Author Topic: Russia launches invasion of Ukraine (*) & use spoiler tags for anything graphic!  (Read 501030 times)

Offline Sangria

  • In trying to be right ends up wrong without fail
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,721
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
There’s a guy on Twitter called Trent Talenko who worked on US Army logistics, and he’s regularly pointing things out that point out Russian failures in the area of logistics and maintenance, yesterday he posted a picture of a knackered tyre on a Russian MRLS, and zoomed in on the tyre, the inscription on the tyre… “Made in USSR”… that makes the tyre over 32 years old, and likewise has similar thoughts to your own on the state of their nuclear arsenal.

There's a guy who's been doing short videos explaining aspects of the war that aren't apparent to people outside military experience, and his take is that Putin hasn't been modelling his military after a defined mission, but has been spreading the focus wide to ape the US global reach, and thus spreading thin. His suspicion is that the nuclear component is rather better maintained than the other bits.
"i just dont think (Lucas is) that type of player that Kenny wants"
Vidocq, 20 January 2011

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=267148.msg8032258#msg8032258

Online west_london_red

  • Knows his stuff - pull the udder one! RAWK's Dairy Queen.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 19,367
  • watching me? but whose watching you watching me?
There's a guy who's been doing short videos explaining aspects of the war that aren't apparent to people outside military experience, and his take is that Putin hasn't been modelling his military after a defined mission, but has been spreading the focus wide to ape the US global reach, and thus spreading thin. His suspicion is that the nuclear component is rather better maintained than the other bits.


Yeah, you’d like to hope that if nothing else the nukes are at least well maintained, and that the spare parts can’t be nicked and sold down the market by the people who are supposed to look after them.
Thinking is overrated.
The mind is a tool, it's not meant to be used that much.
Rest, love, observe. Laugh.

Offline Lusty

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,199
There's a guy who's been doing short videos explaining aspects of the war that aren't apparent to people outside military experience, and his take is that Putin hasn't been modelling his military after a defined mission, but has been spreading the focus wide to ape the US global reach, and thus spreading thin. His suspicion is that the nuclear component is rather better maintained than the other bits.

They have over 6000 warheads, so even if they're not well maintained and only 10% of them are operational, they've got enough to wipe out the planet.

Offline Red Berry

  • Wants to sit in the Lobster Pot. Fat-fingered. Key. Boa. Rd. Kille. R. tonunlick! Soggy Knickers King.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 42,722
Even if the Russians have these tsunami nukes, they would need an awful lot of them. London, Liverpool, Newcastle and the Severn area are most likely targets, for economic reasons and because topography would carry water far inland. Seems a challenging mission to complete though.

Still, when Boris's Britain starts taking the piss out of you, I guess you're going to lash out.
I don't always visit Lobster Pot.  But when I do. I sit.

Popcorn's Art

Offline Red Berry

  • Wants to sit in the Lobster Pot. Fat-fingered. Key. Boa. Rd. Kille. R. tonunlick! Soggy Knickers King.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 42,722
They have over 6000 warheads, so even if they're not well maintained and only 10% of them are operational, they've got enough to wipe out the planet.

 You could certainly wipe out the western nations with 600 nukes, assuming the ones that work all go to the right targets, but you're not wiping out the planet.

However you will contaminate water supplies, damage the climate enough to cause global crop failures and famine, and generally fuck the planet up for at least a century. A lot of countries would survive though, and they would be very pissed off with you. And you'd have no nukes left.
I don't always visit Lobster Pot.  But when I do. I sit.

Popcorn's Art

Offline Zlen

  • Suspicious of systems. But getting lots.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 16,650
More they threaten with nukes, weaker they look. I guess the next step is for Russia to 'officially' annex another chunk of Ukraine and say any weapons delivered to that zone are a direct NATO attack on Russian soil and a clear cause for nuclear retaliation. That's about the only option they have left, because it seems unlikely they'll manage to occupy those lands through conventional warfare. Their only chance is to bluff their way to victory.

Offline Trump's tiny tiny hands

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,074
  • Building steam with a grain of salt
They have over 6000 warheads, so even if they're not well maintained and only 10% of them are operational, they've got enough to wipe out the planet.

Who knows what level the USA's Missile Defense Agency's coverage is at these days? Pretty sure they could knock out a large numbers of missiles in the air. Of course some will still get through, but nuclear annihilation doesn't seem so certain to me.

Offline Lusty

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,199
You could certainly wipe out the western nations with 600 nukes, assuming the ones that work all go to the right targets, but you're not wiping out the planet.

However you will contaminate water supplies, damage the climate enough to cause global crop failures and famine, and generally fuck the planet up for at least a century. A lot of countries would survive though, and they would be very pissed off with you. And you'd have no nukes left.
I don't think the Russians would be too concerned about the other countries being pissed off with them, what with them all being killed in the immediate counterstrike.  I think the Northern hemisphere at a minimum would be uninhabitable for the forseeable future and it would be a really good time to invest in the Australian property market.

Offline Lusty

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,199
Who knows what level the USA's Missile Defense Agency's coverage is at these days? Pretty sure they could knock out a large numbers of missiles in the air. Of course some will still get through, but nuclear annihilation doesn't seem so certain to me.
I don't think they have an effective defence against ICBMs do they?  I don't think anyone does for that matter.

Offline Sangria

  • In trying to be right ends up wrong without fail
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,721
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
They have over 6000 warheads, so even if they're not well maintained and only 10% of them are operational, they've got enough to wipe out the planet.

That channel's point is that Putin is rather impressed by headline military assets, and neglects the nitty gritty. So there are aspects that get a lot of focus, and others that get less. It's unwise to use the US as the universal model from which to draw conclusions about other militaries based on snapshots of evidence. He says that as a former US soldier who is aware that his country's military is unique in its capacity to spread thick across the whole spectrum (and even then, there is focus on areas).
"i just dont think (Lucas is) that type of player that Kenny wants"
Vidocq, 20 January 2011

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=267148.msg8032258#msg8032258

Offline Red Berry

  • Wants to sit in the Lobster Pot. Fat-fingered. Key. Boa. Rd. Kille. R. tonunlick! Soggy Knickers King.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 42,722
I don't think the Russians would be too concerned about the other countries being pissed off with them, what with them all being killed in the immediate counterstrike.  I think the Northern hemisphere at a minimum would be uninhabitable for the forseeable future and it would be a really good time to invest in the Australian property market.

Russia's a big place. The European area would likely be wiped off the map, but I reckon the rest would remain largely intact - and ripe for invasion by countries left intact, but destitute and in need resources that they can no longer import.
I don't always visit Lobster Pot.  But when I do. I sit.

Popcorn's Art

Offline Gili Gulu

  • Something very fishy about that - is rice, lid!
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,282
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/britain-underwater-nuclear-strike-russia-b2069819.html

UK could be ‘plunged into the sea’ by underwater nuclear strike, Russia state TV threatens

Dmitry Kiselyov, a Putin propagandist, threatened the UK with a Poseidon underwater drone



Britain could be “plunged into the sea” by an underwater nuclear strike, a host on Russian state television has threatened.

Dmitry Kiselyov, a key propagandist for Vladimir Putin, used his show on Sunday night to suggest an attack on UK using a Poseidon underwater drone could be a possible course of action for Russia.

Mr Kiselyov said the weapon would trigger a radioactive tidal wave and plunge Britain “to the depths of the ocean”.

He added: “This tidal wave is also a carrier of extremely high doses of radiation. Surging over Britain, it will turn whatever is left of them into radioactive desert, unusable for anything. How do you like this prospect?”

Mr Kiselyov also threatened the UK with another weapon, Sarmat 2, which Russia said earlier this month it planned to deploy by autumn.

The intercontinental ballistic missiles - that are capable of carrying 10 or more nuclear warheads - would be able to target Europe and the US, experts have warned.

“Why do they threaten vast Russia with nuclear weapons while they are only a small island? The island is so small that one Sarmat missile is enough to drown it once and for all,” Mr Kiselyov said.

“Russian missile Sarmat, the world most powerful is capable of destroying an area the size of Texas or England.

“A single launch, Boris, and there is no England anymore. Once and for all. Why do they play games?”

Last week US officials downplayed the threat of Russia using nuclear weapons despite a recent escalation in Moscow’s rhetoric.

“We continue to monitor their nuclear capabilities every day the best we can and we do not assess that there is a threat of the use of nuclear weapons and no threat to NATO territory,” the official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told reporters.

Just last week, Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson said he did not expect any further Russian military failures in Ukraine to push Putin into using tactical nuclear weapons there, saying the Russian leader had room to manoeuvre and end the conflict.


And earlier this month CIA director William Burns said the threat of Russia potentially using tactical or low-yield nuclear weapons in Ukraine could not be taken lightly, but that the CIA has not seen a lot of practical evidence reinforcing that concern.

They don't have a weapon powerful enough to displace that amount of water, there is no such weapon in existence. The earthquake that caused the Fukushima disaster was magnitude 9, which is equivalent to 32 billion tons of TNT, or 32,000 Megatons, and the resulting tsunami was nowhere near the size claimed by this Russian looney. Tsar Bomba, the largest weapon ever set off, was 58 Megatons
Gili Gulu. (嘰哩咕嚕) means saying something no-one understands but yourself; a little rambling or a silly language between friends

Offline Andy @ Allerton!

  • Missing an asterisk - no, wait sorry, that's his rusty starfish..... RAWK Apple fanboy. Hedley Lamarr's bestest mate
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 68,327
  • Asterisks baby!
Russia's a big place. The European area would likely be wiped off the map, but I reckon the rest would remain largely intact - and ripe for invasion by countries left intact, but destitute and in need resources that they can no longer import.

For every nuke Russia launched, they'd get two back

It's not just the immediate effects either. The long term effects of radiation doesn't just affect humans. Animals, Land, Water Supplies and Air would be contaminated.

The natural movement of the air woudl spread the radioactivity all over the globe.

The effect of the blasts would also likely lead to a nuclear winter which would finish off all the remaining vegetation and animals. Smaller creatures like cockroaches and maybe rats and the like would probably survive and you'd have pockets of humanity that were lucky or in bunkers that might get away with it for a time and that's not even taking into account the holes being blasted into the ozone layer which would destroy the protection from the suns rays;



The researchers found that if the U.S. and Russia were each to launch their entire nuclear arsenals at one another, soot would drift high into the atmosphere, blotting out the sun for months to years. Summers would become a thing of the past, with temperatures throughout much of the Northern Hemisphere dipping below freezing year-round. Growing seasons would be cut by 90%, and most of the world would be plagued by famine.

In addition to dropping surface temperatures, nuclear winter would have a major impact on everything from ocean currents to the jet stream. The study's model predicted a seven-year-long El Niño, a normally yearlong weather pattern in the Pacific Ocean that usually occurs only every three to seven years. It leads to either drought or extreme rainfall in affected regions.

During a nuclear winter, people turning to the oceans to supplement dwindling crops would be disappointed, as much of the ocean's biodiversity would also disappear. Finally, as if the effects on climate weren't enough, soot would poke huge holes in the ozone layer, bombarding the surface of Earth with ultraviolet radiation.

This isn't the first time scientists have warned of the potentially disastrous climatic consequences of nuclear war. In the early 1980s, the height of the nuclear arms race, scientists (including astronomer Carl Sagan) first hypothesized that smoke from nuclear explosions could blot out the sun, drastically altering Earth's climate. The term "nuclear winter" was coined in 1983, when a landmark study in the journal Science calculated that temperatures could fall below freezing in the middle of continents.


https://www.livescience.com/nuclear-winter-disaster.html
Fuck the French

Offline Red Berry

  • Wants to sit in the Lobster Pot. Fat-fingered. Key. Boa. Rd. Kille. R. tonunlick! Soggy Knickers King.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 42,722
Yeah Andy, I'm aware of the effects of a nuclear exchange.  In an all out nuke fest humanity is wiped out and earth takes centuries to recover.

I wasn't succinct in my replies.  If Russia launches all 6000 nukes then even allowing for missiles that fail to launch or in flight, we have no way of knowing which incoming warheads are duds, so of course we respond in full and it's game over.

But in a limited exchange where it's NATO vs Russia, what's the math?
I don't always visit Lobster Pot.  But when I do. I sit.

Popcorn's Art

Offline Red Berry

  • Wants to sit in the Lobster Pot. Fat-fingered. Key. Boa. Rd. Kille. R. tonunlick! Soggy Knickers King.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 42,722
They don't have a weapon powerful enough to displace that amount of water, there is no such weapon in existence. The earthquake that caused the Fukushima disaster was magnitude 9, which is equivalent to 32 billion tons of TNT, or 32,000 Megatons, and the resulting tsunami was nowhere near the size claimed by this Russian looney. Tsar Bomba, the largest weapon ever set off, was 58 Megatons

The don't have the weapons to sink an island. That's just ludicrous hyperbole. But you can generate the equivalent of powerful storm surges and use the topography to carry irradiated sea water far inland to wreck infrastructure, port facilities, destroy crops,and contaminate farmland.

But they would need to be very powerful to generate tsunamis, and you could probably achieve the same results with regular nukes.
I don't always visit Lobster Pot.  But when I do. I sit.

Popcorn's Art

Offline leroy

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,091
But in a limited exchange where it's NATO vs Russia, what's the math?

Isn't that one of things experts say is nonsense?  That there is no such thing as a "limited exchange". 

Offline Mister Flip Flop

  • More flop than flip.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,501
Even if the Russians have these tsunami nukes, they would need an awful lot of them. London, Liverpool, Newcastle and the Severn area are most likely targets, for economic reasons and because topography would carry water far inland. Seems a challenging mission to complete though.

Still, when Boris's Britain starts taking the piss out of you, I guess you're going to lash out.

Listened to an expert on Irish radio this morning who said the Russians haven't even built the submarines yet to deliver these torpedoes. They are a joke of a nation and that TV channel is Fox News on steroids.
Manchester City, zero times European Champions.

Offline stara

  • ra-boom-de-ay
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,620
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
They are a joke of a nation and that TV channel is Fox News on steroids.



Fox news on meth ...
50+1. Real FFP rules. Now.

Offline Yorkykopite

  • Misses Danny Boy with a passion. Phil's Official Biographer, dontcherknow...it's all true. Honestly.
  • RAWK Writer
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 30,722
  • The first five yards........


Fox news on meth ...

Stop the War on meth...
"If you want the world to love you don't discuss Middle Eastern politics" Saul Bellow.

Offline Andy @ Allerton!

  • Missing an asterisk - no, wait sorry, that's his rusty starfish..... RAWK Apple fanboy. Hedley Lamarr's bestest mate
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 68,327
  • Asterisks baby!
Yeah Andy, I'm aware of the effects of a nuclear exchange.  In an all out nuke fest humanity is wiped out and earth takes centuries to recover.

I wasn't succinct in my replies.  If Russia launches all 6000 nukes then even allowing for missiles that fail to launch or in flight, we have no way of knowing which incoming warheads are duds, so of course we respond in full and it's game over.

But in a limited exchange where it's NATO vs Russia, what's the math?

What's limited about 20,000 nukes?
Fuck the French

Offline Red Berry

  • Wants to sit in the Lobster Pot. Fat-fingered. Key. Boa. Rd. Kille. R. tonunlick! Soggy Knickers King.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 42,722
What's limited about 20,000 nukes?

Please don't be obtuse, Andy. I am of course referring to a nuclear exchange where both sides don't empty their silos at each other.

As leroy says, the consensus is that there's no such thing as a limited exchange. I was more pondering the theory rather than the reality.  Like, why would China want to pile on in such an exchange between NATO and Russia.

The environmental disaster will impact the whole planet, but that doesn't mean the exchange turns into a free for all, even if the ultimate outcome is human extinction.
I don't always visit Lobster Pot.  But when I do. I sit.

Popcorn's Art

Offline Bend It Like Aurelio

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,371
  • Into the top right corner.
I wouldn’t get too hung up on the nuclear torpedo. The only sub that can fire one isn’t even in service yet.

https://twitter.com/covertshores/status/1521378233568178177?s=21&t=u9EfqLIkHW43o6s-LXmGwA

Offline Yorkykopite

  • Misses Danny Boy with a passion. Phil's Official Biographer, dontcherknow...it's all true. Honestly.
  • RAWK Writer
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 30,722
  • The first five yards........
These Ross Atkins films on the BBC are concise, entertaining and informative.

Here's the state of play with Finland, Russia and NATO:

 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-61237116
"If you want the world to love you don't discuss Middle Eastern politics" Saul Bellow.

Offline McSquared

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,107
Can there be a limited exchange? Russia launches a nuke at us then don’t see how we don’t unload our 300 on them. Won’t be much of russian civilisation after that if you can call it civilisation . Not happening anyway for this reason

Offline So... Howard Phillips

  • Penile Toupé Extender
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,759
  • All I want for Christmas is a half and half scarf
The don't have the weapons to sink an island. That's just ludicrous hyperbole. But you can generate the equivalent of powerful storm surges and use the topography to carry irradiated sea water far inland to wreck infrastructure, port facilities, destroy crops,and contaminate farmland.

But they would need to be very powerful to generate tsunamis, and you could probably achieve the same results with regular nukes.

During the Napoleonic Wars the Royal Navy constantly fretted that the French were developing an ‘infernal device’. No one was sure what the ‘device’ was but, by George, it would certainly be infernal.

Needless to say no such ‘device’ existed, just like the tsunami nuclear torpedo.

Offline Yorkykopite

  • Misses Danny Boy with a passion. Phil's Official Biographer, dontcherknow...it's all true. Honestly.
  • RAWK Writer
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 30,722
  • The first five yards........
During the Napoleonic Wars the Royal Navy constantly fretted that the French were developing an ‘infernal device’. No one was sure what the ‘device’ was but, by George, it would certainly be infernal.

Weren't the French meant to be digging a tunnel under the Channel that would allow the Grande Armee to suddenly pop up in Dover?

Imagine - a Channel tunnel!
"If you want the world to love you don't discuss Middle Eastern politics" Saul Bellow.

Offline Sangria

  • In trying to be right ends up wrong without fail
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,721
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Weren't the French meant to be digging a tunnel under the Channel that would allow the Grande Armee to suddenly pop up in Dover?

Imagine - a Channel tunnel!

Thomas Cochrane was a famed ship captain/small fleet admiral who was particularly renowned for using small fleets to work miracles. He had initial successes against the French, but was caught up in political and social disputes, and was denied further opportunities to command against the French. After the Napoleonic Wars, he served various independence-seeking South American nations, being recognised as a founder of the Brazilian and Chilean navies. Re-admitted into polite society later in life, he proposed chemical warfare and was disappointed not to be appointed to command in the Crimean War. He was in his late 70s at the time.

After the Napoleonic Wars, Marc Isambard Brunel and Thomas Cochrane patented the tunnelling shield, used for boring tunnels under the Thames. The tunnelling machine that built the Channel Tunnel was the descendant of the Brunel-Cochrane contraption. So digging a tunnel under the Channel wasn't that far-fetched for that period, albeit after the wars had ended, and with a device invented by the British.
"i just dont think (Lucas is) that type of player that Kenny wants"
Vidocq, 20 January 2011

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=267148.msg8032258#msg8032258

Offline No666

  • Married to Macca.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 16,304
The don't have the weapons to sink an island. That's just ludicrous hyperbole. But you can generate the equivalent of powerful storm surges and use the topography to carry irradiated sea water far inland to wreck infrastructure, port facilities, destroy crops,and contaminate farmland.

[...] you could probably achieve the same results with regular nukes.
In other words, we could do the same to Saint Petersburg as they could do to Bristol?

Offline Yorkykopite

  • Misses Danny Boy with a passion. Phil's Official Biographer, dontcherknow...it's all true. Honestly.
  • RAWK Writer
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 30,722
  • The first five yards........
Ireland is getting (rightly) agitated by Russian threats of a thermonuclear strike on Britain. The Russian visuals blithely took out the Republic too (as such a strike would) and didn't even have the decency to name the place they obliterated.

It does bring to a head an age-old problem for Ireland though. Does she shelter behind an expedient British protection, as she has traditionally done, or does she take the Finnish/Swedish road, apply to join NATO, beef up her own armed forces and rely on collective security?
"If you want the world to love you don't discuss Middle Eastern politics" Saul Bellow.

Offline Yorkykopite

  • Misses Danny Boy with a passion. Phil's Official Biographer, dontcherknow...it's all true. Honestly.
  • RAWK Writer
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 30,722
  • The first five yards........
On further thought I've just twigged why the Russian State TV station did not name 'Ireland'. It's the Ukraine principle. Just as Ukraine is a figment and in reality simply a part of Russia, so Ireland with England. Once English always English I suppose.
"If you want the world to love you don't discuss Middle Eastern politics" Saul Bellow.

Offline Zlen

  • Suspicious of systems. But getting lots.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 16,650
I've been living in Ireland good few years now and I'm pretty certain the government here is completely incapable of making such a big decision and following through. In my time here, not a single big issue has been resolved, or even properly moved forward by the government. They just seem completely incapable of tackling big issues systematically and instead spend their time applying band aids to gaping wounds and arguing. But yes, NATO application would be good.

Offline FlashGordon

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,837
  • RAWK Cheltenham 2021 Champion Tipster*
I've been living in Ireland good few years now and I'm pretty certain the government here is completely incapable of making such a big decision and following through. In my time here, not a single big issue has been resolved, or even properly moved forward by the government. They just seem completely incapable of tackling big issues systematically and instead spend their time applying band aids to gaping wounds and arguing. But yes, NATO application would be good.

I would think we're about a generation away from a referendum passing on joining NATO, this is my own opinion I haven't seen any polling in relation to it.
So bloody what? If you watch football to be absolutely miserable then go watch cricket.

Offline KillieRed

  • Jaro.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,413
  • Nemo me impune lacessit.
As someone who is ignorant about Irish politics (I do enjoy the election posters though!) what is the basis of Irish scepticism for joining NATO? I have to admit I didn’t realise they weren’t a member until recently. Despite doing politics at Uni . The shame.
"Nobody knows anything..." William Goldman.

Offline Jiminy Cricket

  • Batshit fucker
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,666
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
As someone who is ignorant about Irish politics (I do enjoy the election posters though!) what is the basis of Irish scepticism for joining NATO? I have to admit I didn’t realise they weren’t a member until recently. Despite doing politics at Uni . The shame.
Historically 'neutral'. Of course you will know this. I can only suppose that it is hangover from that. Irish men who returned from WWII were treated appallingly too. Again, you probably know this. But for those who don't:

https://www.irishcentral.com/roots/the-irish-world-war-ii-shame-irish-soldiers-faced-hostility-after-arriving-home-153574625-238132961
If you're chasing thrills, try a bit of auto-asphyxiation with a poppers-soaked orange in your gob.

Offline KillieRed

  • Jaro.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,413
  • Nemo me impune lacessit.
Cheers!
"Nobody knows anything..." William Goldman.

Offline FlashGordon

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,837
  • RAWK Cheltenham 2021 Champion Tipster*
A lot of it is down to being part of the same military block as the UK as well. It's why we were always so steadfastly against any sort of EU army as well.
So bloody what? If you watch football to be absolutely miserable then go watch cricket.

Offline Libertine

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 12,517
  • Nothing behind me, everything ahead of me
As someone who is ignorant about Irish politics (I do enjoy the election posters though!) what is the basis of Irish scepticism for joining NATO? I have to admit I didn’t realise they weren’t a member until recently. Despite doing politics at Uni . The shame.

"Neutrality" is a bizarre article of faith in the country for some reason (yes, the history with the British etc).

It always seems to be weirdly viewed as some sort of morally superior position too, which has always rankled me, when the reality is it is usually quite the opposite.

Will it change? Who knows. I never thought I'd see change like the marriage equality and abortion referendums, so maybe there is hope.

Offline leroy

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,091
I've been living in Ireland good few years now and I'm pretty certain the government here is completely incapable of making such a big decision and following through. In my time here, not a single big issue has been resolved, or even properly moved forward by the government. They just seem completely incapable of tackling big issues systematically and instead spend their time applying band aids to gaping wounds and arguing. But yes, NATO application would be good.

I think you misspelt Australia.  Nice to see it's a shared affliction though.

Offline didi shamone

  • Too old for fighting
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,401
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Historically 'neutral'. Of course you will know this. I can only suppose that it is hangover from that. Irish men who returned from WWII were treated appallingly too. Again, you probably know this. But for those who don't:

https://www.irishcentral.com/roots/the-irish-world-war-ii-shame-irish-soldiers-faced-hostility-after-arriving-home-153574625-238132961

Rooted in our complex history with Britain.  My grandmother used to have a pop off my uncle for "taking the queens shilling"

Joining Nato now seems further away than ever in my opinion as sinn Fein is now the largest political party here and they're vehemently anti Nato. That's despite erasing all rhetoric about that topic from their website recently. But that might be more of a topic for the Irish politics thread.

Offline Yorkykopite

  • Misses Danny Boy with a passion. Phil's Official Biographer, dontcherknow...it's all true. Honestly.
  • RAWK Writer
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 30,722
  • The first five yards........
As someone who is ignorant about Irish politics (I do enjoy the election posters though!) what is the basis of Irish scepticism for joining NATO? I have to admit I didn’t realise they weren’t a member until recently. Despite doing politics at Uni . The shame.

Ireland was famously neutral during the Second World War, and continued to be so after the war was over. There were two basic reasons. The first was the understandable desire - as expounded by De Valera - to avoid identifying the new Republic too closely with British foreign policy. The second was a pragmatic realisation that the country could rely on the Royal Navy to protect its shores - which it did - since the British didn't want Ireland to be used by the Nazis as a launching pad for the invasion of England, Scotland and Wales. This was obviously a very cheap form of defence for Ireland. It paid nothing! And for all the talk about Britain being just as much a potential enemy as Germany, no Irish man or woman really believed they were threatened by the British.

I guess that since 1945 the Irish taxpayer has rather liked not paying for their own defence. Being a full member of NATO will obviously hit them in the pocket a bit. Hence - as described by a poster above - the reluctance of Irish politicians of any stripe to get serious about it.

 
"If you want the world to love you don't discuss Middle Eastern politics" Saul Bellow.