If being an unaligned country with a large army is no deterrent to Putin's ambitions is it time for ROI to join Nato?
So you are NOT changing your opinion and that Russia had every right to 'Troll' European countries with their aggressive posturing.
You had an out Francie but alas, you are too stubborn to take it.
Supporting autocrats and dictators are your forte.
Woah Francie. With your talk of 'shutting up' one can't but help but see your censorious side coming out.
I'm clear as day on this, NATO membership should always be on the table for Ireland should it a. suit our security needs and b. as a moral imperative if EU member states are attacked, we should be there to defend the polity and order of Europe of which we are a part.
You won't shut me up on that point and good luck trying to get me to.
All for a citizens assembly Yurt. The people's decision holds no fears for me.
If the people decide we should join NATO, so be it, I am a democrat and will go with it.
Will you shut up if they decide we shouldn't?
I reckon we'll see more bemoaning of Citizen's Assemblies
What'll you do the morning the citizens assembly kicks off? Have a cold shower to wake you from your bad dream?
This is in train. It's happening.
You want the conversation shut down. That's not the democratic process. The world has changed and it will be thrashed out and spoken of.
Citizens Assembly?
Jesus wept
'Shook'? 😁
Yes, the people will have their say Yurt... that's the reason there is no Citizen's Assembly now, the people are speaking through the polling and the government are listening.
MM can swan around EU all he wants but the truth is the government do not have any real concerns here. Otherwise they'd have had the courage of their convictions if there was any real threat to us.
I can tell by the ROFLing that you're shook.
This will be thrashed out by a citizens assembly with the input of security, defence and political experts, not by ROFLing ideolouges.
The outcome will be the outcome. And if there is a referendum to flow from it, the people will have their say.
It's democracy, relax.
Neutrality is policy, not a stone tablet retrieved by Moses from a mountaintop.
ROFL, and joining a military alliance is not an ideological doctrine? You are signing up to a stricter black and white/good or bad ideological doctrine that is more restrictive than the doctrine of neutrality FFS
Neutrality allows us the freedom to step back from conflicts/wars we want nothing to do with or ideologically oppose.
Had a look at Twitter. A lot of the usual suspects doing their nut in with all this.
The conversation should not be shouted down. Of all topics, a citizens assembly is the best forum to thrash this out in a mature and clear-eyed manner.
At the heart of this will be what's best for Ireland, not what's best for certain political parties' ideological doctrine.
With Martin in Madrid last night, the ground has been set for a for a citizens assembly on Irish neutrality, and a possible referendum as an outcome from that dependant on its recommendations.
The conversation is underway now. Neutrality is not some sacred cow. It will be thrashed out and discussed.
Ireland needs to do what's best for our security leaving aside woolly ideological doctrine and at the very least needs to stop being a security sponger.
The scenarios dreamt up by these people would not look out of place in a Bruce Willis film. Or maybe a Mike Myers one.
The argument for joining NATO, or spending billions on military hardware, because of a minor potential threat from an unidentified hostile actor trying to disrupt Irish sections of an under sea cable is equivalent to saying that its necessary to have 24 hour manned protection of the entire rail network. Or the electricity network, or anything else you care to think of.
You can't defend against sabotage to your rail network, or electricity network, by spending millions on fancy tanks or jet fighters, or submarines to protect your undersea cables. You just have to hope for the best, and be good at fixing it.
Spending money on military hardware, or joining NATO, is a futile way to try to protect infrastructure like that. All it does is make you convince some people that you are doing something, but all you are doing is funding the arms industry.
Developing intelligence so that you can notice plans for such attacks and try to prevent them is all you can do, but even then you are on a loosing battle as you need to be successful all the time, anyone trying to sabotage you just needs to get lucky once.
So you believe that the US has dedicated submarines, drones and surface ships just for guarding their section of some transatlantic cables? They consider it that vital, it obviously is vital, that they police it so extensively that nobody could get through to attack it... But then they leave thousands of miles outside of their waters exposed to anyone who wants to have a go?
I suspect that the main defence is that its damn hard to attack, and really not worth the effort as there are multiple options to reroute traffic and unless you hit all cables at the same time its really just a minor inconvenience for a bit until they repair it.
The difference between Nato being pissed as you say and actually doing something about it in none Nato waters is the Issue. It's a hard attack but in a soft area. Nato cannot police the Irish coastal ara fishing zones or air space. They would have to be invited in. And As we are Neutral never going to happen apparently. The Uk policing Irish airspace IIRC is a un written agreement. I.E the Irish Government will not complain. The USA Navy already has infrastructure ships, underwater drones, subs I could go on. And even with all that their current budget is what $180.5 billion. So yes the USA will be fine on their end. Where was Nato when the Russian fleet arrived ? or are Cork fishermen part of Nato.
What is the difference between the end of a cable in NATO territory to the end which isn't? It's the same thing for the entire length of the cable, providing the same purpose. Why wouldn't NATO be just as pissed off whichever end was attacked, the result is the same either way in that the cable is taken out of action.
What defence does the might of the US have though against exactly the same small scale attack? They could detect it happening just as much as Ireland could.
You still need to back up where I supported Russia. Criticism of the US and NATO is not support for Russia or any of their other current adversaries.
Difference with Iraq the general populous welcomed the coalition. Ukraine they did not welcome the Russians.
Badly worded Question Ireland is not Neutral and never has been.
You are turning into a clear pane of glass at this stage. Caught with your pants down on your support for Russia which has been well documented by other posters here. I would advise gradually moving backwards on this one.
Hybrid warfare are attacks which fall short of military provocation. So it is not warships you will be facing more likely a couple of ribs launched from a fishing boat. Ireland has no capability to even detect they are there far less do anything about them. Simple, low cost with high impact.
In terms of what attack is more likely - well you would go for wherever you are at your weakest.
Tonight's last lesson should be about opinion polls.
Nope. I said the US had been engaging in geopolitical game playing for decades and that NATO had escalated tensions in the region, Russia were doing the same.
Russia are to blame for invading Ukraine, America and UK for Iraq, etc etc, Two sides with vested interests in keeping war and conflict going. I want no part of that for me or those who come after me.
Few lads on here wanting us full-blown NATO members, fanciful thinking
Were not in Nato so how would cutting them be an attack on Nato. If they cut the intercontinental cable from Mauritania to Portugal on the Mauritania end that would not be an attack on Nato. And USA I wager the military with it's budget and navy would have an idea any tampering on their end.
And what meaningful way of protecting them do you have? Do you think that the US could prevent them being cut on their end if someone was minded to do so?
Yes, there is the threat of it being considered a direct attack on NATO waters at that end, but why wouldn't the cables being cut at any other point also be considered the same type of attack?
You blamed the US and NATO for the Russians invading Ukraine, just like Sinn Fein did.
Yeah we should not worry about the Intercontinental Internet cables. Who ever cuts them are going to do it in our waters it's that simple. Why would you risk deep sea vs off shore of Ireland. I mean do we even have sonar or other detection methods for this.
Who is Ireland vulnerable to attack from and how are they going to carry out that attack and sustain any invasion for example?
What cost do you think is actually needed to provide a useful military defence?
Is any other military actually going to bother themselves with the hassle of sailing around and through NATO waters and airspace to take out a wind turbine, or are they more likely to stay in their basement at home and launch some remote cyber attack?
Which scenario do you think is more likely to happen, and which is Ireland more likely to be able to defend itself against with relatively quick investments?
Ok so spending money on protecting IT infrastructure that for example controls energy infrastructure is sensible but spending money on military hardware that for example is protecting emerging energy infrastructure (offshore wind turbines) is far less sensible. Seems a bit myopic to me.
