Sir, – Frank Schnittger (Letters, May 24th) claims that possessing a credible defence capability would make us more of a target for a potential military adversary.
If true, then why does Finland invest so heavily in both its civic and its military defence capability?
Mr Schnittger claims that fighter jets, tanks and artillery are the weapons of today, while cyberwarfare, misinformation, and drones are the weapons of tomorrow. Misinformation has always been a weapon of war, and cyberwarfare and drones have been weapons for several years now so they are already the weapons of today.
As Thomas Sowell said: “If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilisation, then be prepared to accept barbarism.” Russia’s invasion of Ukraine shows that every civilised country needs to invest in a credible defence capability to deter aggressive barbarians.
Sliabh Liag trial: How Alan Vial and Nikita Burns were convicted of murdering Robert Wilkin
Happy 90th birthday, Ronnie Delany: from Wicklow’s fields to Olympic gold
Five homes on view this week in Dublin and Wicklow from €195,000 to €600,000
Patrick Freyne: I feel we’re close now, Meghan, so I can speak freely. The right pitch is crucial in lifestyle hucksterism like yours
And if Finland, despite its defence capability, feels the need to join Nato, what should a country with a more paltry defence capability do? Countries that are unwilling or unable to provide a credible defence of their people should seek mutually defensive alliances with like-minded nations.
For Ireland, the logical conclusion is greater investment in our civic and military defence and Nato membership.– Yours, etc,
JASON FITZHARRIS,
Swords,
Co Dublin.
