Well it is certainly part of the American establishment.
Does it play a security role ? Well that is Louise Richardsons area of expertise, so yeah.
Neutrality
- Thread starter Purple
- Start date
Does it play a security role ? Well that is Louise Richardsons area of expertise, so yeah.
Does that make Micky D part of Ireland's Security Establishment.
She is not an integral part of the US security establishment.
These were your exact words: "integral part of the US security establishment."
This is an entirely bad faith argument.
That you have to resort to this twisting and abuse and misrepresentation of language is proof you know this too.
Basic decency demands you withdraw this slur.
The noncommittal commitment by NATO to Ukraine's membership at the summit in Lithuania was disappointing. While our neutrality is an act of moral cowardice on our part it is only relevant to us from a security perspective as long as we continue to allow our former colonial masters and NATO to defend us but the status of Ukraine actually matters.
https://www.ft.com/content/7f5b42e3-024c-4b1b-a98a-e1e884341b30
Kurt Volker writing in the FT this weekend. With nuclear armed Russia pursing an expansionist and imperialist posture, claiming other countries territory, disruption to global food supply, economic and humanitarian dislocation, the security policy of the last few decades is not compatible going forward. Without stopping Russia, these things will get worse. If the war stops, Russia will just regroup and rearm. Without NATO membership for Ukraine, the case for the security of the continent, NATO's raison d'etre, is undermined. The summit in Vilnius has hinted at a new path forward, and of course Ireland is outside the tent, ploughing its own furlough (to nowhere - well, not strictly. MM will be visiting and trying to bring South Africa aboard).
In other news, the sky is blue...
:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/irishtimes/QYW2N3HJORKP7PQQZAEUUQRQGQ.jpg)
Ireland has longstanding defence arrangement with RAF, confirms O’Dea
Former Minister for Defence says government receives intelligence from RAF on suspicious aircraft in Irish skies
A forward base for the enhanced monitoring of incursions in the Shanwick Oceanic Control area of the North Atlantic between NATO members Canada, Iceland and Norway, and for the defence of same, for starters?
What could be done from here that isn't already done from Shannon and Prestwick?
Saying that the Shanwick area is close to Canada is erroneous, to say the least. It's closer to France and Spain than it is to Canada and it's even further away from Norway.
It's international air space so there can't be any "incursions"
If you are talking about some sort of enhanced military monitoring then that can be done from Iceland, where the US Navy has recently deployed 2 submarine hunting aircraft.
Good news !
It was good to see the Army Rangers put to good use this week. It seems that they have a good reputation.
Yes.
This seemed a particularly amateur hour drugs run whose erratic behaviour stood out.
Think of how many low key boats get through because we have so few ships \ aircraft patrolling.
Sure nobody would be doing that, they know we're neutral.
Maybe we can use lasers to mark out our territorial waters.
And an information campaign on social media - they don't seem to be aware drug dealing is illegal and bad mmkay.
Anything but more ships with weapons and detection systems.
Great idea. If we get more ships and are able to defend ourselves that would mean we're evil. Being neutral in the face of evil is a virtue.
If we were to rely on ships to monitor our waters we'd need hundreds!! On-board radar range is very limited. You need ships for interception or close range observation, not monitoring all traffic at sea. If you want to subscribe to a service like this one here you can track all movements of the ship in question.
Any ship arriving or leaving port with transponders off is going to raise alarms as will any deviating from submitted course or disabling transponders en-route.
At the moment we have 2 operational ships in our waters ... we must have to have a very high threshold for close range observation before one can be sent. There should also be random inspections. We don't have nearly enough 'assets' for monitoring and patrolling our waters versus other Western nations, this is not just my opinion, a quick google will reveal dozens of such expert analysis pieces.
And so there should be, it's hugely expensive to do such monitoring and not of much value given you have to be within view of the ship in question and the chances of them doing something stupid with a navy vessel within sight. The US have 13 vessels dedicated to coastal monitoring and surveillance, the UK have 3.
I meant if 'unusual activity' is observed remotely, and a closer inspection is warranted. Having physical assets that can be sent to follow up on that.
The patrolling is not just for drugs but for fisheries patrolling aswell.
The UK has 8 vessels just for fisheries alone. They have 6 coastal patrol vessels, and 5 larger vessels for border force.
That's really interception rather than monitoring at that stage. Unless you have a lot of boats in the water at all times, by the time you get to a scene any suspicious activity like off-loading a drugs shipment is long over.