If being an unaligned country with a large army is no deterrent to Putin's ambitions is it time for ROI to join Nato?
Micheál Martin and Leo Varadkar are in support of this because it makes them look good to those outside and when they leave public office and take up private jobs they'll be rewarded.
This is a deeply tried trope that is constantly rolled out to explain why politicians do anything. It is not remotely backed up by actual history.
Ireland needs to decide what its defence forces are actually supposed to do and equip them for that task. That could mean just removing them as Iceland have done, or acknowledging the need for them and funding and resourcing them properly. Maybe that means removing infantry capability but expanding naval and electronic ability - but clearly its not well set up at the moment for anything. This halfway house we do at the moment is silly.
Suggesting literally everything our leaders do is solely for personal gain and that they do not care about the country as much as me is a bloody sad and cynical viewpoint that I hope I never fall pray to.
Depends on what's being bought. Increasing the defence spent to raise wages? That's fine with me. Buying equipment that is only mostly in storage and rarely used? I honestly think that what's happening here is that only a select few we see any real benefit. I think the government is being lobbied really hard to increase defence spending and when they see the recent tax intake we got they're begining to smack their lips.
Micheál Martin and Leo Varadkar are in support of this because it makes them look good to those outside and when they leave public office and take up private jobs they'll be rewarded. Lobbists,people in government and those around them along with the defence compaines stand to gain from this. The average man and woman on the street won't and i think we'd be better to put it into infrastructure and other areas instead of into the bank accounts of the already rich and wealthy
Why shouldn't there be defense spending increase
Cyber security would be complex but when you consider that Ireland is relying on the tech industry then that's an area they should invest in. I just don't trust the government over all the crap that went on the last few years. I feel we'll be taken to the cleaners and all this just so our leaders can get a pat on the head or a future job. They're only looking out for themselves. Look out they treat the Irish people and now they're coming out saying that they want to increase our defence spending to protect us?
The National Children's Hospital is a bit of an anomaly though. We deliver plenty of other projects on or below budget and often on or ahead of schedule - motorways, road projects and quite a lot of other stuff. Most countries have one or two white elephants. Have a look at Germany's The European Central Bank (ECB) headquarters in Frankfurt, the Elbphilharmonie Concert Hall in Hamburg, and the Berlin-Brandenburg (BER) Airport (4 billion over budget)... The ECB was three years later than planned and with a cost overrun of 48%. The Elbphilharmonie was finished seven years late with an overrun of 1025%
In France, Flamanville-3 the new nuclear plant was budget at €3.3 billion... the project is running at €13.2bn and counting ..
. Ireland's not at all unique in those kinds of flag ship politically driven projects running off the tracks.
Radar would be pretty much off-the-shelf installation at a very clear price and delivered by a major supplier, whoever that happens to be after a tender I assume. It's extremely unlikely to go madly over budget.
Building cyber security expertise is likely to be quite complex though. I don't think it's something you can do overnight and the state would need to seriously invest in recruitment of the right people into some kind of cyber-security agency, perhaps not directly as part of the military but more likely a special agency of some sort. That could be quite expensive, but I think it's also something that the big IT companies' corporate taxes should be going towards. It's as if we're not making a LOT of income out of those IT related cashflows and it's not unreasonable that we would put some effort into securing some of those things, which would have a big net benefit for the country in general, particularly around protecting our own infrastructure, telecoms networks, private sector companies, state bodies, health systems etc etc. There's a lot of stuff hanging on various IT systems of various levels of sophistication.
That is true as well but Russia and the US and a few others would have the tech and knowhow. It just makes it easier for them closer to land.
I do agree with getting radar and more naval assets because we're an island nation and also some cyber security would be good and also to increase pay to encourage people to join and actually stay. I would prefer if Ireland invested in science and tech more so it could try and create some of these industries and having our own will help us a lot. We haven't even joined CERN which is a shame. The last few years with overspends on a childrens hospital and then the voting machines makes me wary of what they would do when it comes to defence spending.
Anytime I hear those proclaiming the pro-Irish Neutrality stance on the Media, I am reminded of a 5-year-old child, telling us how the world should work.
We very much have a land border.
Also our supply chain to help would be a lot simpler than the supply chain of any enemy forces (outside of the UK itself).
An Invasion of Ireland is not a remotely feasible outcome to spend any time worrying about. The focus should be on our already strong ties to most of NATO anyway.
So Michael D saw fit to apologize for calling a DBE a DBE.
Yes, apologizing for the truth is the in- thing these days. I guess Michael D is a man of our time in that way.
He does seem pro neutrality so fair play to him for that at least.
NATO is a truly benighted organization and most of the world can see that. The collective west is behaving like a rogue state.
While I do not doubt NATO generals and high ranking politicians have their bunkers dug, they will not be inheriting the earth, contrary to what they might believe.
Russia is a direct threat to our resources, communications, data systems and infrastructure.
Russia has failed at direct open warfare, but if you think they are going away you've got another thing coming. It will push them further and harder into hybrid and remote warfare; targeting economic life, social services and ordinary people.
And as Ireland is an hub of digital comms and innovation, we appear no different to them than Czechia or Finland or Portugal. In other words, fair game.
And by the way, if you think the US or any other NATO member or group blew up the Nord Stream pipeline, you need your head examined.
It fits the Russian profile 100% and we've only 2 weeks ago seen another example in the same approach with the destruction of the dam near Kherson. Russia invented strategic warfare and the false flag agenda over a century ago. They call it the 'maskirovka doctrine', literally 'the masking' and they are the best in the World at it.
They invaded ukraine and only thanks to people with real courage and balls and a hell of Natos weapons,live 24/7 intelligence and tens of billions of dollars they have been able to hold the Russians back ,
We have 8000 poorly paid and equipped defense force with low morale and a retention and recruiting crisis's
We've also only got two decent airports and no land borders to bring men, equipment and supplies in through,lose them and then what
And the NATO countries that snoop around our airspace and seas? Every country in the world conducts intelligence operations.
Is Russia a direct threat to us? No. They invaded a non Nato and non EU country and can't win, how would an EU country go for them?
EU would just tell the US no.
Same as when the Donald tried, and got telt.
1 market, no menu, take it or walk.
If we ever have a referendum on joining NATO, I would vote no,, as would most of the country.
But in the next few years, the question of an EU army will gather pace. This is something I could see myself voting for.
It frees us from a USA dominated NATO, while letting us ease our way into an area we might not be comfortable in.
We all know who took out that gas pipeline,, Do we really want to join a NATO that would do this to one of their own..
That's pretty fanciful stuff. I'm also not sure I agree with your conclusion, I think the country would (quite rightly) resist that kind of strong-arming. I also think the multinationals would lose their mind.
The quickest way to get Ireland into NATO would be for the US to pass a law that US tech multinationals could only base themselves in countries to which the US had a military alliance. The Irish would fall over themselves chasing the money to get into NATO.
More difficult, the deeper the water, the further out.
The biggest risk is the near shore / shallower water cables that are in our EEZ and even in Irish waters. Those actually feed Ireland with data connectivity and are a hugely significant economic asset for Ireland itself. If someone were to snip a significant number of those cables it would cause us enormous problems and do a lot of damage to our reputation too. It's not an insignificant risk.
The cables that are passing through our EEZ are really not something we'd be realistically able to protect anyway and are very much a multinational risk as they're providing transatlantic general data connectivity.
The other significant risk we have is undersea gas and energy connections, more so the ones that are in the Atlantic or the Celtic Sea off the south coast i.e. our own domestic gas connections to Corrib and potentially any reuse of Kinsale Head and the connectivity between Ireland and France that's being built at the moment, which is a 720MW DC interconnection. That's something that Ireland and France should be able to patrol and keep an eye on. The Irish Sea interconnections are probably safe enough as the area's VERY well monitored, basically is the UK's back yard and is full of British Navy activity.
We will also have increasingly large amounts of critical domestic infrastructure in the near off shore area in terms of lots of wind power in the next few years, and that's also something we should be able to protect.
Apart from that we seriously do need active radar systems. It's a bit ridiculous that we cannot monitor our own airspace for aircraft flying without a beacon. It's rather fundamental to civil aviation safety that we can at least be aware of what's flying around and it's becoming more of an issue when Russia is in this mode of behaving pretty much as a rogue state outside of international norms. You don't really know what they might do. All it takes is a plane to be up there on some ridiculous flight path and without any malicious intent toward Ireland, there could be a collision with a civilian aircraft.
At the very least we should be developing much better levels of cooperation with our neighbours and with NATO on these issues, but also we should have our own independent, high tech radar systems and so on. Ireland's a very wealthy country and we can afford some of this tech and should be using it. It's off-the-shelf kit.
I also think Ireland could really innovate in areas like use of high tech drone systems for coastal monitoring. There's really no reason why we should be a laggard on any of these areas and they don't have to be anything other than defensive.
Russians aren't using Shannon for a while now. And won't be again, until the war in Ukraine is over.
Full EU airspace ban. Russian owned, registered or controlled aircraft.
Its couched in less clear language than the NATO mutual defence clause. Also "However, it does not affect the neutrality of certain Member States" is a sop towards Ireland. Either we are part of a mutual defence pact or we are not - if its supposed to be viewed as a one-way deal where we don't have to go to another EU member's defence because we're "neutral" but we expect them to come to ours that would be absurd.
I don't think we need to join NATO, and indeed I think EU clause would be sufficient. But then that equally undermines any statement about not wanting to join a mutual defence clause and makes it seem far more like reflexive anti-US nonsense.
For our size we have a lot of soft power. Joining NATO would throw all that away in return for being junior partner in a very expensive organisation.
Suggestion that NATO is the only viable alternative means you may not know that we signed up to a better one ages ago - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM:mutual_defence This gives us the benefits without the financial or political obligations.
The Treaty of Lisbon strengthens the solidarity between European Union (EU) Member States in dealing with external threats by introducing a mutual defence clause (Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union). This clause provides that if a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States have an obligation to aid and assist it by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.
This obligation of mutual defence is binding on all Member States. However, it does not affect the neutrality of certain Member States and is consistent with the commitments of countries that are NATO members.
Which means we are already under the French nuclear umbrella. Also Spain, Italy and France have aircraft carriers. The EU has a lot of very quiet submarines. The UK and US would take a dim view of unwanted guests in our neighbourhood.
@.Donegal. Not being in nato spared us 20 years in Afghanistan for absolutely nothing in hindsight, taliban back in total control....
Irish troops served in Afghanistan.....
And if you were born in that 20 year period in Afghanistan you lived in peaceful times and less likely to die a horrific death
Not being in nato spared us 20 years in Afghanistan for absolutely nothing in hindsight, taliban back in total control.
No one was forced to be in Afghanistan due to NATO - it was not an Article V mission. It was not a NATO led affair, and when NATO did take over it was with the backing of the UN under ISAF and Ireland were a part of it.
Being in nato didn’t help Germany much when their gas pipes were blown up under water recently.
I don’t see the point in us joining NATO. Russian spent 10 months trying to take a town bakmhut. His hands are full. I don’t think Ireland will be high up on list of places to take and their army is stretched to the limits and will take years and years to recover.
Who else china? They’re all about a different island Taiwan. I certainly don’t fear a Chinese invasion anytime soon, if you do perhaps see a professional.
If we bordered Russia I’d be all for it but we don’t. There’s also the possibility of complex issues arising that you mightn’t care about but would cause a stir for example British soldiers being stationed on this side of the border. That wouldn’t go down well with a portion of the population whether or not it would bother you personally.
There’s more chance of the Brits coming over the border to take the entire country again than there is of the Russians or the Chinese invading us. I think joining NATO would be stupid, we’d have more chance of getting roped in to something stupid like Afghanistan than getting help because we were invaded. I just don’t see any benefits in joining. The government should concentrate on helping the soldiers and improving our capabilities instead of poncing around with this and pretending they’re totally against joining.
The cables don't just materialized off the Irish coast. They're crossing the entire atlantic ocean from the north american continent to europe. They can be intercepted in any spot across that vast distance way outside countries EEZ so when people say that we should increase spending to defend those cables then they're not telling the whole truth as it's physically impossible for Ireland to do.
Ireland has not been a useful launching point for an invasion of Britain since about the 1500s at latest.
I do still think there is an argument for joining NATO on the basis of general western alignment, but I agree its not necessary. I'm very much rather the discussion about joining was framed in the manner of acknowledging a partnership, membership of the "Western Order" anyway and lack of neutrality that already exists. Framing it as necessary to resist invasion seems absurd and apart from anything else if unlikely to get much traction.
Ignoring the virtual impossibility of either China or Russia being able to launch and sustain such an invasion considering Irelands location on the planet, what would the purpose of such an invasion be?
Nobody could claim their invasion of Ireland is for the purposes of reclaiming lost lands, or freeing their people and there isn't even any natural resources that someone could have their eyes on such as oil to justify such an attack. The only potential reason for an attack on Ireland would be to subsequently attack UK/ EU. And they are not going to sit idly by and watch it happen.
In bygone eras then invading Ireland as a route to then conquer other lands, or just as a land grab, would have been possible and made sense. Now there are ways or communication somewhat faster than sending smoke signals and of detecting what other countries are up to it's just not going to happen.
Ireland isn't getting invaded by anyone, other than a retreating UK/EU looking for somewhere to then escape across the Atlantic, or the US coming the other way round to retake UK/ EU.
Yes, Ireland is a soft target. But it's not actually a target at all at present. The only thing joining NATO does is make Ireland a target.
I live in a NATO country and my taxes get spent on providing cover for Ireland, regardless of if they are asking or not. I fully support the reasons for NATO existing and the likes of Sweden and Finland joining makes sense. Just see no reason for Ireland to join. Spend money on increased defence capabilities, but no need to do so as part of NATO.
Well of course your entitled to that opinion of the EU it is one of the positives of living in a democratic free and open society as we do in Ireland. I myself and I think most Irish people differ and see the EU and our membership of it as mostly positive.
I don't believe that any of it's positive.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/7bd7d6329091cd9302865e7b468979f7.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1aba361f5b77a8017be035a0d4fc285.svg)
