her allies, and the Nazis would have sent the Luftwaffe to bomb the place back to the Stone Age. Join the side of the Axis, and we'd have found ourselves invaded and re-occupied by Britain for being belligerent and aiding the Nazis.

By remaining neutral, we have kept ourselves out of harm's way (the accidental bombing of the North Strand notwithstanding) and have ensured that we have never seen the sights of a generation of young people marching off to war (as they see nowadays in the United States and to a slightly lesser extent in Britain and other nations).

For a small nation such as ours with no true military strength or colonial/military past, it is in our very best interests to remain neutral. It hasn't harmed places like Switzerland or Sweden really.

Chuck Stone

Why would we want to join an organisation that should have wound down after the USSR broke up?

Yes, let's join NATO and join in the cold war.

****ing idiotic idea.

Fratton Fred

RATM wrote: »

Since when is neutrality cowardice ? I'm very proud of our neutrality and think we should keep it that way- it has served us well so far

Ireland is not and never has been been neutral. For starters a neutral country is capable of defending itself, which Ireland clearly isn't.

When a new minister for defence takes over, whose number do you think is handed to him first? I'll give you a clue, it starts +44

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Ireland is not and never has been been neutral. For starters a neutral country is capable of defending itself, which Ireland clearly isn't.

When a new minister for defence takes over, whose number do you think is handed to him first? I'll give you a clue, it starts +44

Diving in sneers first there fred. What a shock.

John Mongo

We're not neutral.

For Ireland to be neutral would require a military budget far beyond the 600 and odd million quid that's currently allocated. We have a policy of "non-allignment" that people have somehow managed to turn into us being neutral and successive Governments have been far too lazy to point out.

Also, membership of NATO does not require major military spending or budgets. Just look at Luxembourg, Lithuania, Latvia or Slovenia, none of them spend crazy money. If anything, it'd probably result in us being able to procure more kit at better prices from member countries.

If it was a straight choice between the UN or NATO, in terms of who the Defence Forces should work with more closely, I'd choose NATO every single time.

Jimoslimos

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Ireland is not and never has been been neutral. For starters a neutral country is capable of defending itself, which Ireland clearly isn't.

When a new minister for defence takes over, whose number do you think is handed to him first? I'll give you a clue, it starts +44

Petty.

arybvtcw0eolkf

We've already participated in Eufor, PfP, Sfor & Kfor missions and have personnel in Afghanistan as part of an ISAF mission.

We've done very well with peace enforcement missions in Somali, East Timor, Liberia, Chat & Lebanon [UNIFIL II].

Irish neutrality [LOOKS AROUND] WHERE? [/LOOKS AROUND].

corktina

Sky King wrote: »

Yeah I am sure NATO would make great use of our one army tank and bloody Cessna 172s!

probabaly be more a case of them making use our air space and facilites at Shannon et al

wandatowell

Sky King wrote: »

Yeah I am sure NATO would make great use of our one army tank and bloody Cessna 172s!

On the other hand it will be more than happy to use our highly skilled members of the Defence Force

rednik

We should have joined NATO years ago.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Did NATO donate the dough?

Nino Brown

RATM wrote: »

Since when is neutrality cowardice ? I'm very proud of our neutrality and think we should keep it that way- it has served us well so far.

How has it worked for us?, if it wasn't for the protection of the British in WW2 we would have been a push over for the Germans. We are an embarrassingly weak nation militarily.

In this day and age neutrality is an absolutely ridiculous concept, any country which would be likely to attack us, wouldn't care less if we were neutral. If neutrality really worked then why didn't Kuwait claim neutrality in 1990? Maybe South Korea should claim neutrality too?, would that mean North Korea couldn't invade, and they could save a fortune on military spending?

Cungi

Aiyana Thankful Snapdragon wrote: »

We've done very well with peace enforcement missions in East Timor, Liberia, Chat & Lebanon [UNIFIL II].

Those missions involved the Army Ranger Wing. As much as people like to mock our Defence Forces, these guys are the elite.

I dont think Ireland has any need to join NATO. We work perfectly fine as part of UN mandated missions.

Personally i think NATO wants to use our airspace (Shannon)

ThreeLineWhip

Ireland should join if only to annoy Gerry Adams.

Rented Mule

Sky King wrote: »

Yeah I am sure NATO would make great use of our one army tank and bloody Cessna 172s!

I'd say they're only interested Shannon and Knock. Hell, they paid for Knock. They might was well get some use out of it.

John Mongo

Cungi wrote: »

Those missions involved the Army Ranger Wing. As much as people like to mock our Defence Forces, these guys are the elite.

I dont think Ireland has any need to join NATO. We work perfectly fine as part of UN mandated missions.

Personally i think NATO wants to use our airspace (Shannon)

The first two tours of Timor involved the ARW, tours after that were Platoons from various Infantry Battalions around the country.

The vast majority of troops in Liberia were regular troops, there was a small number of ARW members over there.

In Chad, the first trip was conducted by the ARW as an advance party before the main body travelled over. After that, it was regular troops again.

So in actual fact, most of the overseas work has been done by regular troops.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

John Mongo wrote: »

The first two tours of Timor involved the ARW, tours after that were Platoons from various Infantry Battalions around the country.

The vast majority of troops in Liberia were regular troops, there was a small number of ARW members over there.

In Chad, the first trip was conducted by the ARW as an advance party before the main body travelled over. After that, it was regular troops again.

So in actual fact, most of the overseas work has been done by regular troops.

Quite true, it's worth mentioning that a small element of regular support troops also travel on some ARW missions.

Zebra3

So what percentage increase in taxes are people happy to pay for Ireland to join NATO and help fund the industrial-military complex?

Will you gladly send your kids off to the next slaughterhouse in the Middle East to help feed the West's addiction to fossil fuels?

Capt'n Midnight

Our entire defence budget would get 6 F35 aircraft, no spares, no fuel, no weapons, no maintenance

F-35B: US$237.7M (weap. sys. cost, 2012)
F-35C: US$236.8M

It would also get you 1/2 of the cost of putting a catapult on a carrier
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/06/defence_committee_carrier_badness/

This would mean that the associated F-35 stealth fighter buy would need to change from the F-35B jumpjet version to the F-35C catapult type,
...
The puzzler was why on Earth it later got rescinded, on the grounds that putting catapults into the ships was not going to cost £900m - as the 2010 review had estimated - but actually £2bn for the Prince of Wales and maybe £3bn to the Queen Elizabeth. This would be to double the projected price of the two ships.

Regardless of any political considerations we just couldn't afford to spend that much on imported arms.

During the Falklands war the UK flew Harriers off container ships , it took 10 days in the dockyard to setup the ship
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/04/the-atlantic-conveyor-falklands30/ - which puts into perspective the level of unnecessary spending involved in NATO

Chuck Stone

Stealth Recce wrote: »

Did NATO donate the dough?

NATO doesn't have dough. NATO takes tax-payers' dough and uses it to fund the military industrial complex.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Chuck Stone wrote: »

NATO doesn't have dough. NATO uses tax-payers' dough and uses it to fund the military industrial complex.

Thanks,

**ahem, Christy Moore reference**

"...did NATO donate the dough me boys, did NATO donate the dough".

Fr_Dougal

The French President, is sitting in his office when his telephone rings.

"Hallo, Mr. Sarkozy!" a heavily accented voice said. "This is Paddy down at the Harp Pub in County Clare, Ireland. I am ringing to inform you that we are officially declaring war on you!"

"Well, Paddy," Sarkozy replied, "This is indeed important news! How big is your army?"

"Right now," says Paddy, after a moment's calculation, "there is meself, me cousin Sean, me next door neighbour Seamus, and the entire darts team from the pub. That makes eight!"

Sarkozy paused. "I must tell you, Paddy, that I have 100,000 men in my army waiting to move on my command."

"Begoora!" says Paddy. "I'll have to ring you back."

Sure enough, the next day, Paddy calls again. "Mr. Sarkozy, the war is still on. We have managed to get us some infantry equipment!"

"And what equipment would that be Paddy?" Sarkozy asks.

"Well, we have two combines, a bulldozer, and Murphy's farm tractor."

Sarkozy sighs amused. "I must tell you, Paddy, that I have 6,000 tanks and 5,000 armored personnel carriers. Also, I have increased my army to 150,000 since we last spoke."

"Saints preserve us!" says Paddy. "I'll have to get back to you."

Sure enough, Paddy rings again the next day. "Mr. Sarkozy, the war is still on! We have managed to get ourselves airborne! We have modified Jackie McLaughlin's ultra-light with a couple of shotguns in the cockpit, and four boys from the Shamrock Bar have joined us as well!"

Sarkozy was silent for a minute and then cleared his throat. "I must tell you, Paddy, that I have 100 bombers and 200 fighter planes. My military bases are surrounded by laser-guided, surface-to-air missile sites. And since we last spoke, I have increased my army to 200,000!"

"Jesus, Mary, and Joseph!" says Paddy, "I will have to ring you back."

Sure enough, Paddy calls again the next day. "Top o' the mornin', Mr. Sarkozy! I am sorry to inform you that we have had to call off the war."

"Really? I am sorry to hear that," says Sarkozy. "Why the sudden change of heart?"

"Well," says Paddy, "we had a long chat over a few pints of Guinness, and we decided there is no feckin' way we can feed 200,000 prisoners.

Nino Brown

Isn't it a bit hypocritical to be complaining about the military industrial complex and the West's addiction to oil and wars in the middle east. People are very quick to forget that we are part of the western world, most middle eastern oil in used in Europe, not the US as people seem to think, so that's us using that oil.
You're reading this right now on PC that uses significant amounts of oil to manufacture, you probably have a car, which is built from and runs on oils, most things in your house are built from oil. Its very easy to reap the benefits of wars in the middle east, while at the same time condemning the wars. How many people would be willing to cut oil based products from their life? if we want to keep using using middle eastern oil we should be willing to contribute to the stabilization of that region to secure the resource we love so much.

I really don't see the point. We don't have any real enemies in the world (except maybe hardline Loyalists). That's the difference between us and the likes of South Korea and Kuwait.

Nino Brown

Karsini wrote: »

I really don't see the point. We don't have any real enemies in the world (except maybe hardline Loyalists). That's the difference between us and the likes of South Korea and Kuwait.

Germany wasn't our enemy before WW2, but they had invasion plans drawn up for after they defeated Britain. If you wait until you have an enemy it's already too late.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208860/Top-secret-dossier-uncovered-containing-detailed-maps-postcards-Hitlers-plan-invade-neutral-Ireland.html#axzz2KiP5hUf9

AlmightyCushion

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Our entire defence budget would get 6 F35 aircraft, no spares, no fuel, no weapons, no maintenance

F-35B: US$237.7M (weap. sys. cost, 2012)
F-35C: US$236.8M

It would also get you 1/2 of the cost of putting a catapult on a carrier
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/06/defence_committee_carrier_badness/

Regardless of any political considerations we just couldn't afford to spend that much on imported arms.

During the Falklands war the UK flew Harriers off container ships , it took 10 days in the dockyard to setup the ship
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/04/the-atlantic-conveyor-falklands30/ - which puts into perspective the level of unnecessary spending involved in NATO

What has any of this to do with NATO membership? The majority of NATO members don't have an aircraft carrier or a fleet of brand new, top of the line fighters jets. Even Luxembourg is a member of NATO and it only has a population of about 500,000. I imagine if we did join NATO we would have to increase our military spending to above 1% of GDP but that would be something we'd know before joining.

somefeen

We're a country of only about 4 million people with no enemies.
We don't need NATO.

As for us not contributing to stabilising the middle east where our oil comes from.
Why should we when every other country seems to willing to do the heavy lifting for us, jokes on them.
If we ever do feel we need to contribute to that I would rather it took the form us rebuilding after the war or providing security to the civilians caught up in it.

awec

I don't see what would be in it for Ireland?

Sound of Silence

Nino Brown wrote: »

How has it worked for us?, if it wasn't for the protection of the British in WW2 we would have been a push over for the Germans. We are an embarrassingly weak nation militarily.

In this day and age neutrality is an absolutely ridiculous concept, any country which would be likely to attack us, wouldn't care less if we were neutral. If neutrality really worked then why didn't Kuwait claim neutrality in 1990? Maybe South Korea should claim neutrality too?, would that mean North Korea couldn't invade, and they could save a fortune on military spending?

In this day and age? I'm sorry to tell you, but the Cold War is kaput.

When this country is facing an indefinite freeze on the recruitment of AGS Officers, and possibly even a further reduction in their wages, how do you suppose we'll swing it in the Dail to begin pouring Millions of Taxpayers Euros into the Defence budget? At the very least I expect TD's to raise an eyebrow at the idea.

Whilst it's okay for people to get all Jingoistic about Warfare and the Military and Ireland's place in that whole World, we honestly need to get our priorities straight here...

Nino Brown

Sound of Silence wrote: »

In this day and age? I'm sorry to tell you, but the Cold War is kaput.

When this country is facing an indefinite freeze on the recruitment of AGS Officers, and possibly even a further reduction in their wages, how do you suppose we'll swing it in the Dail to begin pouring Millions of Taxpayers Euros into the Defence budget? At the very least I expect TD's to raise an eyebrow at the idea.

Whilst it's okay for people to get all Jingoistic about Warfare and the Military and Ireland's place in that whole World, we honestly need to get our priorities straight here...

Yes that war is over, but I'm sorry to tell you that there will be more wars, and history shows us that countries we see as our allies now will be our enemies in the future.
Who says we have to spend millions? I agree that the country can't afford to spend huge amounts of cash right now, but nobody said they have to, we could just grant use of our airspace for a start.

Corkfeen

Aiyana Thankful Snapdragon wrote: »

We've already participated in Eufor, PfP, Sfor & Kfor missions and have personnel in Afghanistan as part of an ISAF mission.

We've done very well with peace enforcement missions in Somali, East Timor, Liberia, Chat & Lebanon [UNIFIL II].

Irish neutrality [LOOKS AROUND] WHERE? [/LOOKS AROUND].

From the little that I have read on Irish Neutrality, we fall into the category of a non-belligerent state rather than neutral because we have always chosen a side even if we had claimed not to. Probably a bit of an oversimplification. :pac:

Chuck Stone

Nino Brown wrote: »

Isn't it a bit hypocritical to be complaining about the military industrial complex and the West's addiction to oil and wars in the middle east.

So you're telling us NATO is all about controlling the resources of sovereign nations and redistributing wealth from tax-payers to war junkies and weapons manufacturers?

Sound of Silence

Nino Brown wrote: »

Yes that war is over, but I'm sorry to tell you that there will be more wars, and history shows us that countries we see as our allies now will be our enemies in the future.
Who says we have to spend millions? I agree that the country can't afford to spend huge amounts of cash right now, but nobody said they have to, we could just grant use of our airspace for a start.

Your initial point reeks of Cold War paranoia. There's no arms race here.

I could understand a Nation in the Middle-East opening it's airspace to Allied Forces as being something which would be even remotely useful.

Ireland opening it's airspace? Doesn't Irish airspace constitute a solitary block stretching into the Atlantic Ocean? Unless we're going to start bombing Atlantis, I fail to see the strategic benefits.

Chuck Stone

Nino Brown wrote: »

Who says we have to spend millions? I agree that the country can't afford to spend huge amounts of cash right now, but nobody said they have to, we could just grant use of our airspace for a start.

We haven't offered any significant strategic advantage since the ICBM and the long distance bomber.

If we discovered a few hundred billion euros worth of oil/gas I don't think people would stand in the way of an increased defensive security footing.