Thanks Thanks:  44
Likes Likes:  102
Dislikes Dislikes:  6
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 77
  1. #1
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,522
    Post Thanks / Like

    Ireland and the EU: Defending our common European home

    Calls for open debate on Irish security and defence

    Fine Gael's four MEPs have said that given new security threats, it is time to open a debate on Irish security and defence.

    Speaking this morning, Fine Gael MEP Brian Hayes said their discussion document was not a Fine Gael or government paper and that they were not advocating the creation of an EU army or the increased militarisation of Europe.

    He said they were asking how collaboration can be enhanced while respecting traditions of all EU members.

    The document makes ten recommendations.

    They include supporting the development of a European Defence Union which would be subject to Ireland's traditional position of military non-alignment.

    It also proposes redefining the concept of Irish neutrality to allow active engagement in international security operations but again, to remain non-military aligned.

    It also suggests amending the 'triple lock' for the deployment of Irish troops on peacekeeping missions which currently requires UN authorisation, a government decision and a Dáil vote.

    Where UN approval has been blocked to allow deployment in times of crisis or natural disaster, it suggests a two thirds majority vote in the Dáil.

    Another option would be to change the UN authorisation part of the triple lock with "UN authorisation or EU council decision".

    Other recommendations include increasing defence spending, setting up a central intelligence unit to interact with the European unit, establishing a national cyber security strategy and also a national security council, as well as developing Ireland's defence industry.

    It also suggests there should be plans put in place for a post-Brexit situation with close cooperation continuing between Ireland and UK.
    https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0309/94...y-and-defence/

    Ireland and the EU: Defending our common European home
    https://brianhayes.ie/wp-content/upl...e-Document.pdf

  2. #2
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,105
    Post Thanks / Like
    Looks very like the status quo to me

  3. Likes Spark23 liked this post
  4. #3
    Lieutenant X-RayOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    dublin
    Posts
    1,302
    Post Thanks / Like
    "Proposes redefining the concept of Irish neutrality to allow active engagement in international security operations but again, to remain non-military aligned.

    It also suggests amending the 'triple lock' for the deployment of Irish troops on peacekeeping missions which currently requires UN authorisation, a government decision and a Dáil vote.

    Where UN approval has been blocked to allow deployment in times of crisis or natural disaster, it suggests a two thirds majority vote in the Dáil.

    Another option would be to change the UN authorisation part of the triple lock with "UN authorisation or EU council decision".

    Other recommendations include increasing defence spending, setting up a central intelligence unit to interact with the European unit, establishing a national cyber security strategy and also a national security council, as well as developing Ireland's defence industry."

    Allow active engagement in international security operations (as opposed to PSO)
    Change triple lock to omit requirement of UN approval
    Change triple lock to include and / or EU approval
    Change Dail approval to two thirds majority
    Increase defence spending
    Develop a defence industry

    Status quo???? Mick and Clare, et al are probably spinning at 360 rpm at the thoughts of any single point above. With these proposals a strong majority gov could potentially decide to send troops overseas with minimal opposition. Nevermind the uproar at spending money on defence instead of homelessness, health, etc. or having an evil baby killing arms industry on the island!!
    The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiqués are belated, insincere, incomplete.....It is a disgrace to our imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure.We are to-day not far from a disaster.

    T.E. Lawrence, 2 Aug 1920.

  5. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  6. #4
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,204
    Post Thanks / Like
    It would be fair to say Ireland's military neutrality never went much futher than not being involved in anything the brits are involved in.
    Thats as far as joe public's arguement (and SF/IRA) will go in any event.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  7. Likes Flamingo liked this post
  8. #5
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,105
    Post Thanks / Like
    Their recommendations:
    1 CSDP exists
    2 the Nordics have close Defence integration but it more co-operative than a defence union
    3 yes changing the triple lock is a change
    4 no change
    5 Government policy
    6 isn’t that what’s possibly happening? No talk of an EU agency though
    7 there is one
    8 there is one but informal
    9 early stages
    10 the MOU is bilateral (nothing to do with EU)

  9. #6
    C/S Auldsod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Wesht
    Posts
    335
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm not really sure how the above recommendations can co-exist with Irish neutrality. A European Defence Union would need to have a common purpose - defend Europe. That would also require alignment of a sort and thus an end to neutrality.

    The cornerstone of European defence already exists and that's NATO. Perhaps this a suggestion towards movement into NATO through the back door even though these FG are clearly not going to publicly state that?

    Realistically a move towards increasing spending to become a functioning member of such a 'Union' would require large scale investment beyond a few hundred million euro a year. The capital expenditure to give the Air Corps and Naval Service modern capable weapon systems in even bery low numbers would be eye-watering relative to the public's current appetite for defence spending.

    Getting up on my soapbox here but I think you'd be looking at shopping list like the below:

    Army:
    - Rationalisation of current units to reflect actual strength.
    - More infantry.
    - More light artillery.
    - Investment in air defence.
    - Increased troop numbers to reflect the above.

    Naval Service
    - One and most likely two light frigates with the armament and crew training involved.

    Air Corps
    - More helicopter lift capacity
    - A small number of fighter aircraft to provide local defence.
    - Maritime patrol aircraft that can deal with more than an errant fishing trawler/drug smuggler.
    Last edited by Auldsod; 11th March 2018 at 21:14.

  10. Likes DeV liked this post
  11. #7
    Commander in Chief apod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ass in the grass.
    Posts
    5,032
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm not really sure how the above recommendations can co-exist with Irish neutrality. A European Defence Union would need to have a common purpose - defend Europe. That would also require alignment of a sort and thus an end to neutrality.
    Good job we are not neutral then.We are Militarily non aligned. Nowhere in our constitution does it say we are neutral.


    Realistically a move towards increasing spending to become a functioning member of such a 'Union' would require large scale investment beyond a few hundred million euro a year. The capital expenditure to give the Air Corps and Naval Service modern capable weapon systems in even bery low numbers would be eye-watering relative to the public's current appetite for defence spending.
    If we are truly "Neutral" as some believe then let's look at the likes of Switzerland.A country that spends real money on it's forces in order to defend its neutrality.
    Compare that with Ireland. The Irish people have been sold a myth by left wing peaceniks who believe that being neutral means not spending money on defence when the opposite is very,very true.
    Infantry Corps - An Lámh Comhrac


    "Let us be clear about three facts:First of all.All battles and all wars are won in the end by the Infantryman.Secondly the Infantryman bears the brunt of the fighting,his casualties are heavier and he suffers greater extremes of fatigue and discomfort than the other arms.Thirdly,the art of the Infantryman is less stereotyped and harder to acquire than that of any other arm".
    -- Field Marshall Earl Wavell.1948

  12. Likes DeV, madmark, restless, sofa, X-RayOne, EUFighter liked this post
  13. #8
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,204
    Post Thanks / Like
    We like to think we are as neutral as Switzerland, when in fact we are as neutral as Belgium during the 2nd World war.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  14. Likes sofa liked this post
  15. #9
    C/S Auldsod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Wesht
    Posts
    335
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by apod View Post
    Good job we are not neutral then.We are Militarily non aligned. Nowhere in our constitution does it say we are neutral.




    If we are truly "Neutral" as some believe then let's look at the likes of Switzerland.A country that spends real money on it's forces in order to defend its neutrality.
    Compare that with Ireland. The Irish people have been sold a myth by left wing peaceniks who believe that being neutral means not spending money on defence when the opposite is very,very true.
    To be honest, most Irish people care little for the politics of neutrality. Spending on defence is seen as a waste of money. That's until there is an actual threat to the country at which point it will be far far too late.

  16. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, restless liked this post
  17. #10
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    406
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Auldsod View Post
    I'm not really sure how the above recommendations can co-exist with Irish neutrality. A European Defence Union would need to have a common purpose - defend Europe. That would also require alignment of a sort and thus an end to neutrality.

    The cornerstone of European defence already exists and that's NATO. Perhaps this a suggestion towards movement into NATO through the back door even though these FG are clearly not going to publicly state that?
    That is the UK's view of the issue. It is not, however most continental countries' view. Have a look at the relevant pieces of the TEU (Lisbon treaty)

    Art.42 7. "If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States."

    Thus is basically the EU's version of NATO's Art.5 and BTW commits the EU nations to defend Ireland.

    Quote Originally Posted by Auldsod View Post
    Realistically a move towards increasing spending to become a functioning member of such a 'Union' would require large scale investment beyond a few hundred million euro a year. The capital expenditure to give the Air Corps and Naval Service modern capable weapon systems in even bery low numbers would be eye-watering relative to the public's current appetite for defence spending.

    Getting up on my soapbox here but I think you'd be looking at shopping list like the below:

    Army:
    - Rationalisation of current units to reflect actual strength.
    - More infantry.
    - More light artillery.
    - Investment in air defence.
    - Increased troop numbers to reflect the above.

    Naval Service
    - One and most likely two light frigates with the armament and crew training involved.

    Air Corps
    - More helicopter lift capacity
    - A small number of fighter aircraft to provide local defence.
    - Maritime patrol aircraft that can deal with more than an errant fishing trawler/drug smuggler.
    mostly concur

    Army:

    - purchase NEMO/AMOS and firefinder radar.
    - get onboard on CAMM
    - get onboard on SPEAR
    - develop high level ISTAR facilities with battlefield radar, drones, smart soldier equipment etc.

    AC:

    - as discussed, recommit the AW39s to civilan uses as air ambulance and VIP transport
    - buy 10t choppers with capability of deployment internationally
    - don't buy the CASAs. Buy KingAir MPA/ISTAR birds and a few Air Ambulances. P24 looks good. Then join EATC to get what little lift capability we need from our buddies and contribute our air ambulances

    NS:

    - get two LSS/AOR with hospita and 200 lane metres for vehicles. These will be worth gold on international deployments
    - maybe later get two light frigates or corvettes. I still like the Fassmer OPV2020. Again also with desaster recovery features

    In general I think Ireland should focus on support functions and force multiplying functions rather than frontline. Oh and get rid of the 28th amendment

  18. #11
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,847
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post
    That is the UK's view of the issue. It is not, however most continental countries' view. Have a look at the relevant pieces of the TEU (Lisbon treaty)

    Art.42 7. "If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States."

    Thus is basically the EU's version of NATO's Art.5 and BTW commits the EU nations to defend Ireland....
    no, it doesn't, and no, no one else in the EU considers C42 to have replaced NATO, or that the CSDP of the EU has replaced NATO as the central tennet of European defence.

    no one.

    of course, i only work in a deployable NATO HQ formation along with Soldiers from most of the EU, am currently in Estonia, and either i or people i work with meet senior diplomats, CS, military Officers, and politicians from most EU countries on a weekly basis, so its possible that i've got the wrong end of the stick...

    42.7 requires other EU states, in accordance with their own defence, security and defence policies, to render such assistance as they see fit. so, for example, were Poland to be invaded and occupied, its political and civil society liquidated, its infrastructure devastated and its population enslaved, as long as other EU states make a decision, any decision, about whether and what with to assist Poland, then it will have fullfilled its treaty commitments. though, of course, Ireland didn't sign up to the recprical element of that commitment...

  19. Thanks sofa thanked for this post
    Likes pym, Shaqra liked this post
  20. #12
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,727
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Auldsod View Post
    To be honest, most Irish people care little for the politics of neutrality. Spending on defence is seen as a waste of money. That's until there is an actual threat to the country at which point it will be far far too late.
    True, We have never being subjected to the same lessons as the likes of Holland Denmark Norway have.

  21. Likes DeV liked this post
  22. #13
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    406
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    no, it doesn't, and no, no one else in the EU considers C42 to have replaced NATO, or that the CSDP of the EU has replaced NATO as the central tennet of European defence.

    no one.

    of course, i only work in a deployable NATO HQ formation along with Soldiers from most of the EU, am currently in Estonia, and either i or people i work with meet senior diplomats, CS, military Officers, and politicians from most EU countries on a weekly basis, so its possible that i've got the wrong end of the stick...

    42.7 requires other EU states, in accordance with their own defence, security and defence policies, to render such assistance as they see fit. so, for example, were Poland to be invaded and occupied, its political and civil society liquidated, its infrastructure devastated and its population enslaved, as long as other EU states make a decision, any decision, about whether and what with to assist Poland, then it will have fullfilled its treaty commitments. though, of course, Ireland didn't sign up to the recprical element of that commitment...
    I never said that it replaced NATO. I am not sure how you get this idea. I see it as a parallel structure and a tool for further integration of defence inside the EU. Also a tool that allows to integrate the non-aligned EU members with the aligned ones. It also serves IMO as a potential tool for mutual security in case the US decide to not honour their obligations. Which for a while looked quite plausible.

    I'd actually be interested to hear what you can share about your experience and views where this is going. And what the people you work with and meet think.

  23. #14
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    406
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    no, it doesn't, and no, no one else in the EU considers C42 to have replaced NATO, or that the CSDP of the EU has replaced NATO as the central tennet of European defence.

    no one.

    of course, i only work in a deployable NATO HQ formation along with Soldiers from most of the EU, am currently in Estonia, and either i or people i work with meet senior diplomats, CS, military Officers, and politicians from most EU countries on a weekly basis, so its possible that i've got the wrong end of the stick...

    42.7 requires other EU states, in accordance with their own defence, security and defence policies, to render such assistance as they see fit. so, for example, were Poland to be invaded and occupied, its political and civil society liquidated, its infrastructure devastated and its population enslaved, as long as other EU states make a decision, any decision, about whether and what with to assist Poland, then it will have fullfilled its treaty commitments. though, of course, Ireland didn't sign up to the recprical element of that commitment...
    I never said that it replaced NATO. I am not sure how you get this idea. I see it as a parallel structure and a tool for further integration of defence inside the EU. Also a tool that allows to integrate the non-aligned EU members with the aligned ones. It also serves IMO as a potential tool for mutual security in case the US decide to not honour their obligations. Which for a while looked quite plausible.

    I'd actually be interested to hear what you can share about your experience and views where this is going. And what the people you work with and meet think.

    I would like to add the EP's view on the subject:

    "Mutual assistance (defence) clause
    Article 42(7) TEU introduced a 'mutual assistance (defence) clause'. The clause, inspired by
    Article V
    of the
    modified Western European Union Treaty, stipulates that in the event that a Member
    State is 'the victim of
    armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and
    assistance by all the means in their power', in accordance with
    Article 51 of the UN Charter
    and without
    prejudice to the specific defence 'character' of each Member State (for example, the neutral status of
    certain Member States or NATO commitments). The clause covers collective defence and allows M
    ember
    States to offer both military and civilian support to their counterpart invoking the clause.
    "

    Source: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegDat...9573285_EN.pdf

  24. #15
    Private 3* The Connaught Ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    29
    Post Thanks / Like
    Defend ourselves against whom exactly?

    We can't compare ourselves to the Swiss - we have two big neighbours who would indeed look after our interests. That's why the "peacekniks" don't want money spent on defence as for it to be of any real use it'd be huge

    Threat to our security comes from internal sources such as terrorism, political and/or religious, or lone attackers so our defence needs to be based around that. Get intercept fighters that can take down rogue planes, and enough to patrol our waters from air and sea, but we don't need large infantry and artillery formations as there is no onus on us to defend anyone other than the Indian nation that came to our aid and possibly France based on their small historical aid.

    Also note to me, Europe is a continent, not my home.
    Last edited by The Connaught Ranger; 20th March 2018 at 13:14.

  25. Likes Auldsod liked this post
    Dislikes apod disliked this post
  26. #16
    Space Lord of Terra morpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Metropolis
    Posts
    3,126
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by The Connaught Ranger View Post
    Defend ourselves against whom exactly?

    We can't compare ourselves to the Swiss - we have two big neighbours who would indeed look after our interests. That's why the "peacekniks" don't want money spent on defence as for it to be of any real use it'd be huge

    Threat to our security comes from internal sources such as terrorism, political and/or religious, or lone attackers so our defence needs to be based around that. Get intercept fighters that can take down rogue planes, and enough to patrol our waters from air and sea, but we don't need large infantry and artillery formations as there is no onus on us to defend anyone other than the Indian nation that came to our aid and possibly France based on their small historical aid.

    Also note to me, Europe is a continent, not my home.
    Agree with some of the above, however last comment is - in my own opinion- somewhat insular. Europe has become entwined in the very fabric of irish society and culture in many ways, yes we are Irish first, but we are also European. Its intrinsic to our way of life and decisions made in European parliament have become laws that we in Ireland live by. Europe is so much closer these days and the UK decision over Brexit is a horrific step in the wrong direction and shouldnt be seen as an optional path for us here in the republic. We are too small and weak on our own, we need our trade deals, neghbours, tourism, common currency and allies.
    The attitude that you mention: "we have two big neighbours who would indeed look after our interests." is one of the laziest forms of defence for a paltry spend on military capability and many countries in the past have suffered for believing the same.

    Again, just my own opinion, i fully respect your viewpoint.
    Last edited by morpheus; 20th March 2018 at 15:32.
    "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
    "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

  27. Thanks Herald, Rocinante thanked for this post
    Likes Herald, Rocinante liked this post
  28. #17
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,727
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by The Connaught Ranger View Post
    Defend ourselves against whom exactly?

    We can't compare ourselves to the Swiss - we have two big neighbours who would indeed look after our interests. That's why the "peacekniks" don't want money spent on defence as for it to be of any real use it'd be huge

    Threat to our security comes from internal sources such as terrorism, political and/or religious, or lone attackers so our defence needs to be based around that. Get intercept fighters that can take down rogue planes, and enough to patrol our waters from air and sea, but we don't need large infantry and artillery formations as there is no onus on us to defend anyone other than the Indian nation that came to our aid and possibly France based on their small historical aid.

    Also note to me, Europe is a continent, not my home.
    Better to fight the hoard up the street then wait till he is standing in the family home, It is in our interest that Britain keeps surviving.
    We are at the very end of a gas pipe line starting in Putan land
    Last edited by sofa; 20th March 2018 at 19:17.

  29. #18
    Commander in Chief apod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ass in the grass.
    Posts
    5,032
    Post Thanks / Like
    Defend ourselves against whom exactly?
    Whom indeed? Unless you have a crystal ball and can see the future than all you can do is speculate.But I know I would rather we prepare for the worst case and not ever have to experience it,than adopt your attitude and be caught with our pants down 'cos all we trained and equipped for is the best case scenario.
    Better to have and not need than to need and not have.It takes longer to develop a capability than it does to loose it.
    We can't compare ourselves to the Swiss - we have two big neighbours who would indeed look after our interests.
    Ironic that people whinged like fcuk about "loosing" our sovereignty when we were bailed out by the ECB but some have no problem giving ours away when it comes to being able to defend ourselves. A cowardly,mealy mouthed position if ever there was one.

    That's why the "peacekniks" don't want money spent on defence as for it to be of any real use it'd be huge
    Most lefties havent the faintest fcuking clue about what defence really means.I am sure the lefties in Ukraine were all agast at their Government spending money on Defence BEFORE Russia invaded.Love to know what they are saying now.
    Threat to our security comes from internal sources such as terrorism, political and/or religious, or lone attackers so our defence needs to be based around that.
    Are you currently serving in J2 or any other Intelligence Department?? No?? If not than what you are saying is opinion and not fact. Threats change and Europe is currently the most unstable it has been in decades. It would be a a very foolish Country who discounts ANY potential threat just because it hasn't happened before.It only takes once.
    Get intercept fighters that can take down rogue planes, and enough to patrol our waters from air and sea, but we don't need large infantry and artillery formations as there is no onus on us to defend anyone other than the Indian nation that came to our aid and possibly France based on their small historical aid.
    Love it. No probs accepting billions in European money but will turn tale if asked to help in a crisis.
    Also note to me, Europe is a continent, not my home.
    Coming from a guy living in Romania??That's rich.
    Last edited by apod; 22nd March 2018 at 18:11.
    Infantry Corps - An Lámh Comhrac


    "Let us be clear about three facts:First of all.All battles and all wars are won in the end by the Infantryman.Secondly the Infantryman bears the brunt of the fighting,his casualties are heavier and he suffers greater extremes of fatigue and discomfort than the other arms.Thirdly,the art of the Infantryman is less stereotyped and harder to acquire than that of any other arm".
    -- Field Marshall Earl Wavell.1948

  30. Thanks DeV, Herald thanked for this post
    Likes sofa, DeV, Herald, EUFighter liked this post
  31. #19
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,992
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by The Connaught Ranger View Post
    we have two big neighbours who would indeed look after our interests.
    If our interests are not at odds with their own.

    Sitting on our hands won't suffice now; the insular poor man of Europe routine has been thoroughly worn out.

    It would not have sufficed had the Cold War turned hot, either, but that's another discussion.

  32. Likes sofa, Herald, Tempest, EUFighter liked this post
  33. #20
    Corporal irishrgr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    211
    Post Thanks / Like
    While a debate might be a nice optic, unless there is a significant shift in policy, especially the "Triple lock", I doubt much will change. The triple lock essentially surrenders Irish military policy to the UN and gives the UN veto power over how & where Ireland choses to deploy forces. I don't foresee such a shift, as it gains Ireland little on the world stage. We have no strategic need to project power, no interests to protect, so why bother? (playing devils advocate here). Having said that, I think Ireland could be a better member of the community of nations in peacekeeping/enforcement, post conflict reconstruction, etc. That is not as concrete as protecting vital national interests, more of a "for the good of humanity", along the lines of what the Danes & Swedes do. It's politically popular in their countries and serves to maintain the "edge" of their forces. But that would cost money, and lots of it...circular argument time again.

    Geographically, Ireland is becoming less relevant with ever increasing range of aircraft, ships & subs, so while basing in Ireland would be convenient for say NATO or the EU, it is not nearly as important as it used to be. SO, what is there to defend against? Again, politically, how does one justify (by Irish standards) a dramatic shift in resources to defense in the absence of an articulable threat. I generally agree with the "be a good neighbour in the community of nations" concept and support greater European integration, I just see that as a hard sell politically in Ireland. Integration into European collective intelligence, ADA radar systems, naval patrols, 24/7 SAR coverage would be where I would invest.

    The neutrality thing is old and as a concept about as useful as a chocolate teapot. It really has no meaning in world affairs but the Irish cling to it as if it some magical status that will protect us. Bollocks, if someone wanted to attack Ireland (God knows why), the nations with the capability to do so will. Shouting "but we're neutral" does little to stop and ICBM in case anyone's wondering :-) Ask the Ukrainians how that all worked out. Non-aligned is more accurate, this "neutrality must be in the constitution" business demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of international relations.

    Here is a scenario: a Russian air cargo company concludes a big contract with Shannon for fuel, maintenance, etc. Anatovs come & go, life is good. Company claims they need to expand operations, claim security at Shannon is a problem. Some public to & fro, Russians not happy, don't want Irish customs or whatever looking at their stuff. "Too much" the comrades say, this is unsafe, we need help. Overnight more Anatovs land with "security volunteers and personnel", key parts of Shannon are secured to include the tower & as much real estate is needed. Think wheeled armoured vehicles and some UAV's to "protect our people because the Irish can't". Defacto Russian base in Ireland. DF mobilized, surround Shannon, Russians shout "belligerent acts against our security personnel", more Anatov's arrive with slightly heavier weapons. Who is going to stop that? Not the DF, they don't have the capability, Russians own the airspace therefore control the battlefield. UN, NATO & the EU will bluster, accusations fly, but would they be willing to fight over it? I'd bet not, they have other issues and the Russians will just say "we are only protecting our people, we're not invading, we love the Irish, we just need to protect our bases, that's all. Besides, they are not military personnel, it's a private security matter". (like the little green men in Ukraine).


    Theorists call this forth generation warfare, a messy, blurry line with unclear lines. Granted, this is an unlikely scenario, as I said earlier, the Russians have no real need to do this, it would come at a political & economic cost, and other than power projection in the North Atlantic and a big "fcuk off" to the west I don't know that it would serve a greater end. Point being, given our small size, collective defense & alliances can benefit smaller countries like Ireland. And I submit it's time for Ireland to get on board with reality and be a partner, even a very junior one, but better inside the club than outside. After the fact is too late....but if it did happen, would could form a commission to investigate....it's the Irish way...A

  34. Thanks DeV, apod thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, Flamingo, apod, EUFighter liked this post
  35. #21
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,204
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by apod View Post

    Coming from a guy living in Romania??That's rich.
    I'm not so sure this is the same user.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  36. Thanks apod thanked for this post
    Likes Orion liked this post
  37. #22
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,105
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by irishrgr View Post
    While a debate might be a nice optic, unless there is a significant shift in policy, especially the "Triple lock", I doubt much will change. The triple lock essentially surrenders Irish military policy to the UN and gives the UN veto power over how & where Ireland choses to deploy forces. I don't foresee such a shift, as it gains Ireland little on the world stage. We have no strategic need to project power, no interests to protect, so why bother? (playing devils advocate here). Having said that, I think Ireland could be a better member of the community of nations in peacekeeping/enforcement, post conflict reconstruction, etc. That is not as concrete as protecting vital national interests, more of a "for the good of humanity", along the lines of what the Danes & Swedes do. It's politically popular in their countries and serves to maintain the "edge" of their forces. But that would cost money, and lots of it...circular argument time again.
    there is no real the desire to change the status quo. The Government have attempted to have the discussion without major engagement.

    Geographically, Ireland is becoming less relevant with ever increasing range of aircraft, ships & subs, so while basing in Ireland would be convenient for say NATO or the EU, it is not nearly as important as it used to be. SO, what is there to defend against? Again, politically, how does one justify (by Irish standards) a dramatic shift in resources to defense in the absence of an articulable threat. I generally agree with the "be a good neighbour in the community of nations" concept and support greater European integration, I just see that as a hard sell politically in Ireland. Integration into European collective intelligence, ADA radar systems, naval patrols, 24/7 SAR coverage would be where I would invest.
    I disagree, while range is increasing numbers are decreasing. And Russian military aircraft have to get past a lot of countries to get to the approaches to the European mainland currently.

    The neutrality thing is old and as a concept about as useful as a chocolate teapot. It really has no meaning in world affairs but the Irish cling to it as if it some magical status that will protect us. Bollocks, if someone wanted to attack Ireland (God knows why), the nations with the capability to do so will. Shouting "but we're neutral" does little to stop and ICBM in case anyone's wondering :-) Ask the Ukrainians how that all worked out. Non-aligned is more accurate, this "neutrality must be in the constitution" business demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of international relations.
    i don’t even think we are “non-aligned”, we are members of the EU (including the CFSP), PfP etc. The West’s interests are ours.

    Here is a scenario: a Russian air cargo company concludes a big contract with Shannon for fuel, maintenance, etc. Anatovs come & go, life is good. Company claims they need to expand operations, claim security at Shannon is a problem. Some public to & fro, Russians not happy, don't want Irish customs or whatever looking at their stuff. "Too much" the comrades say, this is unsafe, we need help. Overnight more Anatovs land with "security volunteers and personnel", key parts of Shannon are secured to include the tower & as much real estate is needed. Think wheeled armoured vehicles and some UAV's to "protect our people because the Irish can't". Defacto Russian base in Ireland. DF mobilized, surround Shannon, Russians shout "belligerent acts against our security personnel", more Anatov's arrive with slightly heavier weapons. Who is going to stop that? Not the DF, they don't have the capability, Russians own the airspace therefore control the battlefield. UN, NATO & the EU will bluster, accusations fly, but would they be willing to fight over it? I'd bet not, they have other issues and the Russians will just say "we are only protecting our people, we're not invading, we love the Irish, we just need to protect our bases, that's all. Besides, they are not military personnel, it's a private security matter". (like the little green men in Ukraine).


    Theorists call this forth generation warfare, a messy, blurry line with unclear lines. Granted, this is an unlikely scenario, as I said earlier, the Russians have no real need to do this, it would come at a political & economic cost, and other than power projection in the North Atlantic and a big "fcuk off" to the west I don't know that it would serve a greater end. Point being, given our small size, collective defense & alliances can benefit smaller countries like Ireland. And I submit it's time for Ireland to get on board with reality and be a partner, even a very junior one, but better inside the club than outside. After the fact is too late....but if it did happen, would could form a commission to investigate....it's the Irish way...A
    I tried to have a debate on IMO on likely Irish defence scenarios a while back.

    To me the seizure of Shannon by a major Power (not necessarily Russian) is the most likely State actor “conventional” threat that we face on land (after crime, terrorism and cyber). It is the most likely threat so that is what we should orient towards.

    I hadn’t thought of the little green men but it equally valid.

  38. #23
    Private 3* The Connaught Ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    29
    Post Thanks / Like
    My point on Europe is this:
    1. The EU is not a union of equals in the way the US has been constructed and the back door Federalism witnessed through increased integration bears this out, as when the crisis hit this state was made to carry the can for bad lending decisions, not only by our own, but foreign based banks. The treatment of other smaller states during the crisis mirrored this - if this is what our friends do then I'd hate to see what they do if they didn't like us. The double standards of the EU are always evident in its treatment of the smaller states, in good or bad times, over the past 20 years.

    2. The integration of Europe is also being pushed not at the behest of the people - when it has been voted upon it has been rejected - the EU constitution being a prime example which became a treaty so people wouldn't vote on it after France and the Netherlands rejected it, though I suspect the Dutch would have voted again had France said yes, in the same manner as we had to here. The Euro is another example of this. It's a political idea not an economic one as the old ERM allowed states to adjust their currencies with bands. I'd argue the devaluation in 92/93 is what kick started this country's first boom.

    3. I do appreciate how intertwined we are with Europe but why is this good. Why was the common market and free trade not enough as I never saw the clear argument for the centralisation of power to the centre, indeed in the US this is seen as big government which is not what was intended there either. free trade and common market is what prevented war in Europe and it would continue to do so.

    4. I think it important the Brexit succeeds to show a country can leave if it so wishes, all the reasona we are told "it's complex to do so" and "why they should remain" would apply to any country. Was it not complex for us to leave the UK? for the Soviet Union to dissolve? Finland to leave Russia? Slovakia to strike out on its own? If they leave, and make a success of it, more may follow - so what? we'll all trade and peace will reign still. Those that are left can unite to their heart's content.

  39. Dislikes EUFighter disliked this post
  40. #24
    Private 3* The Connaught Ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    29
    Post Thanks / Like
    I am Irish and living in South Tipperary

    In proffering an opinion on why people are averse to military spending I was not necessarily agreeing with it - did a straw poll at break and again people see no merit in it. People believe, rightly or wrongly that the US and UK will look after our interests from an external threat to our borders.

    Lt. Gen. Gerry McMahon argued many years ago for an honest neutrality or formal alignment such as NATO. I think he was right but that I see as different from further EU integration. join NATO but not a federal superstate.

    As someone who tried, but failed at medical, for the cadets many years ago I can't believe how far the DF has come in certain areas and would encourage that. The tax payer as a whole don't seem to agree.
    Last edited by The Connaught Ranger; 21st March 2018 at 14:49.

  41. Thanks Graylion thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  42. #25
    Amadan Orion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Osborne's Very Very Broke Island
    Posts
    1,337
    Post Thanks / Like
    Stranger

  43. Likes na grohmití liked this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •