If being an unaligned country with a large army is no deterrent to Putin's ambitions is it time for ROI to join Nato?
Yet our military is still not completely incapable.
I.e. it is somewhat effective.
haha thats quality again. The answer is IMHO and it also seems to be an opinion shared by the commission and Commandant King is that we do not at present have a military, security and intelligence that can provide Ireland with a quoting Commandant King's words:
"We agree with the commission’s assertion that the continuation of "business as usual" in terms of capability provision will leave this country without a credible military capability to protect Ireland, its people and its resources for any sustained period,".
In fact as we see this year with sometimes only one naval vessel able to patrol our waters and we are an island after all that this sees us actually in worse shape in terms of our Navy then when the commission published its findings.
So is our military (a) completely incapable or (b) not completely incapable?
Sincere question.
There may even be (c) somewhat incapable.
When I talk of our military security and intelligence capabilities I am saying and have consistently said they are not up to the task of providing a creditable military capability something the commission states and that Commandant King reiterates. Something that is highlighted for example by our Navy recently having only one vessel to patrol our waters and otherwise only 2 vessels an actual worsening of our Navies capability since the commissions report.
Yes I agree with King.
Back to you.
When you talk of "not completely incapable".
This is just the negative form of "somewhat effective".
Nevermind NATO, we need a properly functioning EU Armed Forces - Airforce, Army, Navy, etc., As it stands, the Guards asked the Irish Navy to help them track down some drug smugglers and our one available ship was roped into some St. Patricks Day Open Day thing in Dublin.
An EU wide Armed forces isn't going to happen this week, but that's where we should be going. Something happens in EU territorial waters and someone picks up the phone and rings London. It's kinda embarrassing.
Not what the commission or Commandant King said. Again the commission said that as currently standing the defense forces cannot provide a creditable defense of the state. To quote again Commandant King:
Right.
So if theyre not completely incapable, that would make them somewhat effective.
Brilliant entertainment now. Love how you descend into insults and some really great ones there too. I guess the projection I mentioned in my previous reply was nail on the head in terms of your good self.
I never said the military was completely uncapable. I have consistent said that our military, security and intelligence capabilities are clearly not up to the task required to provide a creditable and capable defense, security and intelligence for Ireland. The commission reporting on our defense forces stated as much and this was backed up by Commandant King.
"the defense forces we have are not up to task."
Yeah. That would make them only somewhat effective.
Look, basically youre being a drama queen on this issue (imo). You refuse all nuance, all shades of grey, everything is completely fuked by your standards. Its perfect or its nothing. Your posts are like a cheap tabloid, your attitude is cynical. You take all the competencies of the DF and flush them down the crapper on the basis of their incompetencies. Theres no balanced view, thats why youre having a little fit over the word 'somewhat'. Can you acknowledge their insufficiencies, you bet, can you acknolwledge their achievements, no not once.
And theres an irony in your quoting a commandant. Since obviously it takes an at least somewhat structured and capable organization to justify a commandant. Would there be a commandant and an officers representative association if everything was quite as hugely farcical as you make out in your queenish hysyerics. No.
The very fact that you have officers making govt commissioned examinations of capabilities and insufficiencies, and drawing up response plans and budgets would clearly suggest an at least somewhat effective organization.
But dont let that stop you, Piers.
An organization of thousands which runs year round, with assets and budgets in the hundreds of millions, yet doesnt meet the standards which one might expect judged by its peers (and accounting for size).
That would be a somewhat effective organization.
How effective is somewhat effective?
That can be gotten into.
It all helps, because frankly Im tired of the wildly inaccurate, moronic exaggerations which describe the DF in terms of complete non-existence, or complete incompetency.
By all means people should criticize, but just some accuracy in that criticism would be nice, even a token amount. Makes the thread feel less cheap and tabloidy.
No self hating here at all. I would say projection on your part there since you brought that up.
Bine a net contributor to the EU budget does not change the fact that we do not spend the money on our own defense security and intelligence and due to the fact that we look to others for some of that spending we are indeed spongers in that regard.
No exaggeration at all the defense forces we have are not up to task. Not the people themselves but our lack of resourcing of them. Albeit the defense forces are significantly under staffed as well again related to our under resourcing of defense.
Have to say thanks for giving me a good laugh there. The commission which I referenced clearly states that as currently standing the defense forces cannot provide a creditable defense of the sate. To quote again Commandant King:
Commandant Conor King of RACO said "We agree with the commission’s assertion that the continuation of "business as usual" in terms of capability provision will leave this country without a credible military capability to protect Ireland, its people and its resources for any sustained period,".
Or the situation we currently have where the Navy cannot only send out 2 patrol vessels and even this year for a while only 1. That rather than an improvement is actually worse.
I think there is a general agreement we should invest more in our defence but I can't see any argument put up here that would prompt the public to decide we should join Nato.
Being a net contributor means you cant simultaneously be a sponger.
You can go around self-hating over nothing all day long if you like. Wont change anything.
And you can go around doing this exaggeration act where you wrongly think we dont have a somewhat capable defense force.
Meanwhile the DF will competently do all the many things it does at home and abroad, air, sea and land. With some very high quality equipment, personnel and results.
Are they insufficent? Yes.
Are improvements being made? Yes.
Are they therefore somewhat effective? Yes obviously, its right before your eyes. Helos are flying, apcs are rolling, mortars are firing, trucks are carrying, and missions are being completed.
The commissioned reports you mention describe a situation of insufficience. Not of non-existence, which would be a short report indeed. Therefore by logic there must be a somewhat effective entity.
Been a net contributor to the EU budget does not change the fact that we spend very little money on defense, security and intelligence capabilities and do not have a somewhat never mind an actually effective defense and intelligence force and thus are indeed spongers because we depend on others to spend money in those areas and cover us as well because we won't do it ourselves.
Ireland does not have a somewhat never mind competent military and intelligence capability. The commission into our defense forces admitted that if left at current levels our defense forces would be unable to conduct a meaningful defense of the state. Now a commitment was made by the current government to improve things to as described in said report level 2 which would involve us actually acquire radar systems, increase the Navy size as well as improving intelligence and cyber security as well as new aircraft. To move to level 3 as described in the report would see Ireland develop its capabilities to levels similar to other smaller EU countries and would cost about 2.5-3 times what we current spend on defense which is about 1b. The commission recommended we move to level 2 in the short term with a view to a debate on moving to level 3. The commission didn't use the word sponger but did describe Ireland when it comes to defense spending and capability in more euphemistic terms as an "outlier". Commandant Conor King of RACO said "We agree with the commission’s assertion that the continuation of "business as usual" in terms of capability provision will leave this country without a credible military capability to protect Ireland, its people and its resources for any sustained period,".
We only have 2 Naval vessels patrolling our seas which is actually considerably less then maintaining the status quo and thus our Naval situation has actually deteriorated from the 8 it used to be. In fact recently this year it was down to 1 vessel.
Naval service has only one patrol ship operating in Irish waters (irishexaminer.com)
No Time to Hide: The Future of Irish Defense and Security - War on the Rocks
I was down the Curragh last week hanging out with some of the lads training. It's a bit depressing to see such dedicated individuals doing their best with no particular direction. One of the problems in rating effectiveness is that one needs to know what the purpose of the organisation is. The official answer at this time of writing is "defend the state against armed aggression". There is currently a board sitting which will be evaluating just what they want the defense forces to do in the future and everyone is awaiting such guidance, but whatever the result, (I would expect cyber to be added to the armed bit, for example) the current defense forces can't do the current mission. The Naval Service at best is a coast guard (before remembering that there is only one operational ship which rather limits effectiveness at that role) , the air Corps is more a civil response organization (emergency airlifts, search and rescue), and the Army is configured and equipped more or less to the standard of two 1970s light infantry brigades with a few high tech toys. To be at least somewhat effective, one has to be able to see something to be somewhat effective against. It has no eyes to see what is in the sky (granted, being fixed), or what is under the water. To go get Irish citizens in trouble abroad, it needs to hitch a lift with a friendly military which has the space. But in the basic mission statement of "defend the state against armed aggression", just how does it rate as even "somewhat" effective? At best it performs functions performed by armed civilian organizations in other countries such as hostage rescue and ship boarding.
No I don't believe we should join Nato. I think the world needs a few western nations that aren't part of Nato. Not relevant to Russia but, certain countries do not want to deal with Nato members in any sort of peace talks, Ireland being outside of Nato means we could actually hold an important role in helping negotiate conflict resolution. Joining Nato just makes us a very insignificant member of a large bloc, any international sway we have goes out the window. Secondly if we joined we would be the one of the softest targets if not the softest in the Nato bloc, so if anyone did want to test Nato's resolve we might be the place to try. The fact that the North of the island is still part of the UK means that the UK would practically have to intervene in the event of any attack, they pretty much already protect our airspace for us at present.
That said I would favor a big increase in our defense spending, our military really is a joke in terms of lack of equipment and manpower. We can't even do basic things like evacuating citizens from overseas without asking for help from other countries. That is simply not acceptable for a first-world country. I'm not suggesting we buy F16's or a load of tanks but we seriously need to invest in our Navy and cyber security and increase the size of our forces. The Swiss are neutral but have a military that puts ours to shame, Finland and Sweden until recently were neutral yet have capabilities miles beyond us. The "Ah sure someone else will protect us" is not good enough and frankly, it's wrong, why should other countries spend their resources to protect us when we have the money to do so put are unwilling to do it.
Why ruin what is a ones in a countries lifetime opportunity?
It's like don't ask, don't tell. We just make no specific position clear until it's absolute necessary. This makes sense. We are saving big bucks and we are avoiding confrontation as much as possible. I don't see why would ever change this until we have to.
"SOMEWHAT". <---
You can't be a net contributor and a sponger at the same time.
And we do have a SOMEWHAT competant military and security apparatus. If you think we don't and you'd rather repeat-screech dramatically about the obvious issues, then you're wrong and we have nothing to discuss.
Well I am almost speechless. If you think what passes for the current Irish military security and intelligence capability for example the Navy currently only have one ship that is up to task then we have nothing to discuss. Our current military and intelligence capabilities are an absolute embarrassment and not even remotely somewhat effective.
Yes we are and have been for about a decade net contributors but we are spongers when it comes to the military and intelligence side of things in regard to defending ourselves. What we are or are not giving as regards the EU budget is spurious in regard to what we don't do in terms of our own defense security and intelligence.
we have a somewhat effective military, security and intelligence capability.
so at most we can be somewhat spongers. but then again we're net contributors to the EU so we can't be spongers of Europe.
It is with regard to our refusal to fund ourselves an effective military, security and intelligence capability for Ireland.
Marching to Belfast is pretty daft, it would provide no particular advantage, certainly not worth the effort. People thinking that Ireland would become this big red blob on the map next to the UK in order to threaten invasion from the West have entirely the wrong idea. Not even the Russians would have the manpower to do that. Controlling discrete areas like Knock or Shannon airports, or Foynes port, however, is a far more realistic option which could have an outsized effect on the lines of communication from North America to Europe without any need to attempt to occupy an entire country, or even a single city. Unless anyone thinks the Russians in 2035 will fully believe that they don't need to intercept the powerhouse of North American manpower or industry in order to win, but I certainly wouldn't make that assumption.
I agree, NATO would not leave it alone, but I believe we differ on the nature of both the problem and the response. If Ireland were to be used for the one thing it is really useful for, i.e. controlling traffic across the Atlantic, NATO wouldn't just sit by. One could expect repeated attacks on occupied infrastructure, to destroy Russian capability. The US wouldn't be sending the 82nd Airborne to liberate the place, but they will certainly be sending missiles and bombs to blow it up as a much easier way of attaining a similar result. I don't foresee that as being particularly any more beneficial to people who live or work around there than being under the control of an occupying force.
I don’t really get this nonsense that we’re “sponging” off NATO nations or allied nations (UK, EU, USA), I mean when have we needed them to come help us fight?
like honestly when’s the last time Ireland needed defence against an attack by hostile forces?
Oh that’s right when we fought the British 100 years ago..
But that is only an issue if there are two totally unrelated aggressor countries deciding to attack western Europe at the same time. If Norway is being attacked by Russia, because who else would it be, and NATO countries go to their aid then who else is sailing across the Atlantic to also have a pop at Ireland?
If Russia attacks Ireland on a second front then it's really just the same EU wide attack which you have going on against Norway, or whoever else. Being in NATO or not wouldn't make the slightest difference at that point as it would be NATO v Russia and wherever Russia is attacking would be fair game for NATO response, including if they are trying to use Ireland as a backdoor to the UK / rest of the EU.
If NATO is dealing with Russia in one place and then Russia decides to also attempt to setup in Ireland, NATO are not going to stand by and wait for them to reach Belfast or Anglesea before taking action on that second front.
EU rapid deployment force is active. And will be 5000 strong by 2025.
Joint exerises have taken place.
It will never be time to join nato.
We're net contributors to the EU budget, from which csdp is funded. We're signed up to the nordic battlegroup, Europol (antiterrorism), EU cyber security agency, we lead frontex and csdp missions, provide accommodation to 70,000+ Ukrainian refugees, as well as over €100 million in non-lethal aid and combat training and demining. Also have a long history of providing peacekeepers to the UN.
Spongers is not an accurate term.
Nail on the proverbial head there!
The problem with this line of thinking is that it is reliant upon two very large assumptions.
1) That the likes of the UK, other EU states and US aren't already occupied dealing with a threat to their actual allies. If Norway is fighting for its territory (on the basis that the declared purpose of the Norwegian defense forces isn't to protect against invasion as much as to try to hold on as much as possible before allies such as the UK, other NATO states and the US show up), they're going to leave Ireland for a 'when we can get around to it' situation and prioritise other problems. Doubtless they will eventually get around to it, but it'll take some time.
2) That in the period of time that the UK, other EU states and the US actually do get around to coming to Ireland's aid, the citizens of Ireland will be quite happy with the any localised occupation or battles going on on their territory. It's not like Ireland would ever be occupied a la Belgium or Norway in WW2, but specific useful areas like Shannon airport might be objectives. We have recent evidence from a number of conflicts that the presence of hostile troops does not always result in a positive experience for local civilians.
There is also a knock-on effect perhaps not being considered: Ireland's prosperity is directly linked to that of its trading partners, particularly in the EU. NATO warships keeping an eye on Irish waters cannot be in the Baltic or North Atlantic at the same time. What additional damage may a Baltic country suffer because forces which would otherwise be available to NATO had Ireland the capability to look after its own interests were not present? What additional costs in lives, time and rebuilding Euros would the EU economy have to expend before Ireland's economic position, which would include trade, would return to a pre-conflict level?
Youre right with the first part, we have such weak limp-wristed politicians, they would agree to anything for a little tummy rub
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/925678a10b2fdb0546d802550390a10f.svg)
