Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

1156157159161162193

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,175 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    They still have a strong navy which is what matters and they have been mapping critical infrastructure throughout Europe and I heard on the radio (RTE Radio 1) a commentator saying its believed Russia has been mining infrastructure across Europe. Ireland is the gap in the Western defences and an obvious "back door". I'm glad the absurd "Triple Lock", that prevented us even evacuating our own citizens from Sudan recently looks like it might go. Reports today that SF and the Greens are now looking at changing it, in the Greens case replacing the requirement for it to be an UN mission to a mission of an international organisation. Its absurd to give a hostile state like Russia a veto on our foreign policy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 93 ✭✭RavenP


    @delusiondestroyer

    Ha Ha Ha,

    If you think that anyone "requires" the UK to do anything you have shown you have little grasp on what is happening out there. How anyone after Brexit could think that the UK is "required" to do anything....The UK left the EU, a sysemic change, it could decide to leave NATO just as easily. If the UK has demonstrated one thing, it can leave whatever it wants. It could even, if it wasnts stay in NATO and get rid of its airforce. It actually considered doing this in the 60s, in the belief (premature) that AA missiles would make airpower ineffective.

    And you mention threats to the UK. Who are those threats? Can you be specific? The UK is sandwiched at the edge of Europe, protected by Germany and France to one side, America to the other? A very safe part of the world. As you yourself have said Russia is a paper Tiger, who else has an airforce that can attack the UK that is not already its ally? If you cannot tell me a credible, clear and present danger to the UK that means it needs an airforce then I am going to have to put it to you that the "paper tiger" may not be Russia, but you!

    And if you are going to paraphrase my arguments in your misfired missive, at least get me right!!! You say I have been, "ranting and raving for fighter jets for pages now". If you actually read before firing off, you will notice I am actually sceptical of Ireland's need for jet fighters, but you are all rhetoric, obfuscation, no grasp of detail, so I am not surprised.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,751 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    Having a few fighters in this day and age for defence and monitoring our seas and airways is hardly a big ask. It makes sense to anyone who believes in an independent Ireland. Even more than having more ships.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 475 ✭✭delusiondestroyer


    Another 3 paragraphs no examples just another strawman...why am I not surprised...

    Allow me to show you how its done.

    Russia is a direct and credible threat to the UK as the UK is part of NATO and a big player in the Ukrainian defence from training there troops to sending them massive amount of military hardware and ordinance to kill Russian soldiers with...they are essentially fighting a proxy war under the guise of aiding a state defending itself.

    In the event of a conflict breaking out the UK will be expected to go to war if NATO article 5 is triggered.

    I am glad you finally learned abit from what i was saying about geographical safety, just as Ireland is safe as houses between the UK and US the UK would indeed be a nightmare to invade nigh on impossible because of where it is.

    Contrast this with Ireland then a neutral country in no alliances, a non factor military and is of no strategic or resource value an attack on Ireland would simply be a waste of resources. In short will never happen.

    As i said all your fancy words amount to nothing as they aren't rooted in logic or reality just dressed up strawmen.

    Anyways my assessment is correct and is backed up by the fact that there will be very little meaningful money spent on our military thank god common sense prevails.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,032 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    "Contrast this with Ireland then a neutral country in no alliances, a non factor military and is of no strategic or resource value an attack on Ireland would simply be a waste of resources. In short will never happen."

    Neutrality does not have a track record of actually being respected if the nations in question don't seem to care very much about it, plus there is a minor matter that under the laws of war, neutral countries must have a method of enforcing their neutrality, else the belligerent powers have the authority to violate that neutrality. It's the reason for the emergency purchase of MTBs at the start of the Emergency: If the Naval Service couldn't keep one side out of Irish waters, even nominally, the other side would. The saving grace is that as opposed to, say, Belgium, a full overrunning of the country is not likely (nor required). Which at least means that such a repelling is much more attainable as a practical matter.

    If I may quote the ICRC on the matter: "the neutral State must also take measures to ensure and enforce the protection of its neutrality in the neutral space for which it is responsible in relation to the belligerent parties and in particular their armed forces [...] the neutral State must ensure respect for its neutrality, if necessary using force to repel any violation of its territory. [...]It is generally accepted that if belligerent forces enter neutral territory and the neutral authority is unable or unwilling to expel or intern them, the adverse party is entitled to undertake their hot pursuit and attack them there. It may even seek compensation from the neutral State for this breach of neutrality"

    In other words, under the current environment, Ireland lacks the capability to meet its requirements to remain neutral under the extant legal framework.

    I am astounded that you may say that Ireland has no "strategic or resource value", given its position alongside the lines of communication between North America and Europe.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 475 ✭✭delusiondestroyer


    I don't think you actually understand these communication lines you keep referencing and how impractical it would be to destroy them. Its astounding that you don't realize the consequence's of such an attack as well, you must think the US and UK will be just licking windows while this is going on...

    Its not hard to understand that invading Ireland is a death sentence as the UK and US would destroy any invader if for nothing else their own interests. If you want to dispute this please give reasons as to why the UK and US would stand idle while a hostile power occupies Ireland. It simply wouldn't be allowed to happen. But if for some outlandishly ridiculous reason it was let happen the DF wouldn't be able to stop a determined aggressor anyway and the investment was a waste to begin with.

    The only ones that think Ireland is under any serious threat of attack or of any great significance in the global picture are the people on this thread and other outlier's.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 475 ✭✭delusiondestroyer


    Read that it quickly dispels the myths around cutting cables, you seem to have the idea that they snip a cable and bam internet gone... its no the case.

    "That means Russia snipping a handful of cables in the Atlantic, where its submarines have been spotted, would disturb the global internet very little. In fact, even if it ruptured every single cable in the Atlantic Ocean, traffic could still be re-routed the other way, across the Pacific."


    So yes I stand by my statement Ireland is of very little strategic or resource value on its own to any attacker and would be a waste of resources.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,032 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    In 1949, the US pushed very hard for Iceland to become a member of NATO, not a position universally shared by other countries which didn't see much benefit to inviting in a country which had no military and which would, in effect, become an additional burden upon them to protect. The reason is location, location, location.

    NATO is dependent upon the the lines of communication from North America to fulfil its task in Europe, just as the wars in Europe have been dependent upon them for over a century. This is evident even today as Ukraine is dependent on those same lines of communication, and Ireland's in a perfect position from which to interdict them. A group of submarines waiting for a convoy to engage will find Irish territorial waters a very suitable staging area: There's nothing Ireland has which can do anything about them, and if Ireland won't do anything about them, NATO will. At least Ireland would be neutrally ineffective against both. At least air operations would be visible, you just end up with battles over and on Ireland as the fight to interdict the lines of communication goes on. It's worth noting that, Iceland, though neutral, was also invaded and occupied by the UK (and later US) because of that same reasoning. We don't like to talk about it much, the good guys violating neutrality and all that, but it's a reality. Ireland is at the gateway to the North Atlantic, which is kindof a key feature of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,363 ✭✭✭roadmaster




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 93 ✭✭RavenP


    @delusiondestroyer You see, DD, the problem with your arguments is you forget the **** you post!

    This morning you suggested that thee UK needed an airforce (unlike Ireland) because,

    “Russia is a direct and credible threat to the UK (my highlights) as the UK is part of NATO and a big player in the Ukrainian defence from training there troops to sending them massive amount of military hardware and ordinance to kill Russian soldiers with...they are essentially fighting a proxy war under the guise of aiding a state defending itself”

    Now I happen to, broadly ,agree with that. But it is strangely at odds with your earlier statementts about Russia, which you previously have suggested is no threat to anyone.

    Can I remind you of your previous comments when you were suggesting Russia was no threat to Ireland.

    On 19-05-23 4:12 pm you said, “i think Russia has ran its race in the Ukraine and looking for an off ramp, they cant (sic) deal with what they currently have on there (sic) plate without attacking an (sic) NATO nation. As there (sic) power projection is pathetic (they would be mauled)”.

    Then on 21-05-23 at 9:55 am you state, “ You talk as if there is a 2nd cold war coming which is not the case and never will be..Russia is collapsing in everyway (sic) possible from population to military”.

    How can this “pathetic” force be a threat to Britain, a nation which you have earlier eulogized for its air power? You see, DD, it is thought that the sign of a good debater is the ability to argue both sides of an argument in different debates, but the sign of a **** debater when they try and argue both sides of the argument in the same debate.

    I will hesitate to use therm "checkmate" that you used earlier, if only because I must suppose you have not the ability to actually recognise one. I think I must conclude, and I imagine most other readers will agree, that with you we have been playing chess...but with the proverbial pigeon….



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 475 ✭✭delusiondestroyer


    Again you are incorrect in what you are saying about these lines of communication you dont understand what you are talking about.

    If the US or UK invades Ireland then our DF's are irrelevant in any case which is what i think you are trying to imply by your Iceland comparison...

    The US doesnt need Ireland as it already has the UK so location location is irrelevant in this case.

    I think you just need to accept that Ireland in a large conflict on its own is not going to do much and thats gonna be the case jets or no jets.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 475 ✭✭delusiondestroyer


    Ok you seem to be fabricating a counter argument by dragging the UK into comparison with Ireland.

    There is no comparison between Ireland and the UK, there is a near 0% chance of Ireland being attack by Russia or anyone else for that matter where as the UK is a war fighting nation with a legit military that is indirectly involved in many conflicts there chance of being attacked by Russia would be credible, that and being in NATO all reasons they need an airforce. 100% Russia is a pathetic force, i didn't say the attack would do much or likely for even that matter.

    You seem to be struggling with the fact that more than one thing can be true at once.

    You seem desperate to get other "readers" on side as if it adds credibility to what you are saying the whole thread could side with you it wouldn't make what your saying any less nonsensical.

    Ironically enough your last paragraph sums yourself up.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 93 ✭✭RavenP


    @delusiondestroyer While the US could invade Ireland with ease, Britain would struggle to invade Ireland unless they threw all or most of their military at the project. Remember they had 25.000 troops at one stage in NI, a territory they already held, and failed to entirely suppress the PIRA. In a land conflict in Ireland they would want at least a 4 to 1 ratio against the DF, which with reserves and ex-servicemen pressed into service could probably be brought up to 20,000 quickly enough. This means they would need to commit the entire British army to the task. Britain is not the power it once was.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 475 ✭✭delusiondestroyer


    They would obviously mobilize for war and it would largely depend on the strategy they would imply if they took the gloves off introduced strict martial law and weren't too bother by civilian casualties ala Russia in Ukraine it would be game over fairly quick for Ireland. I agree but just like German isnt the power it once was.. the capacity is still there.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 93 ✭✭RavenP


    @Delusiondestroyer So Russia is no threat to Ireland because it is weak, but a threat to Britain because it is strong? Pull the other one. It is a threat to Britain and the war could spread out side the initial combatants because Ireland is, for all intents and purposes an integral part of the west. And if we were attacked, we would have, unlike Britain, no meaningful air defence. To say that it is impossible that a war 100 miles away might, just spread to Ireland is simply not credible. It might spread, it might not, but it is quite believable that it might. That is all the justification Ireland needs for enhanced AD, although as I have said already, I favour cheaper AA missile based defences over jets.

    Regarding the retort you gave me about the last line, what age are you, are you in wee school? That is the most pathetic, "same to you" reply I have heard in just some time. I must mark your work, "Must do better"!



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,032 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    I'm not sure quite how I'm incorrect about them. A century of conflict, through to the current day, has shown that they are utterly indispensable to European security.

    Again, view the example of Iceland. There was almost zero chance of a German invasion, yet it was still considered geographically important enough that the Allied powers occupied the place.



  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 5,028 Mod ✭✭✭✭G_R


    Do you care to answer the point that has been realised several times (and unless I've missed it) completely ignored by you that any conflict would not likely be Big Country A Vs Ireland, I would be Big Country A Vs Ireland and probably the rest of the EU/NATO, so we would only need to defend against a small percentage of their forces. I'd also suggest that in the above scenario, the UK would (rightly) say sorry guys, gotta look after ourselves here, you're on your own.

    Also note that you haven't bothered to reply to the very detailed post which shows that we're are not currently fulfilling our responsibilities as a neutral country. Any comment on this?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,962 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Theres precent in previous conflicts of destroying supporting bases and infrastructure, for example refuelling stops, or communication nodes. Long way from main area of conflict.

    Indeed there's some circumstancial evidence that each German bombing in Ireland coincided with Irish activity that could be construed as pro-allied.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 93 ✭✭RavenP


    @delusiondestroyer Do you know why the British did not invade during WW2? They did not invade because in 1941 Churchill sent a British Army delegation to observe Irish Army summer manouvers. The excercise (which the British may have instigated) simulated a Nazi invasion of 25,000 paratroops with only limited sea landings in Ireland by the Germans. After watching the excercise, the British delegation was able to repoirt to a delighted churchill that they were confident that the Irish could hold the Germans on the Suir and the Barrow and counter attack. I do not now if you have Irish Times access but there has been some discussion of this in the letters over the past year or two.

    But the reason why the excercises were a success and the reason the British did not invade, is that De Valera had commenced a fairly swift military buildup in '39, taking the Army to 40,000 regulars with decent enough equipment and good training by '41.

    The thing is Ireland was able to defend against any likely German invasion with some plannong and spending. Same today, from other threats.

    Also if there was an international crisis abnd Britain was building its military capacity, the Irish state could do the same. THe 4:1 ratio will still apply. In 1942, with reserves included, the Irish Army was over 100,000 strong, with basic equipment for each man. The problem today is that systems and tactics are more complex, and training takes a couple of years in toto, not a couple of months. If we need to be secure (and you seem to think a UK invasion is a possibility) then we need to think about it now!.

    I note also that you did not address my comment that a war which is so all encompasing that targets are being hit in Britain, could also spread to Ireland? I suspect that that is because it is bloody obvious that it could.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 475 ✭✭delusiondestroyer


    Do you care to answer the point i have raised several times.

    Who is attacking us?

    How are they attacking us?

    Why are they attacking us?


    Of course i don't think you will as most on here just skirt around questions and dance the fence rather than answering them definitively i on the other hand answer any question put to me and no problem in doing so.

    And yes you did miss the reply because i replied to that post and highlighted glaring flaws in it that were just completely ignored.

    Big country vs Ireland, NATO and the EU... answers itself really.. but basically subtract Ireland completely out of the equation and you have the answer of what would happen.

    Ill spell it out further though as you willl more than likely miss the point.., Attacking Ireland would result in "Big Country" being mauled by NATO and the EU and no the UK would not say "you're on your own Ireland" as Ireland would be a staging ground for invasion they arent morons and wouldnt allow an enemy to take Ireland.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 475 ✭✭delusiondestroyer


    The landscape is completely different now you cant apply 1940's logic to todays world it simply doesn't work, we are more likely to receive aid and help from the UK than to be invaded by them.

    I don't and haven't said a UK invasion is a possibility ill state that right now there is a 0% chance of Britain invading us.

    Ireland would be at the bottom of a very long list in the event of a global conflict.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 475 ✭✭delusiondestroyer


    I posted a source that completely dispels the myth around the Russians just coming along chopping all the cables its not nearly as handy as that. And you can be sure if we know about it NATO knows about it, they will obviously be defended. No one is depending on the Irish military to defend that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 475 ✭✭delusiondestroyer


    1940s lad its completely irrelevant to the conversation regarding modern warfare.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,459 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Thats putting it a bit extreme to be honest, the majority of the French fleet survived in Toulon until the French themselves scuttled them, the actual results of Operation Catapult was mixed.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,962 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Well we are ignoring history or facts. So any hacks which didn't happen in the last 24 hours are irrelevant.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,962 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    I was more thinking of communication Infrastructure that gets destroyed.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,032 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Ah.

    image.png

    If you're going to argue military logic on the military sub-forum with people who are paid to know this sort of thing, it would behoove you to be up to speed on correct terminology. I've been talking about lines of communication, not communication cables.

    image.png




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 475 ✭✭delusiondestroyer


    So the US would 100% stop any attacking force from taking Ireland as it is critical to there LOC with Europe and the UK.

    Thats even better lol you just undermined your own argument and proved me correct at the same time.

    As i said multiple times in the thread Ireland is geographically safe due to being sandwiched between the Uk and US



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,962 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    So a country does multiple drive-bys your front door, tests the door handles. But we reckon closing the curtains so we can't see them, means they can't see us. Makes sense.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,032 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    I think "defeat" is more accurate than "stop" as the one is not absolutely required for the other. Any effects on the Irish citizenry in the meantime until the defeat occurs is, to both sides, entirely incidental and not really their concern. Your position cedes the fate of the Irish people to third parties, to whom they are a subsidiary concern.

    Do you dispute the concept that the first duty of a government is the protection of its citizens? The political question of whether the Irish government should do that has already been answered by the country's political leadership, in the affirmative. The question becomes the most cost- effective way of doing so to an acceptable standard.



Advertisement