Door is open for Ireland to join Nato, says military alliance's chief

Rented Mule · 12-02-2013 08:12PM

Sky King wrote: »

Yeah I am sure NATO would make great use of our one army tank and bloody Cessna 172s!

I'd say they're only interested Shannon and Knock. Hell, they paid for Knock. They might was well get some use out of it.

John Mongo · 12-02-2013 08:13PM

Cungi wrote: »

Those missions involved the Army Ranger Wing. As much as people like to mock our Defence Forces, these guys are the elite.

I dont think Ireland has any need to join NATO. We work perfectly fine as part of UN mandated missions.

Personally i think NATO wants to use our airspace (Shannon)

The first two tours of Timor involved the ARW, tours after that were Platoons from various Infantry Battalions around the country.

The vast majority of troops in Liberia were regular troops, there was a small number of ARW members over there.

In Chad, the first trip was conducted by the ARW as an advance party before the main body travelled over. After that, it was regular troops again.

So in actual fact, most of the overseas work has been done by regular troops.

Praetorian Saighdiuir · 12-02-2013 08:15PM

John Mongo wrote: »

The first two tours of Timor involved the ARW, tours after that were Platoons from various Infantry Battalions around the country.

The vast majority of troops in Liberia were regular troops, there was a small number of ARW members over there.

In Chad, the first trip was conducted by the ARW as an advance party before the main body travelled over. After that, it was regular troops again.

So in actual fact, most of the overseas work has been done by regular troops.

Quite true, it's worth mentioning that a small element of regular support troops also travel on some ARW missions.

Zebra3 · 12-02-2013 08:15PM

So what percentage increase in taxes are people happy to pay for Ireland to join NATO and help fund the industrial-military complex?

Will you gladly send your kids off to the next slaughterhouse in the Middle East to help feed the West's addiction to fossil fuels?

Capt'n Midnight · 12-02-2013 08:17PM

Our entire defence budget would get 6 F35 aircraft, no spares, no fuel, no weapons, no maintenance

F-35B: US$237.7M (weap. sys. cost, 2012)
F-35C: US$236.8M

It would also get you 1/2 of the cost of putting a catapult on a carrier
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/06/defence_committee_carrier_badness/

This would mean that the associated F-35 stealth fighter buy would need to change from the F-35B jumpjet version to the F-35C catapult type,
...
The puzzler was why on Earth it later got rescinded, on the grounds that putting catapults into the ships was not going to cost £900m - as the 2010 review had estimated - but actually £2bn for the Prince of Wales and maybe £3bn to the Queen Elizabeth. This would be to double the projected price of the two ships.

Regardless of any political considerations we just couldn't afford to spend that much on imported arms.

During the Falklands war the UK flew Harriers off container ships , it took 10 days in the dockyard to setup the ship
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/04/the-atlantic-conveyor-falklands30/ - which puts into perspective the level of unnecessary spending involved in NATO

Chuck Stone · 12-02-2013 08:18PM

Stealth Recce wrote: »

Did NATO donate the dough?

NATO doesn't have dough. NATO takes tax-payers' dough and uses it to fund the military industrial complex.

Praetorian Saighdiuir · 12-02-2013 08:22PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

NATO doesn't have dough. NATO uses tax-payers' dough and uses it to fund the military industrial complex.

Thanks,

**ahem, Christy Moore reference**

"...did NATO donate the dough me boys, did NATO donate the dough".

Fr_Dougal · 12-02-2013 08:26PM

The French President, is sitting in his office when his telephone rings.

"Hallo, Mr. Sarkozy!" a heavily accented voice said. "This is Paddy down at the Harp Pub in County Clare, Ireland. I am ringing to inform you that we are officially declaring war on you!"

"Well, Paddy," Sarkozy replied, "This is indeed important news! How big is your army?"

"Right now," says Paddy, after a moment's calculation, "there is meself, me cousin Sean, me next door neighbour Seamus, and the entire darts team from the pub. That makes eight!"

Sarkozy paused. "I must tell you, Paddy, that I have 100,000 men in my army waiting to move on my command."

"Begoora!" says Paddy. "I'll have to ring you back."

Sure enough, the next day, Paddy calls again. "Mr. Sarkozy, the war is still on. We have managed to get us some infantry equipment!"

"And what equipment would that be Paddy?" Sarkozy asks.

"Well, we have two combines, a bulldozer, and Murphy's farm tractor."

Sarkozy sighs amused. "I must tell you, Paddy, that I have 6,000 tanks and 5,000 armored personnel carriers. Also, I have increased my army to 150,000 since we last spoke."

"Saints preserve us!" says Paddy. "I'll have to get back to you."

Sure enough, Paddy rings again the next day. "Mr. Sarkozy, the war is still on! We have managed to get ourselves airborne! We have modified Jackie McLaughlin's ultra-light with a couple of shotguns in the cockpit, and four boys from the Shamrock Bar have joined us as well!"

Sarkozy was silent for a minute and then cleared his throat. "I must tell you, Paddy, that I have 100 bombers and 200 fighter planes. My military bases are surrounded by laser-guided, surface-to-air missile sites. And since we last spoke, I have increased my army to 200,000!"

"Jesus, Mary, and Joseph!" says Paddy, "I will have to ring you back."

Sure enough, Paddy calls again the next day. "Top o' the mornin', Mr. Sarkozy! I am sorry to inform you that we have had to call off the war."

"Really? I am sorry to hear that," says Sarkozy. "Why the sudden change of heart?"

"Well," says Paddy, "we had a long chat over a few pints of Guinness, and we decided there is no feckin' way we can feed 200,000 prisoners.

Nino Brown · 12-02-2013 08:27PM

Isn't it a bit hypocritical to be complaining about the military industrial complex and the West's addiction to oil and wars in the middle east. People are very quick to forget that we are part of the western world, most middle eastern oil in used in Europe, not the US as people seem to think, so that's us using that oil.
You're reading this right now on PC that uses significant amounts of oil to manufacture, you probably have a car, which is built from and runs on oils, most things in your house are built from oil. Its very easy to reap the benefits of wars in the middle east, while at the same time condemning the wars. How many people would be willing to cut oil based products from their life? if we want to keep using using middle eastern oil we should be willing to contribute to the stabilization of that region to secure the resource we love so much.

12-02-2013 08:29PM

I really don't see the point. We don't have any real enemies in the world (except maybe hardline Loyalists). That's the difference between us and the likes of South Korea and Kuwait.

Nino Brown · 12-02-2013 08:32PM

Karsini wrote: »

I really don't see the point. We don't have any real enemies in the world (except maybe hardline Loyalists). That's the difference between us and the likes of South Korea and Kuwait.

Germany wasn't our enemy before WW2, but they had invasion plans drawn up for after they defeated Britain. If you wait until you have an enemy it's already too late.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208860/Top-secret-dossier-uncovered-containing-detailed-maps-postcards-Hitlers-plan-invade-neutral-Ireland.html#axzz2KiP5hUf9

AlmightyCushion · 12-02-2013 08:35PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Our entire defence budget would get 6 F35 aircraft, no spares, no fuel, no weapons, no maintenance

F-35B: US$237.7M (weap. sys. cost, 2012)
F-35C: US$236.8M

It would also get you 1/2 of the cost of putting a catapult on a carrier
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/06/defence_committee_carrier_badness/

Regardless of any political considerations we just couldn't afford to spend that much on imported arms.

During the Falklands war the UK flew Harriers off container ships , it took 10 days in the dockyard to setup the ship
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/04/the-atlantic-conveyor-falklands30/ - which puts into perspective the level of unnecessary spending involved in NATO

What has any of this to do with NATO membership? The majority of NATO members don't have an aircraft carrier or a fleet of brand new, top of the line fighters jets. Even Luxembourg is a member of NATO and it only has a population of about 500,000. I imagine if we did join NATO we would have to increase our military spending to above 1% of GDP but that would be something we'd know before joining.

somefeen · 12-02-2013 08:36PM

We're a country of only about 4 million people with no enemies.
We don't need NATO.

As for us not contributing to stabilising the middle east where our oil comes from.
Why should we when every other country seems to willing to do the heavy lifting for us, jokes on them.
If we ever do feel we need to contribute to that I would rather it took the form us rebuilding after the war or providing security to the civilians caught up in it.

awec · 12-02-2013 08:36PM

I don't see what would be in it for Ireland?

Sound of Silence · 12-02-2013 08:37PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

How has it worked for us?, if it wasn't for the protection of the British in WW2 we would have been a push over for the Germans. We are an embarrassingly weak nation militarily.

In this day and age neutrality is an absolutely ridiculous concept, any country which would be likely to attack us, wouldn't care less if we were neutral. If neutrality really worked then why didn't Kuwait claim neutrality in 1990? Maybe South Korea should claim neutrality too?, would that mean North Korea couldn't invade, and they could save a fortune on military spending?

In this day and age? I'm sorry to tell you, but the Cold War is kaput.

When this country is facing an indefinite freeze on the recruitment of AGS Officers, and possibly even a further reduction in their wages, how do you suppose we'll swing it in the Dail to begin pouring Millions of Taxpayers Euros into the Defence budget? At the very least I expect TD's to raise an eyebrow at the idea.

Whilst it's okay for people to get all Jingoistic about Warfare and the Military and Ireland's place in that whole World, we honestly need to get our priorities straight here...

Nino Brown · 12-02-2013 08:42PM

Sound of Silence wrote: »

In this day and age? I'm sorry to tell you, but the Cold War is kaput.

When this country is facing an indefinite freeze on the recruitment of AGS Officers, and possibly even a further reduction in their wages, how do you suppose we'll swing it in the Dail to begin pouring Millions of Taxpayers Euros into the Defence budget? At the very least I expect TD's to raise an eyebrow at the idea.

Whilst it's okay for people to get all Jingoistic about Warfare and the Military and Ireland's place in that whole World, we honestly need to get our priorities straight here...

Yes that war is over, but I'm sorry to tell you that there will be more wars, and history shows us that countries we see as our allies now will be our enemies in the future.
Who says we have to spend millions? I agree that the country can't afford to spend huge amounts of cash right now, but nobody said they have to, we could just grant use of our airspace for a start.

Corkfeen · 12-02-2013 08:44PM

Aiyana Thankful Snapdragon wrote: »

We've already participated in Eufor, PfP, Sfor & Kfor missions and have personnel in Afghanistan as part of an ISAF mission.

We've done very well with peace enforcement missions in Somali, East Timor, Liberia, Chat & Lebanon [UNIFIL II].

Irish neutrality [LOOKS AROUND] WHERE? [/LOOKS AROUND].

From the little that I have read on Irish Neutrality, we fall into the category of a non-belligerent state rather than neutral because we have always chosen a side even if we had claimed not to. Probably a bit of an oversimplification. :pac:

Chuck Stone · 12-02-2013 08:49PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

Isn't it a bit hypocritical to be complaining about the military industrial complex and the West's addiction to oil and wars in the middle east.

So you're telling us NATO is all about controlling the resources of sovereign nations and redistributing wealth from tax-payers to war junkies and weapons manufacturers?

Sound of Silence · 12-02-2013 08:55PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

Yes that war is over, but I'm sorry to tell you that there will be more wars, and history shows us that countries we see as our allies now will be our enemies in the future.
Who says we have to spend millions? I agree that the country can't afford to spend huge amounts of cash right now, but nobody said they have to, we could just grant use of our airspace for a start.

Your initial point reeks of Cold War paranoia. There's no arms race here.

I could understand a Nation in the Middle-East opening it's airspace to Allied Forces as being something which would be even remotely useful.

Ireland opening it's airspace? Doesn't Irish airspace constitute a solitary block stretching into the Atlantic Ocean? Unless we're going to start bombing Atlantis, I fail to see the strategic benefits.

Chuck Stone · 12-02-2013 08:56PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

Who says we have to spend millions? I agree that the country can't afford to spend huge amounts of cash right now, but nobody said they have to, we could just grant use of our airspace for a start.

We haven't offered any significant strategic advantage since the ICBM and the long distance bomber.

If we discovered a few hundred billion euros worth of oil/gas I don't think people would stand in the way of an increased defensive security footing.

Nino Brown · 12-02-2013 08:57PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So you're telling us NATO is all about controlling the resources of sovereign nations and redistributing wealth from tax-payers to war junkies and weapons manufacturers?

You're twisting my words a bit, but yes I do think controlling resources by means of enforced stabilization of a region is part of what NATO do.
My point is people, like you I'm guessing are outraged by this, yet still reap the spoils of war as it were.
People still use that oil everyday, and while they criticize wars from their armchair they would be on the streets protesting if oil was E5 a liter which it could well be if the volatile middle east was left to its own devices.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 12-02-2013 08:59PM

Cungi wrote: »

Those missions involved the Army Ranger Wing. As much as people like to mock our Defence Forces, these guys are the elite.

I dont think Ireland has any need to join NATO. We work perfectly fine as part of UN mandated missions.

Personally i think NATO wants to use our airspace (Shannon)

I really don't get what you're saying?.

But I'll try.

Those missions involved the Army Ranger Wing. As much as people like to mock our Defence Forces, these guys are the elite.

If you mean those missions were solely ARW, you're wrong.

I dont think Ireland has any need to join NATO. We work perfectly fine as part of UN mandated missions.

You're right, Ireland works fine without the need to join NATO.. But NATO would benefit from our involvement.

Personally i think NATO wants to use our airspace (Shannon)

You think they don't?.

Nino Brown · 12-02-2013 09:00PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

We haven't offered any significant strategic advantage since the ICBM and the long distance bomber.

If we discovered a few hundred billion euros worth of oil/gas I don't think people would stand in the way of an increased defensive security footing.

It may have been more convenience than strategic advantage, but we were used a lot for refueling US planes during the Iraq war.

Chuck Stone · 12-02-2013 09:03PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

if oil was E5 a liter which it could well be if the volatile middle east was left to its own devices.

Sorry but I'm not really interested in your parade of horribles.

Anyway, if the price of oil increases alternatives become more attractive. We'd be well placed to take advantage of wind and wave.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 12-02-2013 09:04PM

Karsini wrote: »

I really don't see the point. We don't have any real enemies in the world (except maybe hardline Loyalists). That's the difference between us and the likes of South Korea and Kuwait.

And hardline 'nationalists' (sticks in my throat).

Don't forget before Yugoslavia tore itself apart in 1991 no other European country faced the same internal security threat as Ireland (north and south), we still have an internal security problem ~ 'they haven't gone away you know!.

And whilst we don't have any external enemies our friends in the UK, the USA, France etc have. And they have plenty.

Cungi · 12-02-2013 09:07PM

Aiyana Thankful Snapdragon wrote: »

I really don't get what you're saying?.

Just adding to your point regarding missions in East Timor, Liberia & Chad.
We sent the best we have. Not a combine and a Cessna like some people seem to think is all we have to offer.

Aiyana Thankful Snapdragon wrote: »

If you mean those missions were solely ARW, you're wrong.

Not saying they were solely ARW.

Aiyana Thankful Snapdragon wrote: »

You're right, Ireland works fine without the need to join NATO.. But NATO would benefit from our involvement.

I agree

Aiyana Thankful Snapdragon wrote: »

You think they don't?.

Now i'm confused. i said i think they do

Capt'n Midnight · 12-02-2013 09:12PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

Germany wasn't our enemy before WW2, but they had invasion plans drawn up for after they defeated Britain. If you wait until you have an enemy it's already too late.

Everyone has invasion and defence plans for as many possible events as they can predict.

We even had plans to invade the North during the troubles.

Most of that is war games.

ManMade · 12-02-2013 09:15PM

Feck NATO, too much bureaucracy. I say we hold a referendum too invade Australia!

TheUsual · 12-02-2013 09:17PM

We are not neutral, vast numbers of USA troops went to Afghanistan and Iraq via Shannon Airport as well as unknown weapons and we have no record of what went through.
However we are independent in terms of deciding who we side with and that is where we will stay, I can't see even a self-loathing Irishman as Enda Kenny going for this.

NATO only want our ports (not as important as during the 1940's and cold war because Naval warfare is obsolete now) and airports to refuel long distance - it's the first stop over the Atlantic and a lot quieter in terms of air traffic (you don't have to wait for a landing slot) as well as a lot less pesky civilians reporting the military jets/bombers/cargo planes on the internet.

Nino Brown · 12-02-2013 09:19PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Sorry but I'm not really interested in your parade of horribles.

Anyway, if the price of oil increases alternatives become more attractive. We'd be well placed to take advantage of wind and wave.

I don't see it as a parade of horribles, you see what happens to the price of oil at the mere mention of a war in the middle east, what do you think would happen if all out war were to occur? The Saudis are under US protection at very high cost to them, so they obviously feel that a war would be likely. Likewise with Kuwait, we know Iran and Iraq's history, the list goes on. I think its axiomatic that without western presence in the Middle East oil would be far more expensive.

I also don't see wind, wave or any other alternative energy as a viable replacement, but that's a whole other argument.

Door is open for Ireland to join Nato, says military alliance's chief

Comments