Should Ireland join NATO?

dere34

Should Ireland join NATO in the event of a united Ireland? I believe we should for the following reasons:

1. Ireland is not neutral and that is a fact.
2. The DF needs a boost. We need equipment investment, tanks for the Army, frigates for the Navy, fighter jets for the Air Force. Committing to 2% is necessary for this.
3. In the event of a loyalist insurgency we should obliterate the UVF and UDA, no 30 year prolonged conflict.
4. Scotland will join NATO when they become independent. If they join why shouldn't we? We are equally strategic.

krissovo

There is no real need, we add zero value to NATO and given our strategic location the US and the UK would intervene against any 3 party.

We add more value to the world being non aligned.

CalamariFritti

Also there is that thing where you're supposed to spend at least 2% of your GDP on army stuff. No thanks.

krissovo

dere34 wrote: »

Should Ireland join NATO in the event of a united Ireland? I believe we should for the following reasons:


2. The DF needs a boost. We need equipment investment, tanks for the Army, frigates for the Navy, fighter jets for the Air Force. Committing to 2% is necessary for this.

The DF needs a boost but its not fire power we need.

1 squadron of tanks say leopard 2 would cost ~1.2/1.5 billion euro once you add spares and re-training, that would only provide up to 3 lightly armoured mechanised battle groups. Its a total waste of money for no tangible value.

We should join, if it means the other NATO nations cover us but 2% is more than we can justify.

By all means provide better than we currently have, throw a decent salary increase in while your at it.

Gatling

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

We should join, if it means the other NATO nations cover us but 2% is more than we can justify.

By all means provide better than we currently have, throw a decent salary increase in while your at it.

Currently spending is at between 0.2 -03 % spending of GDP were down with Caribbean islands spending wise ,

The same with the vaulted EU army sign up if it gets our defence forces access to better equipment and payments

Eduard Khil

No other than offering strategic refuelling ports and a large runway at Shannon there is no benefit to Ireland and in the event of a war breaking out those sites would be open to attack we are on the books neutral with covert benefits open if we can gain from them but to open the country for any and all NATO forces no that would be irresponsible.

Gatling

Eduard Khil wrote: »

we are on the books neutral with covert benefits .

Why do people think neutral means anything in this day and age .

Quantum Erasure

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Also there is that thing where you're supposed to spend at least 2% of your GDP on army stuff. No thanks.

Loadsa tanks

jaxxx

Sure aren't we supposed to be getting jets like??

mikeym

Iceland doesnt even have an Army and is a member of NATO.

Manach

No. Military action overseas should only be allowed under the remit of the United Nations. NATO has in the past acted unilaterly, ignoring the lack of a Security Council mandate. Hence Ireland should not be tied to an orgnaisation that does not reflect the best of International norms.

Psychlops

Eduard Khil wrote: »

No other than offering strategic refuelling ports and a large runway at Shannon there is no benefit to Ireland and in the event of a war breaking out those sites would be open to attack we are on the books neutral with covert benefits open if we can gain from them but to open the country for any and all NATO forces no that would be irresponsible.

Yo do know that any Military does not give a flying fcuk if you are Neutral or not. Besides, Ireland is non-aligned, the word neutral is used by politicians here as they dont know any other word to use, in order to be effectively neutral you actually need to be able to defend yourself from both sides like Switzerland.

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

Currently spending is at between 0.2 -03 % spending of GDP were down with Caribbean islands spending wise ,

The same with the vaulted EU army sign up if it gets our defence forces access to better equipment and payments

To an extent though.

Ultimately, and I mean no disrespect to the df, they don't need fancy tanks. They need transport and modern personal equipment.

The air Corp can't justify anything so Grand as a 30 million interceptor and it's associated costs.

I dunno if the navy needs a bigger fleet or more extensive supports. They do need manpower though

Signore Fancy Pants

A full member of NATO?

No thanks, we as a nation simply couldnt afford it tbh.

Gatling

Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »

A full member of NATO?

No thanks, we as a nation simply couldnt afford it tbh.

But yet other countries with similar GDP and population sizes can ,and still have a Very good health care system , housing and have multiple squadrons of aircraft ,both fixed and rotary and decent naval forces ,

I remember one year the whole defence forces budget was 800 million which half went on pensions ,
400 million to defend a modern eu country is pathetic is this day and age

TheValeyard

No.

We dont need to join the international d1ck swinging clubs.

Let's keep to our peace keeping duties through the UN and keep our neutral/non-aligned status. It's good for business, good for prosperity, good for international relationships, good for travel.

Signore Fancy Pants

Gatling wrote: »

But yet other countries with similar GDP and population sizes can ,and still have a Very good health care system , housing and have multiple squadrons of aircraft ,both fixed and rotary and decent naval forces ,

I remember one year the whole defence forces budget was 800 million which half went on pensions ,
400 million to defend a modern eu country is pathetic is this day and age

Yeah I completely agree. However, there is absolutely zero will in this current, previous or future governments to become a NATO member. The bottom line is that we are partners of NATO programmes.

"Defence" is a dirty word in the eyes of the Irish populace. Its something that people generally see as a waste of money. They would rather see career dole merchants like Anto and Jacinta have their weekly free money in a generous welfare system.

The defence budget is bad enough as it is and the Defence Forces has been in a steady decline for over a decade. As an Organisation it is barely holding its head above water, becoming a full NATO member and all it entails is so far away from discussion while other issues exist.

biko

It will probably mean military US presence on Irish soil, so no.

ExMachina1000

Ireland is essentially a landing strip and fuelling stop for the Us military. That's as far as our role goes.

Zebra3

Gatling wrote: »

400 million to defend a modern eu country is pathetic is this day and age

Defend from who exactly?

Have I missed something?

Just who is planning to invade us?

Nobody.

Defence? Like taking part in war crimes against innocent Serbian civilians? Don't think we need to get up to our necks in blood just because the Americans and Brits love to.

Manach

Manach wrote: »

No. Military action overseas should only be allowed under the remit of the United Nations. NATO has in the past acted unilaterly, ignoring the lack of a Security Council mandate. Hence Ireland should not be tied to an orgnaisation that does not reflect the best of International norms.

When?

dere34

Zebra3 wrote: »

Defend from who exactly?

Have I missed something?

Just who is planning to invade us?

Nobody.

Defence? Like taking part in war crimes against innocent Serbian civilians? Don't think we need to get up to our necks in blood just because the Americans and Brits love to.

Loyalist insurgency in a united Ireland.

ronivek

dere34 wrote: »

Loyalist insurgency in a united Ireland.

Because navy destroyers and fighter jets will help with a ‘loyalist insurgency’? The same way the British were able to leverage their Navy and Air Force against the IRA?

Richard Hillman

Smaller Eastern European counties join NATO to protect from Russia or Serbia.

Who do we need protection from? Iceland?

Gatling

Zebra3 wrote: »

Have I missed something

Don't think we need to get up to our necks in blood just because the Americans and Brits love to.

Isreal you missed Israel can't have a z-rant without Isreal being mentioned .

Sure in every major war fought across Europe over the last few hundred year's and further afield there was always Irish men and women involved.

Might as well make it official -

Zebra3

Gatling wrote: »

Isreal you missed Israel can't have a z-rant without Isreal being mentioned .

Sure in every major war fought across Europe over the last few hundred year's and further afield there was always Irish men and women involved.

Might as well make it official -

Avoided the question, no surprise there.

Just cos idiots went to fight for empires abroad doesn't mean the Irish state should.

And we're talking about NATO, so no idea why you're going on about Israel.

Gatling

Zebra3 wrote: »

Just cos idiots went to fight for empires abroad doesn't mean the Irish state should.

I'd call them brave men and women -


It's the reason why people and can rant and rave on the oul interweb because others have fallen to defend freedoms .

biko

biko wrote: »

It will probably mean military US presence on Irish soil, so no.

Yep, that's never happened before

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

But yet other countries with similar GDP and population sizes can ,and still have a Very good health care system , housing and have multiple squadrons of aircraft ,both fixed and rotary and decent naval forces ,

I remember one year the whole defence forces budget was 800 million which half went on pensions ,
400 million to defend a modern eu country is pathetic is this day and age

If other countries put their hand in the fire, would you?

Seriously though, what they do isn't in play. It's what we require from a military standpoint. We don't require 2% being spent on defence. We simple don't.

sandbelter

Looking back: No need Ireland has been on the geopolitical sidelines since the UK developed the UK-Iceland-Greenland gap strategy (which ten became NATO strategy) since 1940, additionally Ireland favors rules based dispute resolution and multilateralism over unilateralism.

Looking forward: Not as clear cut, We are only at the beginning of China's rise. But two trend are apparent already, First we starting to see a strong strategic emphasis of quarantining of key supply chains within alliance blocks (separated payments systems are an early example) ..so we could start seeing high tech investment being directed away from Ireland, Second China itself is overturning the very rules based order that is the bedrock of Irish neutrality and it may very well be Ireland's Atlantic EEZ that decides it.

For this reason I think what happens to Greece and Cyprus with the current drilling dispute with Turkey inside the EEZ needs to be watched closely. To a large extent what happens to resolve this will give Ireland good idea what's the best course of action.

A lot of the issues are directly relevant to Ireland as small country with potentially transformative mineral resources within it's EEZ.

Normal One

dere34 wrote: »

3. In the event of a loyalist insurgency we should obliterate the UVF and UDA, no 30 year prolonged conflict.

How will that work? What do you propose "we" do, in order to wipe out thousands of our own citizens, in a legal manner? That didn't work out very well for the brits, did it?

Irish_peppa

Could we ask for a 12 month trial membership and see how it worked out?

Timberrrrrrrr

dere34 wrote: »

Should Ireland join NATO in the event of a united Ireland? I believe we should for the following reasons:

1. Ireland is not neutral and that is a fact.
2. The DF needs a boost. We need equipment investment, tanks for the Army, frigates for the Navy, fighter jets for the Air Force. Committing to 2% is necessary for this.
3[b[. In the event of a loyalist insurgency we should obliterate the UVF and UDA,[/b] no 30 year prolonged conflict.
4. Scotland will join NATO when they become independent. If they join why shouldn't we? We are equally strategic.

How does this happen? If it's United ireland then why would NATO get involved with an internal struggle, they wouldn't take sides

Edgware

ronivek wrote: »

Because navy destroyers and fighter jets will help with a ‘loyalist insurgency’? The same way the British were able to leverage their Navy and Air Force against the IRA?

You do realise that the North Antrim Brigade U.V.F. have several heavily armed canoes hidden in a secret base off Rathlin Island.

dere34

dere34 wrote: »

Should Ireland join NATO in the event of a united Ireland? I believe we should for the following reasons:

1. Ireland is not neutral and that is a fact.
2. The DF needs a boost. We need equipment investment, tanks for the Army, frigates for the Navy, fighter jets for the Air Force. Committing to 2% is necessary for this.
3. In the event of a loyalist insurgency we should obliterate the UVF and UDA, no 30 year prolonged conflict.
4. Scotland will join NATO when they become independent. If they join why shouldn't we? We are equally strategic.

Points 1, 2 and 4 are defendable. Point 3 is the reason this thread is in Current Affairs and not Politics - previously it'd have belonged in the fun house that is AHs.

Ireland would offer very little to NATO. 2% of Ireland's MN inflated GDP would not offer much. In reality it would mean NATO troops/assets in Ireland (over here taking our women ).

However, it is slightly embarrassing relying solely on the UK to defend us considering our history. The Soviets Russia would definitely have an invasion plan drawn up for Ireland, possibly the UK also because of the likely Russian plan in the event of a non nuclear WW3 (or for as long as it remained non nuclear).

I also agree that us declaring neutrality is totally irrelevant in the event of a war and one side thought invading Ireland had strategic advantage. Totally.

However, I'd be on the side of staying out of NATO currently, but I'd not rule it out in the future.

Dravokivich

Aegir wrote: »

When?

Iraq and Afghanistan was NATO led without UN endorsement, wasn't it?

Dravokivich

Dravokivich wrote: »

Iraq and Afghanistan was NATO led without UN endorsement, wasn't it?

Iraq wasn’t NATO and Afghanistan was a UN mission.

Dravokivich

Aegir wrote: »

Iraq wasn’t NATO and Afghanistan was a UN mission.

Fair enough, I just recall the UN being against them and the US pulling a lot of weight to get both going.

Dravokivich

Dravokivich wrote: »

Fair enough, I just recall the UN being against them and the US pulling a lot of weight to get both going.

The UN was never against the intervention in Afghanistan. ISAF was created by a UN Security Council resolution after a request from the Afghan government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1386

Iraq, well that was different, but was not a NATO mission, but there were several NATO countries involved.

Zebra3

Gatling wrote: »

I'd call them brave men and women -


It's the reason why people and can rant and rave on the oul interweb because others have fallen to defend freedoms .

Of course you'd call them heroes. Gob****es giving up their lives in trenches and at Gallipoli for an unelected king.

Working class people going off to kill other working class people so empires can occupy other lands with their supremacist way of life. No surprise there.

Still waiting for you to tell us all why Irish taxpayers' money should be spent on stuff to "defend" Ireland.

Who is going to invade us?

The bogeyman?

Godzilla?

Rebel_Kn1ght

Aegir wrote: »

When?

NATO bombing of Belgrade?

Gatling

Zebra3 wrote: »

Of course you'd call them heroes.

Yes .

ExMachina1000

We have enough quangos of our own without joining some international ones

Aegir

Aegir wrote: »

Iraq wasn’t NATO and Afghanistan was a UN mission.

No, both were US invasions and then handed over to the respective organisations. The UN opposed both

Niner leprauchan

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

No, both were US invasions and then handed over to the respective organisations. The UN opposed both

You know there is a difference between NATO and the US don’t you?

brucky

If we did join NATO we may be precluded from expressing our true voice. Such as the letter of condolence we set on the death of Adolf Hitler. We must maintain our independence to become involved in international affairs as we see fit. The pen is mightier than the sword etc.

Zebra3

Gatling wrote: »

Yes .

Still waiting for you to tell us all who is likely to invade us.

statesaver

No. We should increase our funding for the Naval Service.

Gatling

Zebra3 wrote: »

Still waiting for you to tell us all who is likely to invade us.

Any number of countries have the capability to invade us not as if we have anything to stop then,

Bar a few keywords protesting war crimes ,war crimes ,

Would you ever come out from mother's skirt while we shoot ya but we're neural! But we're not bitch

Rebel_Kn1ght

Rebel_Kn1ght wrote: »

NATO bombing of Belgrade?

You’re right. I had presumed that was with UN backing, but it seems the Chinese and Russians threatened to veto it.