A minimum defence capability ? Whats needed ?

Ren2k7 · 19-02-2015 04:58PM

sparky42 wrote: »

If it wanted to avoid any fighters coming up at it I'm sure they would. And that doesn't even deal with the fact that larger aircraft have better handling at high altitude than smaller ones. Certainly the Scorpion wouldn't be fast enough (60+ knot difference) while I'm very doubtful that the L-159 would loose less than 16km/h with weapons/altitude. There's also the issue of the bear being able to simply outlast them (assuming flying from Dublin at full speed just to intercept them)

That's all well and good you you forget one thing, the PC9's can't do a single thing to prevent Russian infringement of our airspace. At least Scorpion's and L-159's can. Sure we could buy 6 Grippens and be sure we could properly deal with Bear Bombers. But they're, what, $60 million a piece? And that doesn't take into account maintenance costs. You're talking the guts of half a billion for 6 aircraft, along with maintenance! We couldn't afford that, at least not yet.

For the money we do have at present we should upgrade to light attack fighters (at the very least they would offer better training for air cadets than the turboprops we now have), and then in about 10 years time, after the economy has fully recovered, explore acquiring multi-role fighters.

sparky42 · 19-02-2015 05:29PM

Ren2k7 wrote: »

That's all well and good you you forget one thing, the PC9's can't do a single thing to prevent Russian infringement of our airspace. At least Scorpion's and L-159's can. Sure we could buy 6 Grippens and be sure we could properly deal with Bear Bombers. But they're, what, $60 million a piece? And that doesn't take into account maintenance costs. You're talking the guts of half a billion for 6 aircraft, along with maintenance! We couldn't afford that, at least not yet.

For the money we do have at present we should upgrade to light attack fighters (at the very least they would offer better training for air cadets than the turboprops we now have), and then in about 10 years time, after the economy has fully recovered, explore acquiring multi-role fighters.

Not convinced looking at the figures that the Scorpion/L-159 offers much more benefit, not unless we intend to base them on the West Coast permanently. Outside of the proposed Ferry range we don't even know what the combat radius of the Scorpion is (and again it's development so I wouldn't trust the figures anyway until somebody else puts it into service and hangs weapons on it and proves the figures), for the 159 getting from Dublin to the West Coast and back uses up about a third of it's max range (and can we even judge if that's it's range at full speed, or a more economical profile?) before you add weapons (so maybe even half it's range gone), so could a 159 even manage to maintain contact from our air space off Donegal down the West Coast, or would we need to have multiple planes handing off to one another? Could the Bear just open the range for an hour and run them out of fuel/range? Also not sure how they provide more training, pretty much every air force trains on Turboprops to start with before moving on, we'd need them even if we had jets. For their price the 159/Scorpions don't add much more than what we have, while meaning we still have to start up all the spares/maintenance/Baldonnel upgrades that we'd have to do for anything more advanced anyway.

Like everything else, because generations have left things in such a uninvested position we will end spending a huge amount if we ever choose to take our defence seriously. If you look at say Beligum's defence spending it's 65% pay/pensions, 25% current support, and just the rest for new hardware, we'd have to massively expand the last while maintaining/expanding the other 2 areas and sustain that for an extended period no matter what we do to invest in defence.

Savage93 · 19-02-2015 07:14PM

Ren2k7 wrote: »

What has this got to do with the present discussion? Blatant trolling.

I wondered how long before the first "Shinnerbot" appeared on the thread.

Savage93 · 19-02-2015 07:20PM

shanered wrote: »

These musings are pointless, last thing we need is more military, id have fear for us as a country who had our own national budget announced in the German Parliment before our Dail.
We are a million milesaway from being neutral, and just as far from common sense.
We need to stop allowing shannon being used.
We need better ships if anything in our navey to protect fishing rights and stop smuggling.
We thoerectically should have no beef with the Russians but i can see the US/Uk media filitrring through to some people here.
We are not and should not aspire to become any strategic player.
The biggest threat to our security is the Governments leasing of our airport to forgien powers who are at war.
Save to money on the discussed planes and just pull the plug on military stop overs in shannon.
Theres a cost effective solution.

I must add i do like the military hardware contemplations but for me its pie in the sky stuff.
If we wanted to protect ourselves we should start at the basics and start looking after the people living here now, we have our emergancy comprising of overcroweded hospitals, displaced population living on the streets, and finacial extortion on huge levels.
We might as well be at war.
We need to lay claim to our soviernty first before we defend it, the whole thread is putting the cart before the horse imo.
We should have no part to play in this russian fear mongering. And less of scrambling jets to "scare" them off. Do you think the russians would think we would fire on them?
Can you imagine the scenario?
We are much better keeping our heads out of this and not start making a bigger mess then we already are in.
We would be cannon fodder for the brits and prob used as slme scapegoat to further their geo-political agendas as we historically have.

One question, would the sole intention of additional hardware be solely for use against russia?
Are they our sole enemy atm?
When did this happen? Because of this one flight? Why russia amd not any other nation?

This thread stinks, we are more under threat from Britan as usual than russia in my opinion. Im sure russia lolked at hitting shannon, but only after another nation such as US/Uk have started using it.

Why dont we just cop on, stop letting any forgien forces use our territory and take ourselves out of the crosshairs, and its funny because Uk and US have plans to usw shannon one way or the other which infringes on us protecting our territory, why get so uppity about one bleedin russian plane when we have much bigger closer threats?
Im sure the Uk have several invasion plans of our island in time of war, and i must ask, wouldwe be scrambling jets if and when any RAF plane enter our precious airspace?

another shinnerbot

:D:D:D:D:D:D

How the F**k do you think we can stop foreign forces using our territory , Because of people like you we cannot, not much point lying down on O'Connell bridge to protest with the rest of the hairyholes when there's a Russian Bear about to dump a load on Dublin.

Savage93 · 19-02-2015 07:53PM

Ren2k7 wrote: »

That's all well and good you you forget one thing, the PC9's can't do a single thing to prevent Russian infringement of our airspace. At least Scorpion's and L-159's can. Sure we could buy 6 Grippens and be sure we could properly deal with Bear Bombers. But they're, what, $60 million a piece? And that doesn't take into account maintenance costs. You're talking the guts of half a billion for 6 aircraft, along with maintenance! We couldn't afford that, at least not yet.

For the money we do have at present we should upgrade to light attack fighters (at the very least they would offer better training for air cadets than the turboprops we now have), and then in about 10 years time, after the economy has fully recovered, explore acquiring multi-role fighters.

HOW MANY TIMES, neither the L159 nor the Scorpion will catch a Bear, bearing in mind distance and time from scramble, climb time , their max speeds and the Bears max speeds. THEY WILL NOT DO THE JOB

IrishTrajan · 19-02-2015 10:43PM

shanered wrote: »

These musings are pointless, last thing we need is more military, id have fear for us as a country who had our own national budget announced in the German Parliment before our Dail.
We are a million milesaway from being neutral, and just as far from common sense.
We need to stop allowing shannon being used.
We need better ships if anything in our navey to protect fishing rights and stop smuggling.
We thoerectically should have no beef with the Russians but i can see the US/Uk media filitrring through to some people here.
We are not and should not aspire to become any strategic player.
The biggest threat to our security is the Governments leasing of our airport to forgien powers who are at war.
Save to money on the discussed planes and just pull the plug on military stop overs in shannon.
Theres a cost effective solution.

I must add i do like the military hardware contemplations but for me its pie in the sky stuff.
If we wanted to protect ourselves we should start at the basics and start looking after the people living here now, we have our emergancy comprising of overcroweded hospitals, displaced population living on the streets, and finacial extortion on huge levels.
We might as well be at war.
We need to lay claim to our soviernty first before we defend it, the whole thread is putting the cart before the horse imo.
We should have no part to play in this russian fear mongering. And less of scrambling jets to "scare" them off. Do you think the russians would think we would fire on them?
Can you imagine the scenario?
We are much better keeping our heads out of this and not start making a bigger mess then we already are in.
We would be cannon fodder for the brits and prob used as slme scapegoat to further their geo-political agendas as we historically have.

One question, would the sole intention of additional hardware be solely for use against russia?
Are they our sole enemy atm?
When did this happen? Because of this one flight? Why russia amd not any other nation?

This thread stinks, we are more under threat from Britan as usual than russia in my opinion. Im sure russia lolked at hitting shannon, but only after another nation such as US/Uk have started using it.

Why dont we just cop on, stop letting any forgien forces use our territory and take ourselves out of the crosshairs, and its funny because Uk and US have plans to usw shannon one way or the other which infringes on us protecting our territory, why get so uppity about one bleedin russian plane when we have much bigger closer threats?
Im sure the Uk have several invasion plans of our island in time of war, and i must ask, wouldwe be scrambling jets if and when any RAF plane enter our precious airspace?

Let's get a few things straight.

1. Allowing for the transition of hardware and foreign soldiers does not, does not, Does Not breach neutrality. Shannon Airport allowing U.S. troops to use it as a stop over does not breach our neutrality, nor is it Cassus Belli for military strikes.
2. We're not talking about just Russia. We're talking about the Irish State having the capabilities to defend itself from all threats. It is simply that Russia is the most belligerent power, and they see the European Union (which means us) as a rival.

Okay, onto your other claims.

Irish hospitals are overcrowded, not because of lack of funds, but because those funds are misappropriated. The HSE is heavily, heavily overstaffed in administration. You cut administrative numbers, and you'll have enough funds freed up to buy as many feckin' hospital beds as your heart is content to.
The State has increased "anti-Homeless" spending in the most recent budget. The problem is, a lot of the homeless have drug problems. I believe we should help them, but only if they go through rehabilitation. The Government's homeless shelters should not be a life choice, they should be a temporary fix until those people are free of drugs and can afford to live on their own feet.

Is Russia scared we will shoot at them? Not the people in the Kremlin, but people on that plane sure are. It would take a moron to not fear dying over the Atlantic. We're not asking to shoot them down, we're asking for a complement of aircraft capable of escorting them out Irish (sovereign or controlled) airspace. If we were going to be stopping an opponent from establishing air supremacy during an invasion, it would be through SAMs, not fighters. The Air Corps getting larger, faster, more durable fighters would give us the ability to escort these people out.

Britain is also incredibly unlikely to invade us. Can you think of the sh1t storm that would kick off? Not only would it leave our relations in tatters (which are at their best point now, than ever before), it would ruin Anglo-Irish trade and probably result in thousands of lives.

You are arguing against increasing spending, so should we rely on Britain? Isn't being anti-British dependent your parties' ideology?

Yes, Britain probably does have plans to invade us if we were to go to war with each other, much like they did during ww2. The very same way they also contingency plans to go to war with France, or U.S., or Germany... It's common sense that they would have back-up plans. Does that mean they will invade us? No, don't be nonsensical. We have incredibly close relations; culturally, economically, socially, politically.

And, yes, if the RAF did venture into Irish Airspace, the Air Corps would escort them out. That's the thing you're not seeing, we're looking out for what is best for Ireland, to make sure it has the ability to protect itself and its jurisdiction. We're not god damn maniacs calling for war with Russia.

clear thinking · 20-02-2015 12:13AM

Just to emphasise the High damage / Low risk nuclear threat: Russia sees the EU and NATO as one and the same. They have run 8 snap war games exercises since 2013, ALL of which included limited nuclear strikes, 1 of which was Warsaw. The threat of initiating such strikes (or actually doing them) is (or would be) gauged to say to the west 'stay out' and allow Russia regain its sphere of influence.

Sweden as a 'neutral' country, Portugal, Holland, France have been subjected to bombing runs or fly-bys too. The baltics have had hundreds of airspace incursions by russians in the past year requiring an escort.

There is absolutely every reason for weak EU countries to consider they would be subject to limited nuke strikes along with the big 3.

Short of that a run on London or Manchester from all directions by multiple aircraft in a high pressure scenario could see a nuclear armed aircraft or missile shot down over Ireland by UK defenses before it gets to the UK, simply because we couldn't shoot it down off our west coast first.

So I'd like a variety of SAMs, radar and the debate seems to be leaning towards F16s rather than sub sonic options so a few of those too.

As an aside a few anti tank choppers, entry/evac choppers would be nice in case they are needed in the leb or syria and would double as our most effiecient homeland defense, if the brits ever did invade.

IrishTrajan · 20-02-2015 12:22AM

clear thinking wrote: »

Just to emphasise the High damage / Low risk nuclear threat: Russia sees the EU and NATO as one and the same. They have run 8 snap war games exercises since 2013, ALL of which included limited nuclear strikes, 1 of which was Warsaw. The threat of initiating such strikes (or actually doing them) is (or would be) gauged to say to the west 'stay out' and allow Russia regain its sphere of influence.

Sweden as a 'neutral' country, Portugal, Holland, France have been subjected to bombing runs or fly-bys too. The baltics have had hundreds of airspace incursions by russians in the past year requiring an escort.

There is absolutely every reason for weak EU countries to consider they would be subject to limited nuke strikes along with the big 3.

Short of that a run on London or Manchester from all directions by multiple aircraft in a high pressure scenario could see a nuclear armed aircraft or missile shot down over Ireland by UK defenses before it gets to the UK, simply because we couldn't shoot it down off our west coast first.

So I'd like a variety of SAMs, radar and the debate seems to be leaning towards F16s rather than sub sonic options so a few of those too.

As an aside a few anti tank choppers, entry/evac choppers would be nice in case they are needed in the leb or syria and would double as our most effiecient homeland defense, if the brits ever did invade.

The only thing I disagree on, would be the "Big 3" being targeted with nuclear strikes. I don't think Russia would ever use nuclear strikes on Britain, France or Germany.

Russia believes nuclear warfare would be in complementary fashion to conventional warfare. e.g. They nuke military installations to allow their conventional forces to steamroll over other forces. France, however, has a "weak-to-strong" approach to nuclear warfare. They are the only country that has come out and said any nuclear strike against them, civilian or military, would result in them targeting civilian centers.

It's why Russia was more inclined to nuke Venice, and other peripheral cities, to warn France not to get involved, whilst Soviet troops would strike for the Rhine and attempt a peace negotiations.

France, simply put, wouldn't mess around. They'd kill millions of Russian civilians with nuclear strikes. Unlike Napoleon's campaign, the Russian Winter isn't going to stop nuclear hellfire.

cruasder777 · 20-02-2015 12:50AM

The cold war never really went away, the threat level just went down.

We now have the most serious situation since the Cuban missile crisis.

Yet the idiot UK govt continues to cut the defence budget.

In the same way the UK govt rid of its civil nuclear defences and units like the Royal Observer corps.

Shannon is also a Russian strategic target.

NATO should be sending more armour into the Baltic and issuing an ultimatum, that it will defend its members.

In the event of the nuclear war, this place would have been the UK govts HQ. I find it odd it got rid of such facilities.

http://www.secretnuclearbunker.com/

Check this out, the bunker is 120 meters deep, on three levels, even its own hospital, facilities for 600 people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnCXMp7O3xo#t=13

sparky42 · 20-02-2015 12:54AM

cruasder777 wrote: »

NATO should be sending more armour into the Baltic and issuing an ultimatum, that it will defend its members.

Given the fire sale of the German Army, the amount of armour left is small enough, the UK has what 100 MBT's in service, Germany has 225, France has 200, sure there's more in storage but that would mean having to expand the force structures.

IrishTrajan · 20-02-2015 12:56AM

cruasder777 wrote: »

The cold war never really went away, the threat level just went down.

We now have the most serious situation since the Cuban missile crisis.

Yet the idiot UK govt continues to cut the defence budget.

In the same way the UK govt rid of its civil nuclear defences and units like the Royal Observer corps.

Shannon is also a Russian strategic target.

NATO should be sending more armour into the Baltic and issuing an ultimatum, that it will defend its members.

No, it shouldn't. Russia is fighting because it believes NATO is coming for it. It's why they are fighting so hard in Ukraine. The only way to get them to calm down, is to back off a bit so they relax. If they continue being belligerent, then we take measures to deter them.

There are two powers: One is aggressive out of ambition, the other is aggressive out of fear. Russia is the latter, not the former. If we start to move towards them, moving big guns around, they will get more and more paranoid and become more and more irrational. We need to ease the perceived encirclement, but draw a very clear line in the sand. "You attack a NATO country, we will turn your country into dust."

clear thinking · 20-02-2015 12:57AM

IrishTrajan wrote: »

The only thing I disagree on, would be the "Big 3" being targeted with nuclear strikes. I don't think Russia would ever use nuclear strikes on Britain, France or Germany.

Russia believes nuclear warfare would be in complementary fashion to conventional warfare. e.g. They nuke military installations to allow their conventional forces to steamroll over other forces. France, however, has a "weak-to-strong" approach to nuclear warfare. They are the only country that has come out and said any nuclear strike against them, civilian or military, would result in them targeting civilian centers.

It's why Russia was more inclined to nuke Venice, and other peripheral cities, to warn France not to get involved, whilst Soviet troops would strike for the Rhine and attempt a peace negotiations.

France, simply put, wouldn't mess around. They'd kill millions of Russian civilians with nuclear strikes. Unlike Napoleon's campaign, the Russian Winter isn't going to stop nuclear hellfire.

100% fair point on the big three, however armed dummy runs can still go wrong, which I had in mind as well, though not explained clearly.

cruasder777 · 20-02-2015 12:58AM

sparky42 wrote: »

Given the fire sale of the German Army, the amount of armour left is small enough, the UK has what 100 MBT's in service, Germany has 225, France has 200, sure there's more in storage but that would mean having to expand the force structures.

Yes, but NATO has vast air supremacy against Russian armour.

sparky42 · 20-02-2015 01:00AM

IrishTrajan wrote: »

No, it shouldn't. Russia is fighting because it believes NATO is coming for it. It's why they are fighting so hard in Ukraine. The only way to get them to calm down, is to back off a bit so they relax. If they continue being belligerent, then we take measures to deter them.

There are two powers: One is aggressive out of ambition, the other is aggressive out of fear. Russia is the latter, not the former. If we start to move towards them, moving big guns around, they will get more and more paranoid and become more and more irrational. We need to ease the perceived encirclement, but draw a very clear line in the sand. "You attack a NATO country, we will turn your country into dust."

Except that those NATO nations that are bordering Russia is screaming for support, Vlad is looking towards them (while having ignored/broken treaties). By the end of this decade Poland is going to be one of the strongest NATO European nations with a massive upgrade program underway.

Short of giving Russia its "sphere" back (ie the Baltic's, Eastern Europe), Russia isn't going to stop this Not with their Alternative EU pretty much shagged from the start now that Ukraine is out.

clear thinking · 20-02-2015 01:00AM

IrishTrajan wrote: »

No, it shouldn't. Russia is fighting because it believes NATO is coming for it. It's why they are fighting so hard in Ukraine. The only way to get them to calm down, is to back off a bit so they relax. If they continue being belligerent, then we take measures to deter them.

There are two powers: One is aggressive out of ambition, the other is aggressive out of fear. Russia is the latter, not the former. If we start to move towards them, moving big guns around, they will get more and more paranoid and become more and more irrational. We need to ease the perceived encirclement, but draw a very clear line in the sand. "You attack a NATO country, we will turn your country into dust."

there is a good report in the economist on this very point, and in the FT, they make the case that the encirclement fear and excuse of tanks on its border would give putin political cover at home.

It would also however have the side effect of making him back off. That is called a Win Win.

(apologies for the slight stray from the direct topic, but it is relevant I think)

IrishTrajan · 20-02-2015 01:02AM

cruasder777 wrote: »

Yes, but NATO has vast air supremacy against Russian armour.

Debatable. Russia's SAM systems outperform their American counterparts. In air-to-air combat, the West has air superiority. But trying to establish air supremacy would likely cost the West heavily. It could be done, but it wouldn't be easy, and the difference isn't "vast".

sparky42 · 20-02-2015 01:05AM

cruasder777 wrote: »

Yes, but NATO has vast air supremacy against Russian armour.

The US does, if it can be brought to Europe in time. The EU air forces are facing the result of budget calls. Germany could field maybe 12-18 Eurofighters last year by their own admission, Spain was in single digits in operational readiness. The Eurofighter production line is going to start winding down if it doesn't get more orders soon, with the Tranche 3 upgrades most likely never going to happen (Vector thrust, conformal tanks etc).

With the US pivoting to the Pacific, along with the realistic view that the EU nations aren't investing what's needed, assuming that everything is perfect is unwise long term unless the last 20 years of trends are reversed.

That combined with the US pushing hard for 35 orders means that fighter forces are going to get much more expensive as well.

IrishTrajan · 20-02-2015 01:06AM

sparky42 wrote: »

Except that those NATO nations that are bordering Russia is screaming for support, Vlad is looking towards them (while having ignored/broken treaties). By the end of this decade Poland is going to be one of the strongest NATO European nations with a massive upgrade program underway.

Short of giving Russia its "sphere" back (ie the Baltic's, Eastern Europe), Russia isn't going to stop this Not with their Alternative EU pretty much shagged from the start now that Ukraine is out.

NATO has already reaffirmed its pledge to the Baltics with 5000-troops. It's not enough to threaten Russia, but it's enough to warn Russia that any fecking about in the Baltics will result in war with NATO.

If you increase the presence in the Baltics, you're talking about giving Russia an actual excuse to interfere in more nations. Right now, 5000 troops won't topple Russia. But if you started cramming 20-30,000 men with entire Armoured Divisions, and relevant airpower, then you're going to make Russia more and more paranoid, and they might attempt a pre-emptive strike.

I agree, Russia is a belligerent power, but it's doing it out of fear that NATO will be coming for it. NATO's more worried about China, than it is about Russia.

IrishTrajan · 20-02-2015 01:09AM

sparky42 wrote: »

The US does, if it can be brought to Europe in time. The EU air forces are facing the result of budget calls. Germany could field maybe 12-18 Eurofighters last year by their own admission, Spain was in single digits in operational readiness. The Eurofighter production line is going to start winding down if it doesn't get more orders soon, with the Tranche 3 upgrades most likely never going to happen (Vector thrust, conformal tanks etc).

With the US pivoting to the Pacific, along with the realistic view that the EU nations aren't investing what's needed, assuming that everything is perfect is unwise long term unless the last 20 years of trends are reversed.

That combined with the US pushing hard for 35 orders means that fighter forces are going to get much more expensive as well.

European Army, when?

sparky42 · 20-02-2015 01:10AM

IrishTrajan wrote: »

European Army, when?

What's the forecast for hell?:P

cruasder777 · 20-02-2015 01:14AM

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Debatable. Russia's SAM systems outperform their American counterparts. In air-to-air combat, the West has air superiority. But trying to establish air supremacy would likely cost the West heavily. It could be done, but it wouldn't be easy, and the difference isn't "vast".

Russian armour and fast air are two generations behind NATO.

Russia S-400 SAMs are more advanced, but NATO can block them with classified IRCMs.

NATO is light years ahead of the Ruskies

Ren2k7 · 20-02-2015 01:23AM

IrishTrajan wrote: »

No, it shouldn't. Russia is fighting because it believes NATO is coming for it. It's why they are fighting so hard in Ukraine. The only way to get them to calm down, is to back off a bit so they relax. If they continue being belligerent, then we take measures to deter them.
"

So basically appeasement then. We've seen how well such a strategy works, as well as this week when the West trusted Russia to pull its offensive forces back from the frontlines, something it failed to do and in fact continued pushing forward into Debaltseve and towards Mariupol. Everything the EU and NATO have done to try and placate Russia has been thrown back in their faces by a belligerent and unstable Russia who seems hell bent on returning Europe back to the 1930's.

Appeasing bullies has never worked in the past and certainly won't work now. Putin only understand strength and brute force. Hence why NATO should be sending armoured tank division and air forces right up to its border with Russia in the Baltics.

Ren2k7 · 20-02-2015 01:30AM

IrishTrajan wrote: »

NATO has already reaffirmed its pledge to the Baltics with 5000-troops. It's not enough to threaten Russia, but it's enough to warn Russia that any fecking about in the Baltics will result in war with NATO.

If you increase the presence in the Baltics, you're talking about giving Russia an actual excuse to interfere in more nations. Right now, 5000 troops won't topple Russia. But if you started cramming 20-30,000 men with entire Armoured Divisions, and relevant airpower, then you're going to make Russia more and more paranoid, and they might attempt a pre-emptive strike.

I agree, Russia is a belligerent power, but it's doing it out of fear that NATO will be coming for it. NATO's more worried about China, than it is about Russia.

But wasn't the same said of the US beefing up its forces in West Germany in the 80's and the deployment of Pershings to Europe, that such an "aggressive" display towards the Russians would risk triggering Warsaw Pact forces rushing through the Fulda Gap? In truth Putin is always paranoid and believes NATO is out to get Russia whatever it does.

sparky42 · 20-02-2015 01:34AM

Ren2k7 wrote: »

But wasn't the same said of the US beefing up its forces in West Germany in the 80's and the deployment of Pershings to Europe, that such an "aggressive" display towards the Russians would risk triggering Warsaw Pact forces rushing through the Fulda Gap? In truth Putin is always paranoid and believes NATO is out to get Russia whatever it does.

Long term the likelihood is that Vlad's actions is going to end up with Russia being China's B***h. You can see this with them having had to accept a gas export deal with China at far lower terms than what they wanted pre Ukraine. And his military spending at all costs is mirroring the USSR, their economy is suffering with every section of the budget being cut, while defence spending increases (though they have recently stated that post 2020 the orders will be massively reduced). The fake EU is crippled due to Ukraine never going to forgive Russia at this stage.

Ren2k7 · 20-02-2015 01:42AM

sparky42 wrote: »

Long term the likelihood is that Vlad's actions is going to end up with Russia being China's B***h. You can see this with them having had to accept a gas export deal with China at far lower terms than what they wanted pre Ukraine. And his military spending at all costs is mirroring the USSR, their economy is suffering with every section of the budget being cut, while defence spending increases (though they have recently stated that post 2020 the orders will be massively reduced). The fake EU is crippled due to Ukraine never going to forgive Russia at this stage.

Fake EU? You mean Putin's fabled "Eurasian Union" (basically a reformed Soviet Union)? That pipe dream is struggling to get off the ground and will probably crash and burn along with the Russian Federation. We may even see a breakup of the RF, much like the dissolution of the USSR, with the likes of Chechnya, Dagestan and Tatarstan gaining freedom. Fingers crossed this will come to pass. Russia has caused too much grief and suffering for centuries. It's time it was ended.

IrishTrajan · 20-02-2015 01:44AM

Ren2k7 wrote: »

So basically appeasement then. We've seen how well such a strategy works, as well as this week when the West trusted Russia to pull its offensive forces back from the frontlines, something it failed to do and in fact continued pushing forward into Debaltseve and towards Mariupol. Everything the EU and NATO have done to try and placate Russia has been thrown back in their faces by a belligerent and unstable Russia who seems hell bent on returning Europe back to the 1930's.

Appeasing bullies has never worked in the past and certainly won't work now. Putin only understand strength and brute force. Hence why NATO should be sending armoured tank division and air forces right up to its border with Russia in the Baltics.

Appeasing doesn't work for countries intent on expanding by ambition. However, Russia has said before that it will fight over Ukraine and Georgia, something the West won't do.

Russia isn't suicidal, they'll get blown to smithereens in a war, and they know it.

Heckler · 20-02-2015 01:50AM

I would hope any immediate threat to us would be dealt with by the British Armed forces because we don't have the capacity to do it ourselves.

IrishTrajan · 20-02-2015 01:54AM

Heckler wrote: »

I would hope any immediate threat to us would be dealt with by the British Armed forces because we don't have the capacity to do it ourselves.

That's what this discussion is about. We want to push for the Irish State to be able to handle itself.

MarkAnthony · 20-02-2015 01:59AM

I was thinking about this the other day. I'm quite surprised we don't have at least a couple of fast jets for defence against terrorism. That said how long would it take to get a Typhoon from RAF Coningsby to Dublin? 15 minutes?

IrishTrajan · 20-02-2015 02:17AM

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I was thinking about this the other day. I'm quite surprised we don't have at least a couple of fast jets for defence against terrorism. That said how long would it take to get a Typhoon from RAF Coningsby to Dublin? 15 minutes?

A Eurofighter Typhoon? At top speed, around 12 minutes, I think. Unless my maths is wrong.

A minimum defence capability ? Whats needed ?

Comments