Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

We need to hurry up and make a decision to procure. We need to recognize that everything has changed and we need to be at one with Europe. No one will expect us to develop an army, navy and Air Force from near scratch but we do have to make moves in that direction. I was wondering can we already do some recruitment for assignment to other countries (where they will get training).

Without question, there will be endless "this is how much housing/hospital/schools/public servants could be paid for" articles, you'll have the "NEUTRALITY" wing screaming that we're all on the way to an "EU MILITARY"…

It's Ireland, expecting a rational comment and discussion on defence matters is a forlorn hope.

We still haven't made a decision on the Primary Radar systems, something that literally could have been done within months at most from accepting LoA2. There's Feck all interest in the Cabinet and absolute outright refusal from the department to even think about anything being sped up.

I think the fact the Left are not in this Irish government makes a more pro-active approach to rearmament more possible, though FF seem more reluctant than FG.

Ireland is a tech powerhouse. We need to remove the burdensome regulations so we can build a domestic arms industry, though of course we should not export to Israel.

We also need to reform bureaucratic decisionmaking in the Department of Defence so that procurement decisions don't have to many hurdles and so the civilian leadership does not get in the way too much because of trying to cut costs. We have an enormous surplus, yet less capability than we had 50 years ago when we had an intercept capability.

The way its set up now is in part a legacy of the Civil War and De Valera's distrust of the largely pro-Treaty army in 1933-48.

We should grow our military to Danish levels. Denmark is a smaller economy than Ireland with a similar population.

We are a rich country. We need to get out of the 1980s mindset of being a poor country, unable to afford things. We supposedly can afford the most expensive hospital in the world.

its hard to square our states revolutionary origins with pacifism, as some on the Socialist-Republicans do.

I think a naval service with the capability of shooting something threating us out of the sky as well as an air force with fighter jets shouldn't be too much to ask for a "rich country", - if neutrality and sovereignty are to be taken seriously.

Currently the Irish naval services are a better police plus coast guard, nothing more and the Irish Air Corps is far away from something like a "force".

As long as the Republic of Ireland has some sort of defence agreement with the British, the RAF doing the job Ireland is supposed to do, I am wondering, if the Republic of Ireland is still a sovereign country or only just some apendix of the British.

They would have to offer housing to those who serve in the Air Corps. The discussion about fighter jets is to have them stationed in Shannon, - that is if it ever happes. Airport is big enough, enough open space for exercise, enough space for repair and maintenance and they would have to build houses for them, with either a fixed set rent or some low interest mortgage for their service.

Apart from that the housing crisis is cripling the whole country. Either greed by landlords, poor political decisons and supply kept limited due to small minded thinking resulting in those who can leaving the country.

There is little chance of dedicated family housing for the DF, cause as soon as they open up that genie then you will have the Gardaí and the other frontline services jumping in and that ends up serious money. Finance will never accept it.

As to the housing crisis, a fundamental issue that is ignored is the reality that the Crash shattered the construction sector, and it's never recovered in terms of workforce, it's not like there is another 100K trades people sitting at home waiting for the price to go up another 10%, the sector can't build the fantasy numbers each party put out.

We stick out like a sore thumb as an undefended island in the Atlantic. A tempting target for Russia or China if a NATO-Russia war broke out. In World War 2, when Denmark fell, the UK occupied Iceland and the US occupied Greenland. Iceland was granted independence while the US remained in Greenland but returned civilian control to Denmark. But Nazi Germany would likely not have been so generous, especially to the indigenous peoples.

Its a gamble we are taking, not investing in our defence.

An armed neutrality might be a sensible compromise. Being neutral but armed like Switzerland, or like Finland and Sweden were during the Cold War.

The Left including Clare Daly say we couldnt defend ourselves anyway, so theres no point in spending on defence. But Ukraine has shown that a smaller country can hold out for a long time, until foreign aid arrives. In this case the foreign aid was weaponry. Also while I dont approve of Israels wars (I am 50:50 regarding 1948 because both sides committed similar atrocities, and the UN had endorsed Israel's existence), they nonetheless show a smaller country can defeat much larger ones (1948. 1967, 1973) with the right weapons.

This is a sentimentality about attachment to neutrality from people who feel they are carrying the De Valeran flame.

It's more than just that, you have the Left/Tankie position of anything defence spending is "NATO/EU CONSCRIPTION!", you've got the DoD hostility and Finance wanting the DF dead and gone, and the indifference of the politicians since the UK carries the can and has done since 1922.

The DOD ran down base housing as they had issues with families overstaying, but that's not even the main point, as I've pointed out we've already had other Front line services asking for either housing or special pay for housing in high price areas in the pay talks, Finance is not going to open up that question when the potential industrial unrest is there, not when you consider how large the rest of the Frontline numbers are.

I'd have to disagree, apart from the fact that most "developers" basically still operate from one development to another using one to pay off the last (hence one of the reasons why apartment blocks are such an issue to build), but there's still the host of factors from planning and objections to services and again the critical point, the trades to do the building. The other point I'd would add is that the same block of trades people are also meant to be retrofitting existing housing stock, building new public infrastructure (ie everything from schools to garda stations) to whatever else…

There's only so much that can be done, hence why it doesn't matter how much money the Government tries throwing at the issue, or how many targets they set.

The principle has already been conceded.

46 apartments at the Boland's Mills development on Grand Canal Dock in Dublin are occupied by people who qualified to be there by virtue of being a frontline worker (teacher, Garda, medic etc) based within 1.5 kms of the building. They get a one-third discount on market rents, subsided by the State.

And so there should be no issue whatsoever constructing dedicated housing for DF service personnel and their families, on or near duty stations, provided they not provided for free, but at a sustainable economic value, or where rent is differentialy applied to their incomes.