Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Defending the Irish airspace

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Graylion
    replied
    Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
    We are not neutral, we are "militarily neutral", this is Irish political speak for we are not in a purely military alliance for the defence of any nation. In WW2 we treated the two sides differently, and were treated differently by them. I do not know of any Allied bombings of the North Strand nor that we obtained fighter aircraft from the Axis. The idea of "militarily neutral" was a political excuse so that the governments could save face. We have never had a real honest debate about the topic and most parties consider it political suicide to even mention having a debate on it. The myth that has grown up about "neutrality" has gotten stronger and stronger over the years. Chances have been missed and it has not helped that the two biggest members of NATO have over the years shown little respect for international law.

    If we had been truely neutral during the 1st Cold War then we would have need a large conscript army as NATO would not have left their backdoor so open. NATO knew on which side of the fence we were on. Was it Soviet transport aircraft that airlifted Irish troops to the Congo? Being neutral is much more about how others see you rather than how often you say you are neutral and the world did not see us a neutral country. We were never a member of the Non Aligned Movement for example!
    Both Sweden and Finland are considered neutral. In the Cold War, Sweden was as close to NATO as is possible without being a member, mostly as an unspoken understanding to avoid Finland being swallowed by the WP. The Irish understanding of neutrality strikes me as utterly bizarre and very Puritan.

    Leave a comment:


  • Graylion
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post

    We are members of the PfP along with being EU members so not entirely sure about the "not a member of any alliance".
    PfP does not confer any obligations to assist others, no? So, not a member of an alliance. We've opted out of 42.7 TEU, so no obligation there either.

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    Greece is buying another 6 Rafales.
    https://primeminister.gr/2021/09/11/27393

    Leave a comment:


  • EUFighter
    replied
    As it is the 20th Anniversary of 9/11 many video have been put out but one of the most interesting is that from F-14 RCO Ward Carroll. Not only is this a good overview of the events of the day from a military perspective but also gives us a great insight into the complexity of providing air defence during peacetime.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69uSD1S14RI

    Leave a comment:


  • EUFighter
    replied
    We are not neutral, we are "militarily neutral", this is Irish political speak for we are not in a purely military alliance for the defence of any nation. In WW2 we treated the two sides differently, and were treated differently by them. I do not know of any Allied bombings of the North Strand nor that we obtained fighter aircraft from the Axis. The idea of "militarily neutral" was a political excuse so that the governments could save face. We have never had a real honest debate about the topic and most parties consider it political suicide to even mention having a debate on it. The myth that has grown up about "neutrality" has gotten stronger and stronger over the years. Chances have been missed and it has not helped that the two biggest members of NATO have over the years shown little respect for international law.

    If we had been truely neutral during the 1st Cold War then we would have need a large conscript army as NATO would not have left their backdoor so open. NATO knew on which side of the fence we were on. Was it Soviet transport aircraft that airlifted Irish troops to the Congo? Being neutral is much more about how others see you rather than how often you say you are neutral and the world did not see us a neutral country. We were never a member of the Non Aligned Movement for example!

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparky42
    replied
    Originally posted by Graylion View Post

    If you say that Ireland isn't neutral, what do you mean? I always hear this bandied about and it makes no sense to me.

    Ireland isn't
    • Member of any alliance
    • engaged in any war
    That's about as neutral as it gets.
    We are members of the PfP along with being EU members so not entirely sure about the "not a member of any alliance".

    Leave a comment:


  • Silver
    replied
    Speaking about the RNZAF (above), there is a great video / story on YouTube about how they flew their A4 Skyhawks to Hawaii using other A4’s as ‘tanker’ aircraft!

    Apparently, the U.S (reluctantly) agreed to allow them to use the secretive Johnston Atoll airbase in the event of an emergency (thankfully never required)

    The distance covered by the A4’s was the equivalent of flying from the UK to Siberia!!

    Makes you wonder if the AC could use the ‘buddy tanker’ idea if / when they get fighter jets (my money is on TA-50’s btw)?
    Last edited by Silver; 11 September 2021, 21:29.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by Graylion View Post

    If you say that Ireland isn't neutral, what do you mean? I always hear this bandied about and it makes no sense to me.

    Ireland isn't
    • Member of any alliance
    • engaged in any war
    That's about as neutral as it gets.
    A neutral state cannot provide specific assistance to a belligerent in a war (we did in WW2, GW1, GW2, war on terror, etc), some of those had a UN mandate so some would argue that it is not a breach of neutrality. We have

    http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/peace/docs/con5.html
    http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/1907l.htm

    A purest (not me) would also say that you cannot engage in peace enforcement (although even the Swiss are in KFOR)

    Leave a comment:


  • Graylion
    replied
    Originally posted by DeV View Post

    Ireland currently allegedly has a policy of “neutrality” when Ireland has never been neutral.

    It is used as a banner to hide behind because they don’t want to get directly involved in wars nor do they want to live up to the responsibility of being a neutral power (as defined by the LOAC).

    If we are going to have the debate about joining NATO, common EU defence etc then we should also have the debate of what neutrality actually means (as a society).
    If you say that Ireland isn't neutral, what do you mean? I always hear this bandied about and it makes no sense to me.

    Ireland isn't
    • Member of any alliance
    • engaged in any war
    That's about as neutral as it gets.

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post

    Also from 1922 onwards it was always about not wanting to pay for anything defence related, something which the legitimate complaints about current conditions seem to ignore, Defence has always been fecked over by Finance, with no real reaction from the public or politicians.
    Ireland, and the Defence Forces, actually celebrated the fact we survived WW2 relatively unscathed, while issuing propaganda photos of Irish Troops exercising with imitation weapons.
    I think we all know what happens when the hero shows up to an actual gunfight with an imitation firearm.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparky42
    replied
    Originally posted by paul g View Post

    Three distinct periods of neutrality, from 1922 to 1939 it was the policy followed by virtually every small European country

    1939/45 it was about de Valera and Demonstrating sovereignty from the British, although we discreetly kicked the ball for the alies when nobody was looking and they were winning

    1945 onwards it’s all about not wanting to play soldiers with the British Mc bride framed of that was and there is a pretty vocal load of aging republicans
    Also from 1922 onwards it was always about not wanting to pay for anything defence related, something which the legitimate complaints about current conditions seem to ignore, Defence has always been fecked over by Finance, with no real reaction from the public or politicians.
    Last edited by Sparky42; 9 September 2021, 21:37.

    Leave a comment:


  • paul g
    replied
    Originally posted by DeV View Post

    well it has basically been Government policy for 100 years.

    why do I think that it should be enshrined in law/the Constitution? Because it would force Government to actually take on the responsibilities of a neutral rather than pay lip service to it (or provide for the defence of the State)
    Three distinct periods of neutrality, from 1922 to 1939 it was the policy followed by virtually every small European country

    1939/45 it was about de Valera and Demonstrating sovereignty from the British, although we discreetly kicked the ball for the alies when nobody was looking and they were winning

    1945 onwards it’s all about not wanting to play soldiers with the British Mc bride framed tgsg o. 1948 by refusing to join nato due to partition and there is a pretty vocal load Elderly republicans ( Ed Horgan roger cole etc are all over 75 ).
    Last edited by paul g; 10 September 2021, 10:50.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post

    You can't actually be serious? It would do no such thing as making an Irish Government treat defence seriously and far more likely end up with disbanding the DF further down the line.
    Ireland currently allegedly has a policy of “neutrality” when Ireland has never been neutral.

    It is used as a banner to hide behind because they don’t want to get directly involved in wars nor do they want to live up to the responsibility of being a neutral power (as defined by the LOAC).

    If we are going to have the debate about joining NATO, common EU defence etc then we should also have the debate of what neutrality actually means (as a society).

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparky42
    replied
    Originally posted by DeV View Post

    well it has basically been Government policy for 100 years.

    why do I think that it should be enshrined in law/the Constitution? Because it would force Government to actually take on the responsibilities of a neutral rather than pay lip service to it (or provide for the defence of the State)
    You can't actually be serious? It would do no such thing as making an Irish Government treat defence seriously and far more likely end up with disbanding the DF further down the line.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by Graylion View Post

    Because a lot of people for reasons that escape me think that us being neutral means us being unarmed. BTW why on earth would neutrality have to be constitutionally enshrined? Sweden certainly doesn't have it in the constitution, neither does Finland AFAIK. Austria and Japan do I think, mostly as a result of WWII. Decisions like neuyrality or joining an alliance really should not be in a constitution but have to be left to he goverment of the time.

    Even given all the caveats above I still like the idea of leasing the Gripens. It would also give us a leg into the fighter business, allowing us to make further decisions down the line.

    BTW, as someone stated earlier, modern planes don't really need hangarage, all we'd need is a bit more tarmac - and all the other stuff mentioned of course.
    well it has basically been Government policy for 100 years.

    why do I think that it should be enshrined in law/the Constitution? Because it would force Government to actually take on the responsibilities of a neutral rather than pay lip service to it (or provide for the defence of the State)

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X