Sir, – Raymond Deane, writing from the comfort of Europe’s untroubled Atlantic seaboard, presumes to lecture Finland, a country of five million on its eastern fringe, on the wisdom of spending half a billion euro on the purchase of an air defence system (Letters, April 7th).
His concerns seem to relate equally to the cost of the system and to its origin in Israel, another small country that has become a world leader in the art of aerial self-defence.
In Finland’s last altercation with its eastern neighbour, it suffered 70,000 dead and injured and lost a tenth of its territory in defending itself against an unprovoked invasion launched when Stalin’s bombers swooped from the clouds to bomb Helsinki and begin the Winter War of 1939-40.
To Mr Deane, the David’s Sling air defence system may be just “military hardware”. To the Finns, it might just be the means of preventing a repeat of 1939, as well as averting the kind of destruction visited on the cities of Ukraine in the past year. – Yours, etc,
‘I want to be alone’: Greta Garbo, sure. Daniel Day-Lewis, maybe not so much after all
Pat Leahy: Trouble at the top? Relations between Simon Harris and Micheál Martin are frayed
‘I crossed the river for both my wife and my chips’: End of an era for Lennox’s chipper in Cork
TV guide: the best new shows to watch this week, beginning tonight
DERMOT MELEADY,
Dublin 3.
Sir, – I doubt if the plucky Finns will be too worried at criticism of their defence purchases coming from a country that depends on Britain’s RAF for air defence and the trawler skippers who ring Joe Duffy’s Liveline for deterring Russian warships. – Yours, etc,
KARL MARTIN,
Bayside,
Dublin 13.
Sir, – Calls for Ireland to consider the advantages and disadvantages of Nato membership are somewhat premature.
Given the current state of the Defence Forces, where the Naval Service is unable to put vessels to sea, and every unit of the Defence Forces is under-strength, maybe Government’s first priority should be addressing that crisis.
Years of neglect and indifference mean that currently we are effectively defenceless.
There is no harm in having a discussion or debate about our future defence requirements, but the first priority should be addressing our current deficiencies. – Yours, etc,
CONOR HOGARTY,
Blackrock,
Co Dublin.