Neutrality and military spending

Deterrent effect

Letters to the Editor. Illustration: Paul Scott
The Irish Times - Letters to the Editor.

A chara, – A recent letter writer (Conor McDonnell, May 31st) suggests that we should forgo increased defence spending and focus on other areas, because even a well-resourced Defence Forces would present only a “minor speed bump” to a potential enemy. This argument relies on an assumption that defence policy is about “winning” or “losing” a potential conflict. It is actually about deterrence, by raising the potential cost (financial and human) for a would-be aggressor of invasion or other hostile action.

In fact, the speed-bump analogy is apt: we invest in traffic calming measures, even though they are no guarantee of safe driving behaviour on our roads. They do, however, raise the costs for someone who wants to break the rules.

I agree with the point that €9.8 billion (2 per cent of GDP, the Nato target) is an arbitrary figure, but it is useful for highlighting how out of step we are with our peers. It seems unlikely that Ireland, uniquely, has figured out some cost-saving “hack” which the rest of the world has not. The good news is that, even without reaching the magic 2 per cent, every additional euro well spent on our Defence Forces would increase our military deterrent and contribute to our security. The bad news is that we have quite a long way to go, and are not making any progress. – Is mise,

DONNCHA LENIHAN,

READ MORE

Dublin 3.

A chara, – Conor McDonnell suggests that the choice facing Ireland regarding defence policy is to either continue the unsustainable status quo (in which the Naval Service is unable to put ships to sea and we are utterly dependent on the RAF to protect our skies) or to spend approximately €10 billion per year.

A recent report by the Commission on the Defence Forces has already done the sums, and estimated that the level of funding required to meet even its most ambitious proposed reforms amount to approximately €3 billion per year. For context, these reforms would merely give us a limited ability to police our own skies and seas without relying on foreign nuclear-armed Nato powers, an essential ability for a so-called neutral state.

As for Mr McDonnell’s apparent implication that a military which cannot single-handedly repel an all-out invasion attempt by a foreign power is a waste of money, may I offer the similarly likely counter-example of a fire brigade which is faced with every building in a city going on fire at once? It may not be able to put out all the fires in that scenario, but I am sure Mr McDonnell would recognise that a well-resourced fire service which can cope with more realistic challenges is still a very sensible investment. The same is true of our Defence Forces. – Is mise,

RUÁN Ó CRUALAOICH,

Douglas,

Cork.

Sir, – The report of the Commission on the Defence Forces (February 2022) indicated that defence spending “of the order of two and a half to three times overall defence spending in recent years” would provide defence capabilities which would “protect Ireland and its people to an extent comparable to similar sized countries in Europe”. – Yours, etc,

BRENDAN CONWAY,

New Quay,

Co Clare.