Can Ireland participate in defence tech and innovation while “staying neutral”?

<< Nuclear War: A[n Alarmist] Scenario

The end of the line >>

Hi there. This week I’m writing about Ireland’s defence industry. Or, to be more precise, its almost complete lack thereof. This has been in the news recently because those few Irish companies that do dabble in defence are seeing lots of interest from the rest of the EU, primarily because of NATO’s increased spending pledge.

This is a good thing for Irish companies, and a lot of the messaging (including from said companies) is focused on the protective, less lethal aspect of defence. This is because any mention of nasty lethal guns and things tends to provoke the following reaction from the Irish commentariat:

To which, of course, we should ask “why?” In this article I’ll quickly cover the state of the Irish defence industry, then talk about how important lethal/offensive/”nasty” capabilities are for effective defence. Then I’ll talk about how a defence industrial base can align with military neutrality, and mention some of the advantages (as well as disadvantages) of having a domestic military industrial complex.

A friend suggested the wording which I’ve put in the subtitle, but the quotation marks around “staying neutral” are my own and represent the significant level of ambiguity that pertains to all things Irish neutrality. If you missed it, I wrote two companion pieces (links to Part 1 and Part 2) on this topic a few weeks ago. If you want the TL;DR, then it’s:

• Ireland has a policy of military neutrality, most clearly expressed in its decision to stay out of World War 2
• Neutrality back then required a careful balance of military deterrence, diplomacy, and hypocrisy, and as such represents the Realpolitik that small nations must pursue
• There’s nothing moral about the neutral stance, however, and it can lead to serious political consequences for the country

A reader compared me to Boris Johnson for writing two opposing articles. To which I can only shrug and say, well, at least I published both!

It’s another Irish-focused article, but hopefully with a broader relevance to my international readers. If you’re anywhere in Europe, you should be concerned about your Western flank. If you’re reading from the USA, then it might be interesting to see a country which is the polar opposite to you in every defensive respect! I’m keen to get your reaction in the comments if this does resonate with you, wherever you’re reading from.

Before we start, let me encourage you to subscribe to the blog using the link below. As always, I’d love to see your comments below, or you can contact me via webform here or email here. Finally, if you’ve enjoyed this post, please share it with a friend.

If you enjoy this blog and want to support it, please consider a donation. Keeping this blog going doesn’t cost much, but it isn’t free either, so any help would be very much appreciated👍

Ireland does not have much of a defence industry, but is ramping up its “dual use” technologies

Ireland’s defence industry is estimated at roughly €2 billion per year, which is 0.5% of its economy¹. In relative terms, it’s about 1.3% of the EU’s estimated €159 billion defence industry. That seems low, at least in terms of Ireland being 3% of Europe’s GDP. Or does it? Let’s come back to this.

What’s definitely true is that the perception of Ireland’s defence industry is very small. In fact, in 2019, the then-Minister² for Defence said in parliament that Ireland does not even have a defence industry. This view is ubiquitous in the country, despite some green shoots emerging in recent years. The recently formed Irish Defence and Security Association includes some home-grown companies but many more multinational defence giants:

The lack of indigenous suppliers is not entirely a bad thing. For one, it means that defence procurement is not constrained by a political need to “buy local.” Ireland, like many small countries, can pick and choose the best (value) weapon and equipment platforms from a host of different contenders, a freedom that bigger countries like France, Canada, India, and Spain (to name a few) don’t have³.

Despite this potential advantage, the lack of local defence industries brings far more disadvantages. A small country like Ireland⁴ is forced to compete against much bigger customers for production capacity with the large European and American manufacturers.

So it’s refreshing (to those of us who are interested in such things) to see Irish companies riding the wave of increased defence investment EU-wide. Most of these companies make so-called “dual use” products or services, i.e. things that can be used in civilian life as well as the military. For example, VRAI produces simulations to help armoured vehicle crewmen⁵ train on their weapons systems. This saves an immense amount of time, money, and risk compared to live-fire training⁶. The same types of simulations are used to train bus drivers or offshore wind turbine technicians—anywhere where there’s a barrier to practical training.

Some people have pre-emptively defended this type of innovation on the grounds that it’s qualitatively different than a company making bombs or bullets. I wish they didn’t have to make this justification, because the whole idea of a “non-lethal defence industry” is naive at best and dishonest or dangerous at worst. Let’s talk about why.

Defence cannot be isolated from offence

The best defence is a good offence

—Everyone from Sun Tzu to George Washington

Remember the Principles of War? We’ve talked here before about Security and Sustainability. Another universal one is Offensive Spirit. This may not surprise you: of course offence is a military principle. But offence also features as one of the principles (or “fundamentals”) of defence.

The idea is simple. If you are defending against the enemy and simply hunker down and wait, then you’re handing the initiative to them. You will simply be responding to what they decide to do, and you probably don’t know what their plans are. If, on the other hand, you take well-planned and judicious offensive action against the enemy, then they are forced into responding to you⁷.

If you’ve ever played chess, then you know this instinctively. It’s better to be attacking and forcing your opponent to respond than to sit back and wait to see what she does. Military leaders know this. It’s why Ukraine invaded Russia’s Kursk region in 2024 while on the defensive elsewhere (although opinions are divided on the success of this campaign, and the territory has been almost entirely retaken). It’s why Britain attacked Berlin with bombers in 1940 while fending off the Luftwaffe at home, and forced a strategic policy shift from Germany which ultimately lost them the Battle of Britain.

Hollywood, for once, is right up there with us. Filmmakers understand the importance of their heroes being, well, heroes and taking the fight to the enemy:

The logic follows that any military force, even one intended to be purely defensive, needs to have an offensive capability. But how “offensive”? Where do we draw the line? Considering that Ukraine is using cluster munitions and kamikaze drones against its attacker, I would argue that the line is pretty far along the “lethality” axis.

The real question is what potential enemy capability you are preparing to defend against. If the enemy have sticks and stones and bows and arrows, then a few antique rifles and a can-do spirit should carry the day. If, on the other hand, your potential adversary has main battle tanks and heavy artillery, then you need an equivalent level of kit to properly defend against them (which, remember, includes carrying out attacks).

Getting here will require tacking some of the persistent and unhelpful myths commonly heard in Ireland. Let’s talk about those next.

Building a defensive capability means tackling some pervasive myths

Myth #1: We use our military for peacekeeping/humanitarianism/disaster response

By the logic of some people, including a leading contender⁸ to be the country’s next President⁹ (as of September 2025, the election will be in October), Ireland’s “army” is really just a peacekeeping and humanitarian response corps, with no role in defence. In this myth, the military doesn’t do any of that nasty “war” stuff, and just a training pool for good deeds abroad which enhance Ireland’s prestige. This pool of trained hug-dispensers is also useful for disaster response at home.

This is wrong—let me go through the three biggest reasons why:

• It’s not what the law says. The Irish military’s primary purpose is “to defend the State against armed aggression.” Peacekeeping and humanitarian response is important, but third on the priority list. This mission is outlined in law in the Defence Act 1954, “an Act to make further and better provision in relation to the defence of the State…” and the Constitution, which vests the powers of raising a military or armed force in the national parliament. Neither document makes any reference to peacekeeping or humanitarian response.
• Peacekeeping still requires lethal force. This should be obvious to anyone who’s seen The Siege of Jadotville (where Irish peacekeepers killed 300 Katanga mercenaries), or knows anything about UN peacekeeping generally. Peacekeepers are there to stop conflicts (under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter) or enforce ceasefires (under Chapter 6). In either case, the blue helmets need to have the lethal capabilities to, at the very least, protect themselves. This means guns, bullets, rockets, armoured cars, and even things like mortars and attack helicopters. As Dag Hammarskjöld, the second Secretary-General of the UN famously said: “Peacekeeping is not a job for soldiers, but only soldiers can do it.”

• Ireland is just a small cog in the UN Peacekeeping machine. I don’t mean any disrespect to the tens of thousands of Irish troops who have served overseas (myself included), or the 88 who have died while serving on peacekeeping duties abroad. However, many at home overstate the “soft power” which this service and sacrifice gives Ireland. An Irish official with the UN, Niall McCann, burst this bubble in a recent interview with the Irish Times. Ireland’s military contribution to UN peacekeeping is valued, but not much more so than any other country’s. And Ireland being a small country with a smaller military, there are plenty of bigger contributors.

Given that the primary purpose of the military is to defend the country, having an indigenous defence industry would clearly be of benefit. We’ll discuss this in more detail below.

Myth #2: We can’t win, so let’s not play

Whereas the first myth was mostly ideological, the second is cynical. We will never be able to defend against a determined military aggressor, the argument goes, so why would we waste billions on trying to do so?

There’s a certain attractiveness to the logic, especially since it justifies spending nothing on national defence. It’s wrong, however, because a military does not need to equal a peer in strength to be effective. When I spoke about Ireland’s neutrality during WWII, I mentioned how the army was beefed up to 2+ division strength. This would never have stood up to determined German (or British, or even American) aggression, but it would have tied up 6+ divisions for the duration of the conquest and perhaps half that to subdue any resistance afterward. Did the Germans (or British… you get the point) have those divisions? Sure. Did they have a better use of them? You bet they did. Military defence, especially for a small country, is not about defeating any aggressor in any circumstance, it’s about raising the cost of aggression and therefore deterring it. And, for the avoidance of doubt, deterrence means having some level of lethal capability.

Let’s make an analogy with personal safety. You need to walk through a rough neighbourhood where people often get mugged. Unless you’re Jack Reacher, you’re never going to hold off a large number of determined assailants. But you still take precautions: you stand up tall, you take off your headphones, you keep your eyes peeled, and you don’t hold your phone or other valuables in clear view. If you’re a woman, you’ll probably consider making the trip with a buddy. You stand ready to alter your route or turn back based on who you see. The attackers will still get you if they really want to, but modest steps can drastically reduce your chance of violence by slightly, even marginally, raising the potential cost to the aggressor.

Going to the gym and a self-defence class might still not protect you in all circumstances, but it will help. Even if it gives you a better understanding of when to back down. The military/national defence analogy still holds. Having indigenous defence capabilities makes the deterrence more credible.

Myth #3: We’re neutral, and neutral countries don’t make weapons

A neutral country shouldn’t have a defence industry, the argument goes, because the products of that industry will be exported and will go on to have some very non-neutral effects.

While I have some sympathy for the moral side of this argument, it has no basis whatsoever in reality. Below are some major European defence companies who are based in countries which are, if not “officially” neutral, are very close to it or are recently neutral:

Of the companies above, only Saab makes the top ten in overall European rankings, but they are all important companies which have their own vital niches. This helps contribute to the security of their host nations, helping (in some cases) to keep them neutral. Let’s talk about that next.

Conclusion: Indigenous defence industries bring benefits in a fragmenting world

A small country can’t hope to build everything it needs for its own defence at home. But any industry brings economic and security benefits, even if this industry only covers a portion of the total defence requirement.

Let’s examine this by considering a very simple model where a country only needs six different products for its defence: a rifle, an artillery gun, ammunition for the rifle, ammo for the gun, helmets, and armoured cars. A small country with no indigenous defence industry is going to look something like this:

Sure, it can pick and choose the best in class from its neighbours, but it’s vulnerable should any one of those neighbours decide to stop supplying it. Let’s say, then, that it wants to be completely independent, and fosters its own industries for each of these products:

In this case, the small country has everything it needs but probably suffers in quality as a result. Look at the state of their armoured car compared to Country E’s one! It earns a bit in exports, but is a competitor to each of its neighbours, and so they may be inclined to go to a third country with a better product in that class.

The small country then realises that it makes a very good artillery gun: the best in-class. It decides to specialise in this industry and rely on exports for its other products:

Now they have a healthy reciprocal relationship with most of their neighbours. Sure, they rely on their neighbours for helmets, armoured cars, rifles, and ammo, but they now have leverage over those countries because they supply the best artillery pieces.

In a world that is fragmenting away from total globalisation, it makes sense for friendly regions to support one another in their defence industries. This way they can get some of the benefits of specialisation and economies of scale. Let’s finish by seeing how Ireland fits into the European context:

The figures for defence sales are very approximate¹¹, and Ireland’s sales probably include dual-use technologies, whereas these are split out in some (but not necessarily all!) of the other countries’ figures. Nevertheless, it’s clear that Ireland’s defence industry is a lot more substantial than many people give it credit for. In the model of regional specialisation I outlined above, perhaps it has found its value-adding niche. Still, it would be nice to see some weapons and ammunition in the mix also. Doing so would in no way compromise Ireland’s neutrality and may even enhance it.

Top wrap up, and demonstrate how militaries exist primarily to exercise lethal force, I’ll refer you to this priceless video of a tourist attempting to mess with a member of the Queen’s Guard (Scots I think? Someone correct me if wrong):

That’s all for this week, folks. Thanks for reading and please remember, if you haven’t already, to subscribe using the link below. Please also share this article with a friend. See you next week.

Featured Image: Gun Shooting Flowers Free Stock Photo, via PublicDomainPictures.net

1. Based on GNI* rather than GDP. GNI* attempts to strip out the distorting effect of Ireland’s tax haven status. ↩︎
2. Not the actual Minister for Defence, but a junior Minister. Since 2011, Ireland has not had a full-time Minister for Defence, with the post instead being given in addition to another, more prestigious ministry. This probably tells you all you need to know about how seriously Ireland’s elites take matters of national security. ↩︎
3. Remember that the term “Military Industrial Complex,” often used by anti-military folk, was coined by Eisenhower. Even someone with his impeccable military credentials could see the danger in allowing the defense tail to wag the national dog. ↩︎
4. I should note, in passing, that I’m talking about Ireland in terms of the Republic, rather than Ireland as an island, which includes Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has a few significant defence players based locally. Perhaps they could form the nucleus of a much-needed defence industrial base if Irish unity ever came about. ↩︎
5. And women, but the generic masculine term is pretty embedded. ↩︎
6. Of course, the last thing you want to do is get rid of live-fire training. There’s no substitute for the real thing. But simulations let crewmen practice (and make mistakes) before getting on the range, so they are more proficient and confident when they get there, and the risky, expensive live training has more impact. ↩︎
7. As an aside, I’m not talking here about pre-emptive attack, which is what people sometimes mean when they use the phrase “the best defence is a good offence.” That, for example, was the Japanese theory when they attacked Pearl Harbor. I’m talking about offensive operations or tactics which are taken by the defender in a campaign or battle. ↩︎
8. At the time of writing, her odds on Paddy Power were 4/1, in third place, compared to 7/2 for the second-placed and 5/6 for the favourite. A good bit off the top spot, to be sure, but definitely in contention with the proper campaign yet to kick off. It’s worth bearing in mind that favourites to win at this stage of the race have rarely come out on top. ↩︎
9. It’s worth noting, for those not familiar with the office, that the Irish President has no executive power. They are the Head of State and have some limited legislative oversight. Also, relevant to this discussion, they are the Commander in Chief of the country’s military forces. The BBC published a handy guide yesterday to the office and the runners and riders. ↩︎
10. UNMIL Photo/Christopher Herwig, April 17, 2009, Buchanan, Grand Bassa, Liberia -Private Linda Mensah, one of the 41 female members serving with Ghanbat 10 with UNMIL in Buchana on patrol about the Liberian Port City of Buchanan. ↩︎
11. If you’re interested, the sources are here for Austria, Portugal, Sweden, Denmark, and Switzerland. I also used ChatGPT to corroborate and, in some cases, to refine these figures. I picked the midpoint of all ranges given. ↩︎