If being an unaligned country with a large army is no deterrent to Putin's ambitions is it time for ROI to join Nato?
Never joining. Enjoy.
No
Affiliation with The Donald (potentially), and an unstable America which is never not at war, and which ignores the UN.
Affiliation with Erdogan, and an unstable Turkey which is guided by conservative Islamic influence.
Affiliation with the Tories/DUP/UVF and a country which has time and again fuked this island over.
The virtual impossibility of Russia to surprise attack us in any significant sized manner.
The lack of any reward/motive for Russia to attack us in a manner which threatens our national sovereignty.
The ability of Russia to cut cables virtually anywhere in the Atlantic.
The high probability of help from other EU countries.
Russia's rather more pressing pre-occupation with getting battered in Ukraine.
The loss of our position as a militarily neutral voice for peace in the world.
Our relative inability to do anything which enhances nato in any case.
The inevitable demand for a referendum by the public if the issue of joining nato is ever a real political prospect.
The division which joining nato would cause within the country.
The likely exit from nato which would happen if SF get into power.
The cost to the budget of increasing defense resources to nato level, in a country with many other more pressing issues.
The increased odds of a terror attack from whichever Islamic country nato is now/has been/will be fuking over in the past/present/future.
No other than rants about the Tories and a few others ,
Yes it does.
I have provided everything valid.
No it doesn't,
You haven't provided anything valid
Spending in €/capita gives a better indication of what we are actually doing though. It’s far too low but it’s not as tiny as it looks.
Also our spend during the 1980s as a % of GDP reflected low GDP.
Yes, it matters.
Advanced primary radar , aircraft, vehicles, Naval vessels, heavy lift aircraft, intelligence and surveillance,drones
Plenty that could be bought,if only we spent more than the current 0.26 %
I realise we aren’t spending much on defence but if we used 2.5% of GDP as a figure that would be $14.45 billion which we couldn’t even find anything to spend on!
Our GDP figures are fairly meaningless
Does it matter,
Just like the new Nordic combined airforce operations ,not Nato and Not EU
You haven't really any argument
So 9 years of incursions before they considered nato?
Sounds a bit corelation is not causationy to me.
You're very unfamiliar with the many incursions into Sweden and Finland, by Russia, which increased from 2014 onwards...
I wonder what that coincided with.
The Gotland thing was in 2019, Sweden didnt join til 2023.
Nothing negative happened to Gotland island in the meantime.
Also worth noting that a founder member of nato (Denmark) finally joined EU common security, citing Ukraine, ... so it would appear that a nato founder considers csdp to be worth a great deal more than fk all.
Sweden with one of the best militaries in the world, along side it's homegrown military industry,and yet they joined Nato,
Imagine that
"Crap about Sweden"
And yet Sweden with 200 years of neutrality is abandoning it in favour of NATO.
I'd wager the policy makers of Sweden rather appreciate the viable threat to their sovereignity posed by Russia than you, and also understand that "assistance" in EU treaties means the square root of f*ckall.
Whats this crap about Sweden. A country a great deal closer to Russia than we are. Sweden could of course call for EU assistance if attacked, and always receive it. Even a non-EU member (Ukraine) has received abundant EU assistance.
Russia made gestures towards Gotland. Sweden bumped up defenses. And being that even a modest sea distance makes invasion 1000 times harder, Russia backed off. How much more the case for Ireland, some 6000kms away. Theres no direct route (bar round the barents). Theres no blitzkrieg, as such a move would stick out like a sore thumb, giving Ireland plenty of time to tool up. I doubt they can invade. And even if they did succeed, then UK would just invade the by then weakened invader. So why bother, lost cause.
And Russia can cut cables pretty much anywhere, so us joining nato doesnt change much there.
I don't think Ireland will be invaded either anytime soon... my points on the amphibious force were with regards to people arguing that you can covertly creep up on a nation... when the simple fact is, you could blatantly rock up to Ireland and there's not a lot that can be done, until boots hit the shore.....much like was the situation with Sweden and Gotland.
But, being the only country outside of NATO in western Europe, with an under equipped and un-motivated defence force, with access to NATO's rear in Europe and access to the Atlantic with plenty of international water to navigate to northern Russia, and now various countries in South America and Africa, Ireland becomes an attractive asset to Russia (or China for that matter).
While it's not trade routes, Ireland's technological presence in the world and proximity to various internet and power connectors (not only supplying Ireland),make it a huge target, a bit like a digital Djibouti. While I'm sure there are numerous agreements in place on the side, I think it's only prudent for Ireland to secure it's boarders, not only in a physical sense, but digitally and infrastructurally, and we need all the support we can get in doing so... i.e. joining NATO.
Except Russia encounters almost every single NATO country coming to Ireland. They need to use their waters and pass incredibly close to their land to come anywhere near Ireland, all of which would be blocked to military vessels much as the Bosporus has been.
Russia is also not on random land grabs, they have plenty of land. The reasons are much more historically based (ultimately stupid, but still with some basis in history).
I am open to joining NATO in a general sense of joining the "western order" along with many of our allies. But its not necessary to stop Ireland being invaded and claiming so is overegging things.
You're basing that assumption on current threats.. threats change...
For me, the only stop westwards from Russia without encountering a NATO country is, Ireland and Malta. Which makes a discussion to join a very pertinent topic in the eyes of future defence. The "sure what do we have that Russia wants" argument doesn't fly anymore when a country is on a landgrab.
Maybe don't waste your time
The RAF had to scramble typhoons as Russian bomber/s headed towards our airspace and the North today ,
Tories sending jets to Ireland again😂😂😂
This thread is too long a d retarded to catch up on. Are people here really saying ireland should be in nato?
Perhaps, but my point is not that it doesn't happen at the moment. Its that it will continue to happen.
I've mentioned it before, but Russia unleashed a chemical weapons attack on NATO soil. They have been emboldened (and one hopes that is coming to an end) and happily commit whatever transgressions they want in Europe and being a member of NATO hasn't stopped them from doing so to anyone. Obviously being a member of NATO would have stopped them invading Ukraine, but that is not the risk we are talking about us facing.
I'm all aboard with us having better capabilities for surveillance. I just think there is a habit of over-emphasising the deterrent effect of being a NATO member.
Sweden were told before they asked, this was iterated a number of times after the sub incident off Stockholm in 2014 onwards...
You're also missing the point of where Sweden at least had that capability to increase land and anti sub warfare without input from outside...must be nice to be able to do that independently.
You're also missing the point that you don't have to hide if no one is going to do anything about it initially..
I think you're underestimating the amount of skulduggery that is happening already, that Ireland is powerless against and get snippets of updates if there happens to be a NATO monitoring mission on said assets, or from whatever the CASA or PC-12's pick up.
Kuznetov had every right to transit the Channel.... it was also one of the most monitored events through the English channel that year... if it stopped over national infrastructure you can be guarantee it would be investigated closely... in fact, the carrier and all support vessels were advised to move quickly and in unison through the Dover straights, which meant support vessels and the ocean going tug had to take shelter off the coast of France while the carrier caught up, they had a NATO vessel monitoring them 24 hours within a few hundred yards.
Yes I recall something about that. As far as I remember Sweden didnt ask the EU for any help. They just strengthened their forces on the island. Which is a short hop from Russia/kaliningrad. That body of water and that short distance making it exceptionally difficult for Russia.
Anyhoo. Defending Ireland is the another topic.
I was merely pointing out that moving a group of ships from Russia to Ireland un-noticed is virtually impossible these days.
A fact which brought much digression, and caused one user (who shall remain un-named) to do a poo.
But even if we had the capability we probably also wouldn't do that because we're not a rogue state. The Admiral Kuznetsov was allowed sail completely unperturbed through the English Channel! Though you could argue that whole affair damaged Russian interests given how much of a jokeshop it was.
It goes without saying the Russian navy also wouldn't do that to a significant foreign military convoy.
I think people are overestimating exactly what types of Russian skulduggery would be deterred by NATO membership.
Russian intelligence run a host of trawlers which like to get involved when civilian ships get too close to sensitive Russian sites.. upping the ante is boarding by Russian Navy to "search" ships under the guise of territorial protection, or drugs/weapons shipment searches (which they're technically allowed to do might I add).... upping from that, there has been reports of threats to people and boats....
General harassment which they wouldn't get in kind around Ireland... general harassment which goes a long way in dissuading negative interest, which we don't have a capability of doing.
What would this "frostier response" entail?
The response would be surveillance. That is it. Should we have greater surveillance abilities? Yeah, probably.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1aba361f5b77a8017be035a0d4fc285.svg)
