Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

And yet you have spent the weekend suggesting we should be buying Russian hardware?

You sensed my sarcasm…lol

Yep. People who have spent their working days sifting and deleting Twitter posts are ideally qualified to develop composite materials, weapons guidance systems, fly-by-wire controls and all the necessary avionics to produce a modern day jet fighter.

Why didn't we think of this before?

Are many, or indeed ANY, of the people laid off by the likes of Twitter and Facebook in Ireland in any way technical? I suspect most of them are "back-office" types. Accountants, clerks, possibly even ad salespeople.

And in any case: I think calling the likes of Facebook, Twitter, Airb'nb, Uber etc "Technology companies" is a misnomer. They are technology-enabled companies, not technology developers.

Criticizes those who want better defence as being armchair generals and then goes on and on about how we should let other nations protect us.. fantastic bit of military planning right there.

That's the laughable part for me :)

Or the ones that suggest instead of investing in defence in case of attack we all pretend it's 1920 and fight with a few rifles to sort out an attack, much more sensible than "wasting money on defence"!

Will it always be that way? I don't think that we need many but a few to at least show our presence to those coming into our airspace without permission and the ability to intercept a rogue airliner.

No one has suggested that Ireland should spend "billions" on "fighter jets", there are no such suggestions in the recent Defence Commission report either. You obviously haven't read any of the previous proposals regarding this issue nor the DC report for the financial costs.

As for potential rogue hijacked airliners / other aircraft refusing to communicate with Irish air traffic control, what do you suggest, let the British government / military make the decision instead, because their actions could potentially be fully against Irish interests. Ireland should be making the ultimate decision as it would affect Ireland. A sovereign nation state of Ireland's population & income in any other part of Europe has the exact same responsibility.

If you are happy with Britain continuing to defend Irish airspace carry on so. But don't claim to be pacifist, non aligned or neutral, in the next sentence.

Your last paragraph is totally naive, it is the duty of a sovereign nation to defend itself against all identified potential threats. If you don't want to spend much money actually doing this you could join a military alliance for less financial outlay such as Iceland has done. Being non aligned or neutral works out as more defence spending, that is if you actually want to defend the nation & pay for Ireland's overseas United Nations missions.

If you are a pacifist & don't believe Ireland should have any military / or advocate much reduced or very limited defence capability, why are you then suggesting that Ireland can rely on others, such as the USA, UK & EU partners, that should do it for free?

There are two arguments that tend to be made by people who believe Ireland should not have any significant defence capability.

1. That military capacity and military actions are morally unjustifiable and that Ireland should only have some kind of gendarmerie.
2. Ireland has few threats.
3. That Ireland has not the capacity to defend itself because it is too poor or too small.

The first point is, in one sense, true. Aggressive military actions are morally unjustifiable. The war in Ukraine is an example of a morally unjustifiable invasion. The US invasion of Iraq is another example. Defensive military actions are not immoral, however. The UK probably was morally justified in the Falklands, and I think only a small minority would sugest that the Ukraine has no right to resist the Russian invasion.

The second point, that Ireland has no threats, has been true for much of the 20th and early 21st centuries. The Irish Army was scaled back considerably in the 30s when the threat of war with the UK was no longer considered imminent. Also in the early 60s, when the cold war looked like it was unlikely to become hot, the Irish military was slashed its capacity to reflect this. Likewise in the post troubles period the Defence Forces were able to significantly scaled back. In between these periods, however, there were episodes of threat. The Army underwent an enormous expansion in the early 40s, in response to the threat of German (or rarely stated possible British) invasion. By 1942 the British Army were so impressed by the Irish army's buildup, that they considered Ireland to be at no risk of succumbing to any likely German invasion! A less significant military buildup occurred post-1969, when the troubles in the north caught Ireland by surprise. We are entering a new era however. There are credible threats on the horizon. The world is destabilising, not just Russia, our nearest neighbour has been going through an existential crisis. A breakup of the UK and even internal unrest, even conflict in Britain, is not impossible. Problems can spill over. Also in an international east-west conflict Ireland is a target, even as a neutral state. Ireland is a valuable hub for data, high value IT services, world class manufacturing. Simply put, Ireland is a very important cog in the western machine and if any wide scale European or world war broke out Ireland would be on any target list for a state actor. In fact, because of its relative lack of defence, Ireland may be an easy target, and as a non-NATO member, a small act of agression, such as destroying data cables for instance, may not occasion a NATO military response, but have a huge economic effect. A severing of Ireland's data cables would cost many years defence spending in repairs and lost revenue, jobs etc. And before anyone thinks that this is all targeted at Russia, Ireland has has had its data cables interfered with before, during the Brexit negotiations when the Irish Navy found that a device to intercept Irish diplomatic communications had been placed on a cable in the Irish sea. Irish military intelligence, quietly, believes a "five eyes" power to be responsible.

Likewise the air to the west of Ireland is regularly being flown through by foreign militaries. NATO forces usually let Irish ATC know of their passage through the Irish controlled region, but other forces, namely the VVS, do not. This is not just a military risk, but is a risk to air transport. These aircraft do not fly with transponders on, they do not follow air traffic controllers. They need to be detected and escorted as much for health and safety of air travel as much as anything else. Again these flights have only appeared skirting Ireland in the last few years. There was no risk of this 20 years ago.

Thirdly, The idea that Ireland is too small or too poor is utter nonsense. Ireland is in fact geographically lucky. It is relatively easy to defend, but it must have some credible defence. It does not need to be a great lion, because even a lion will not tackle a little hedgehog, it is just not worth the trouble. That is all Ireland has to achieve, becoe a hedgehog. With regard to the Air Corps, two squadrons of 4th Gen fighters, the three sets of pilots per plane, hangers, radars, over their life will only cost a few hundred million per annum, it is actually money well spent, and the good will from our neighbours , who will see Ireland stepping up to the plate, will be worth the investment. It would also give Ireland a credible air defence, they could be used in UN missions also (UN is increasingly wanting air forces), and be a diplomatic multiplier for Ireland's international posture.