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.
Protestant churches face a day of reckoning with North’s inquiry into mother and baby homes
Pat Leahy: Smart people still insist the truth of a patent absurdity – that Gerry Adams was never in the IRA
The top 25 women’s sporting moments of the year: 25-6 revealed with Mona McSharry, Rachael Blackmore and relay team featuring
Former Tory minister Steve Baker: ‘Ireland has been treated badly by the UK. It’s f**king shaming’
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.