WI: IRA Bombs Indiscriminately

After the start of The Troubles in Ireland, 1969, the Provisional IRA was known to give warnings only minutes ahead of bombings allowing for evacuation in time and reduction of casualties. My question is what if they didn't give warnings and killed indiscriminately in order to take a more aggressive stance on getting a united Ireland? Would the British use counter tactics? How would it affect the peace process?
 
I think they would be massively shooting themselves in the foot with such a policy by destroying what support and sympathy they might have had outside their natural constituency. I'm not sure how long their support would hold up among, say, Irish-Americans if they were faced with a string of Enniskillens and Omaghs, which you can bet the British press would play up for every drop of outrage and disgust they could wring from their readers.
 
After the start of The Troubles in Ireland, 1969, the Provisional IRA was known to give warnings only minutes ahead of bombings allowing for evacuation in time and reduction of casualties. My question is what if they didn't give warnings and killed indiscriminately in order to take a more aggressive stance on getting a united Ireland? Would the British use counter tactics? How would it affect the peace process?

Yuhi33

I think this is the key point. When they did give warnings it was more to give a political veil to their actions, or to maximise disruption. Also I think there were at least a couple of times where warnings of some bombs effectively pushed civilians into neighbouring ones.

An more aggressive murder policy is likely to make it more likely that Britain is less willing to come to terms so it probably gets bloodier. Britain can probably win if it decides to be ruthless enough and put some more technology and organisation into the struggle but going to be messy. Probably no acceptance of democracy by Sin Fein in TTL and continued commitment to a 'theoretical' military dictatorship.

Steve
 
I agree it would cost them support--I've heard the IRA praised for its comparative restraint in warning people so there was only property damage and not deaths.
 
I agree it would cost them support--I've heard the IRA praised for its comparative restraint in warning people so there was only property damage and not deaths.

PIRA warnings tended to be either too short, or inadequate. Frankly I don't think they cared much about whether civilians were killed, or maimed.
IMVHO the warnings were only there to give themselves a political fig leaf to hide behind.
 
Yeah, I don't doubt that the PIRA themselves were extremely cold-blooded people, but as you say the idea of providing warnings was calculated to give them a figleaf. It enabled some of their sympathisers and fellow-travellers who thought of them as a band of plucky freedom fighters to put forward the kind of arguments Merry Prankster alludes to about their humanity and restraint. If PIRA foregoes even token efforts at avoiding civilian deaths, then it's going to be a lot harder for their sympathisers to make those sorts of arguments with a straight face or with what little credibility they might have had in OTL.
 
Yeah, such brave freedom fighters who did such things as murder a police officer giving first aid to a dieing road accident victim, and a member of the UDR while he was driving a school bus.
The Republicans were almost certainly responsible for more deaths amongst the Nationalist/Catholic community than the 'evil, British oppressors' (TM).

Of course I try to take a balanced view - IMVHO the Loyalist paramilitaries were a bunch of scumbag thugs as well.
 
Look up the IRA bombing of Harrods. They warned of a bomb inside the store then parked a car bomb outside to get people being evacuated. And during the Christmas shopping rush if I remember rightly. On reflection I think the IRA did bomb indiscriminately. And of they never gave warnings? well, everyone saw through the fig leaf so I don't think it would have made the slightest bit of difference.
 
Only real difference I can see is that SF and their sympathisers/fellow travelers would have to come up with new excuses to justify their actions. Something on the lines of:

'While the IRA regret any innocent casualties it is fighting a war to fee Ireland from British oppression and in wars civilian casualties are unavoidable'.
 
And of course there was the M1 Bridge Bomb threat, where they claimed to have planted a bomb on 'a bridge on the M1', meaning the entire motorway had to be closed for about a week IIRC.
 
Top