WI: IRA (immediately) targets London's financial district

[Sorairo]

1993 Bishopsgate bombing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In 1993, the IRA targeted the City of London's financial district - this bombing was their most economically damaging during the whole conflict to that point. It's widely considered to have been among their most effective and devastating strategies. However, this was during the time of the peace process and vastly improved security measures upon an already badly weakened IRA. What if the IRA, instead of going down a miserable rabbit-hole of indiscriminately car bombing Belfast on Bloody Friday, decided back in 1972 that their strategy after Bloody Sunday would be one of targeting the UK financial sector and the City of London?

I doubt it would mean unilateral withdrawal of the British army but what would the British government do to counteract it? Seal off the financial district behind a wall?

 

[dcharles]

1993 Bishopsgate bombing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In 1993, the IRA targeted the City of London's financial district - this bombing was their most economically damaging during the whole conflict to that point. It's widely considered to have been among their most effective and devastating strategies. However, this was during the time of the peace process and vastly improved security measures upon an already badly weakened IRA. What if the IRA, instead of going down a miserable rabbit-hole of indiscriminately car bombing Belfast on Bloody Friday, decided back in 1972 that their strategy after Bloody Sunday would be one of targeting the UK financial sector and the City of London?

I doubt it would mean unilateral withdrawal of the British army but what would the British government do to counteract it? Seal off the financial district behind a wall?

This is interesting.

Obviously, *all* the bombings in Ireland won't be averted. Could they be halved? If so, how many of the bombings avoided in Ireland go on to be carried out in Britain? Just trying to think of what's reasonable from an operational standpoint, maybe one in ten?

After twenty years of that, maybe you *do* get unilateral withdrawal. Britain has always been able to distance herself from her colonial wars, which is one reason why she's been able to carry them out. Northern Ireland is*tiny*. It's not like it's leaving the island is going to send the UK into an economic collapse.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

I doubt it would mean unilateral withdrawal of the British army but what would the British government do to counteract it? Seal off the financial district behind a wall?

More or less, The City is a relatively small area so putting in adequate security measures wouldn't be difficult.

 

[Gentian1707]

Plenty of things to do. If you research what Sri Lanka security forces did to minimize terrorist attacks during th civil war, you can get a good idea how bad things could get.

I was a school boy back then and traveled from my village to Colombo and then Colombo to lumbini road, to reach school. Total journey distance 68km, but 3hrs journey. By the time I reach Colombo, have to alight from bus, undergo a complete pat down check three times. Then bomb squad dogs will check the bus and people. God forbid if anyone had touched a fire cracker because then I won't be able to reach school before lunch. Then from Colombo to Lumbini, two more times. Going abroad? Reaching airport you have to go through patdowns about five times. Then at the airport, full vehicle checks including driving through scanner, manual visual checks by air force, then by bomb sniffing dogs and repeat that many times. Need to reach airport entrance at least 4-5hrs before the flight so that you can make it to the plane before it takes off.

Even with security like that, it is not perfect, things do get through. However, as far as I know, more attacks were thwarted than succeeded thanks to the security measures.

UK has a way better security forces, intelligence agencies and resources, and IRA was no where even close to how powerful LTTE of Sri Lanka was.so UK could potentially protect the financial district.

Suicide bombings, apart from obvious material and human costs, incur enormous economical costs. These are due to increased insurance premiums causing international shipping to drop almost to nothingness. This won't be a problem to UK as it is UK that rules the insurance world. Then the issue of investors. Investors do not like to invest in countries which are in volatile situations. Yet UK has enough international clout and is important enough that this issue won't be as severe as it is for say Sri Lanka.

If this carried on and on, it is likely a permanent hatred may ignite among the British populace against the Irish as their everyday life is now severely inconvenienced. This is what happened to Sri Lanka too. It comes to a point where nothing sort of complete victory becomes unacceptable to the people. When that point is reached, politicians won't have a choice. So a much severe response from UK against Ireland would have been a possibility.

 

[David Flin]

It's worth noting that in 1974, the IRA did conduct a fairly unpleasant bombing campaign in Britain (Guildford and Birmingham pub bombings spring to mind, but they weren't the only ones). Between 1973 and 1975, there were 57 attempted bombings in London alone. This included places like Oxford Street in the run up to Christmas, Trattoria Fiore, an Italian restaurant, Selfridges store, and South Kensington Underground (subway) station.

In this, the IRA were targeting civilian casualties by planting bombs in enclosed and crowded locations.

I'm not entirely sure what difference targeting the City would make. Bombs going off in London aimed to kill civilians. Same old, same old.

Obviously, *all* the bombings in Ireland won't be averted. Could they be halved? If so, how many of the bombings avoided in Ireland go on to be carried out in Britain? Just trying to think of what's reasonable from an operational standpoint, maybe one in ten?

It wouldn't make a hap'porth of difference to what goes on in Northern Ireland. In the early 1970s, that was not a pleasant place, with Orange and Green balaclava maniacs playing at "Which can plunge to the greater Evil" (The Green Maniacs had their Prod-a-Prod game, which involved kidnapping a teenage from the Loyalist part of Belfast, and beating them to death in a pub as part of the evening entertainment; the Orange Maniacs had a campaign targeting Mothercare shops). What happened in Britain was a matter of complete irrelevance to these people (I use the term advisedly). They were hooked on the violence.

This got so bad, that eventually the Peace Marchers were started by Máiread Maguire, Betty Williams, and Ciaran McKeown. Despite threats from both Orange and Green Balaclavas (death threats and attempts on their lives were just SOP), they started a grass roots movement that basically brought some of the leaders of the factions to adopt tactics that didn't impact civilians quite so much.

If you want to make a change in the various IRA campaigns, the 1976 Peace Marches is the place to start.

Either that, or giving the Orange and Green Maniacs the merest trace of humanity.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

More or less, The City is a relatively small area so putting in adequate security measures wouldn't be difficult.

The choke points then become the commuter rail lines. Signal boxes, junctions, the overhead wires etc. Traffic lights on the major trunk roads. Plus power lines and major telephone cables.

Nothing indiscriminate but things that disrupt City business and make life miserable for commuters. I should say 'Even more miserable than ASLEFand the NUR managed'.

British security could reduce such attacks but at a significant cost in manpower and money.

Of course, business centres outside London could be targeted too.

I do not think a unilateral withdrawal femrom Northern Ireland would be on the cards. But Westminster would be more interested in a political solution than OTL. Possibly even one the Unionists disliked but Nationalists could accept.

 

[yulzari1]

It would be pointless now as it has all gone abroad since Britain left the European Union.

 

[David Flin]

The choke points then become the commuter rail lines. Signal boxes, junctions, the overhead wires etc. Traffic lights on the major trunk roads. Plus power lines and major telephone cables.

Nothing indiscriminate but things that disrupt City business and make life miserable for commuters. I should say 'Even more miserable than ASLEFand the NUR managed'.

British security could reduce such attacks but at a significant cost in manpower and money.

Of course, business centres outside London could be targeted too.

I do not think a unilateral withdrawal femrom Northern Ireland would be on the cards. But Westminster would be more interested in a political solution than OTL. Possibly even one the Unionists disliked but Nationalists could accept.

This does, however, require a huge mentality shift in the IRA to move from casualty count targets to economic targets. To put it bluntly, I don't think such a shift is credible.

 

[David Flin]

It would be pointless now as it has all gone abroad since Britain left the European Union.

Really?

Doesn't seem to be the case as of September 2022.

London ranks second. The highest placed EU centre is Paris, at 10th.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

This does, however, require a huge mentality shift in the IRA to move from casualty count targets to economic targets. To put it bluntly, I don't think such a shift is credible.

Quite so, sadly.

I was using it as a “What IF” in line with the original post. It’s kind of what I, as an extremely amateur “Michael Collins” equivalent, would have tried to do to influence British thinking and damage the City. Based on my knowledge of the financial and physical infrastructure that supported the British economy then.

it would an ISOT or other ASB intervention for the IRA (any branch) to behave like that.

 

[Crazyduck156]

Really?

Doesn't seem to be the case as of September 2022.

London ranks second. The highest placed EU centre is Paris, at 10th.

Never let facts get in the way of a good moan

 

[sparky42]

Quite so, sadly.

I was using it as a “What IF” in line with the original post. It’s kind of what I, as an extremely amateur “Michael Collins” equivalent, would have tried to do to influence British thinking and damage the City. Based on my knowledge of the financial and physical infrastructure that supported the British economy then.

it would an ISOT or other ASB intervention for the IRA (any branch) to behave like that.

Even if you managed to swing a faction of the IRA's to such tactics, I imagine a) the other factions of the Republican movement/IRA's would just continue "traditional" tactics ala OTL, and b) you might see some more "Green on Green" as those committed to civilian deaths attack those trying to hit commercial support structures rather than running up the body count, for "betraying the movement" or some such shite.

Course you also have the issue of how infiltrated the various movements were, if there was a shift towards a sustained campaign of Commercial damage in GB rather than the OTL actions in NI, would the security forces react differently?

 

[Pugzley]

What’s the difference between a Northern Irish Loyalist and a Seperatist? The moment NI terrorists bomb London business both sects of the NI country are going to be lumped in and would that cost resentment from the loyalists to the English for perceived disloyalty.

 

[sparky42]

What’s the difference between a Northern Irish Loyalist and a Seperatist? The moment NI terrorists bomb London business both sects of the NI country are going to be lumped in and would that cost resentment from the loyalists to the English for perceived disloyalty.

Ah, no imo. Given the "close" relationships between sections of the Security Forces (the UDR and RUC for example) and Loyalists in OTL even when the Republicans were attacking GB, I can't see how you think that would change?

 

[H.Flashman(VC)]

This does, however, require a huge mentality shift in the IRA to move from casualty count targets to economic targets. To put it bluntly, I don't think such a shift is credible.

What if there's an earlier POD were the Provisional IRA after the split of 1969 remains a minority and the official IRA becomes more entangled with the extremist communists groups they were already courting by that time?

 

[CalBear]

It would be pointless now as it has all gone abroad since Britain left the European Union.

DO NOT drag current politics outside of Chat.

 

[Conster]

It would drum up public support and lead Heath to go hard against the IRA. No Sunningdale.

 

[David Flin]

What if there's an earlier POD were the Provisional IRA after the split of 1969 remains a minority and the official IRA becomes more entangled with the extremist communists groups they were already courting by that time?

If that happens, then we have to look at the nature of the OIRA. Which was, to put it mildly, confused. This is a case where rhetoric and actions are not a reflection of each other.

The Official IRA claimed to be focused on defence of Catholics and that it would only engage in attacks in retaliation for being attacked.
However, retaliation was often pre-emptive, and it included retaliation for such things as Catholic nurses treating injured Protestants in hospital.

The OIRA claimed that it did not think Ireland could be unified until there was peace between Catholic and Protestant.
It also actively tried to create no-go zones for Protestants, with a view to ethnically cleansing the island, zone by zone.

It was a heaving, steaming mass of contradictions.

However, one thing is clear. Had the OIRA been the most powerful faction, it very quickly wouldn't have been. The one thing it was really good at was splitting into factions that hated each other more than they hated the British. Having formed in 1969, by 1974, it had split into the OIRA and the INLF and the INLA and the Workers' IRA. And possibly others. Those are just ones I can recall. You know that scene in Life of Brian, where the various Judea People's Fronts are more angry with each other than the Romans...

...That's exactly what was going on among the OIRA. To the extent that I'm reasonably convinced that Life of Brian was sending up the IRA.

Loyalist graffiti at the time included the phrase: "Whack away, boys." This was in response to the OIRA, INLF, INLA, and WIRA assassinating members of each others leadership. I understand that the PIRA also got involved, but was rather more competent than the various flavours of Marxist IRA groups, and quickly, the OIRA, INLF, INLA, WIRA and others became footnotes. They'd do the occasional atrocity, but they largely existed in order to fight amongst themselves.

To try and give a flavour of the times, in 1975, the OIRA shot and killed a 9-year-old girl, This was to persuade her father, a leading member of the INLA, to become an informer. If I'm honest, I can't quite see the logic here. I wouldn't have thought that murdering someone's daughter in front of them would make that person a reliable informer, but I confess that I have difficulties acquiring the thought processes of the OIRA.

And the constant, never-ending struggles with the PIRA...

Of course, in some circles, the OIRA are considered to be "heroic" and "worthy of respect", because they cloaked themselves in the rhetoric of far-left Marxist thinking. It's a waste of time explaining to that circle what the OIRA got up to, because Rose-Tinted spectacles can be very powerful things.

My guess, if the OIRA becomes the most powerful faction - in five years, tops, it won't be the most powerful faction any more because it will have split into a dozen groups who hate each other, and the more disciplined PIRA will, by default, become the largest faction.

 

[CHKeeley]

What if the IRA, instead of going down a miserable rabbit-hole of indiscriminately car bombing Belfast on Bloody Friday, decided back in 1972 that their strategy after Bloody Sunday would be one of targeting the UK financial sector and the City of London?

Honestly I think this is missing a little of the internal nuance that the London bombing strategy brought to the table. The London strategy was so effective was because of the PIRA’s turn towards developing its political and legal wing, Sinn Féin, in the 1980s. Danny Morrison famously asked: “Who here really believes we can win the war through the ballot box? But will anyone here object if, with a ballot paper in one hand and the Armalite in the other, we take power in Ireland?" The abstention from politics and total commitment to the armed struggle served its purpose in the 1970s by securing the PIRA its place in the sun among militant Republicans in the north, but it was starting to fail as you note. The London strategy was a way to apply pressure in a completely new way. Bombings would be non-lethal (in so far as the London public was to be forewarned before detonation), highly destructive, and extremely embarrassing for the British government. Which it was. It changed the image of the armed struggle, which granted more legitimacy to Sinn Féin.

Since you probably already know this, I’ll get to the argument. I don’t think this strategy would have worked the same in the late 60s and 70s. When then the provos were getting started, the immediate demand was to defend Catholic communities and lead the armed struggle in the north against orange paramilitaries and later British troops. This imperative meant that the focus of the PIRA was on Northern Ireland, and abstentionism meant it lacked an cohesive political strategy except to win republican support and exhaust the British state’s ability to sustain its rule in Northern Ireland. A redirection of resources to a “straight to London” approach within these circumstances could still make sense, but with full-fledged fighting this entails a redirection of resources and without the later political turn and development of Sinn Féin, this also means that we can’t expect the same sort of bombing… it would be more militant and aggressive. I would expect these alt-bombings to be more in line with the types of attacks going on in the north of Ireland. Moderate to heavy civilian casualties expected. At this stage in the insurgency, this will only galvanize the British moderate and republican-sympathetics into agreeing for escalation in the North. An escalation which the PIRA may not be able to handle, especially if it continues devoting resources towards operations on the British mainland. It would hurt their image in countries like the United States as well, and may well engender criticisms from Catholic communities in the North for refocusing the war elsewhere. Insurgencies obviously rely both on domestic and foreign support, and I feel that without the political strategy that informed the OTL London bombings, these alt-bombings would be more deadly and damage PIRA image/support while bringing much more down on their heads.

Note: Just typed this all up and noticed @David Flin made pretty much an identical point. British targets would be (and were) focused on causing civilian casualties rather than economic damage, and you require the mentality shift towards the “Armalite in one hand and the ballot box in the other” to get this strategy effectively. You’ll have a hard time getting that mentality without the rabbit hole of sectarian killings considering how even OTL that institutional push was a serious battle for men like Adams and McGuinness. Abstentionism had a long shadow in Irish republicanism, and you need some bitter defeats before the organization is going to agree to shift. Do it too soon and it’ll fracture and fall apart.

 

[GeorgeUK]

The choke points then become the commuter rail lines. Signal boxes, junctions, the overhead wires etc. Traffic lights on the major trunk roads. Plus power lines and major telephone cables.

Nothing indiscriminate but things that disrupt City business and make life miserable for commuters. I should say 'Even more miserable than ASLEFand the NUR managed'.

British security could reduce such attacks but at a significant cost in manpower and money.

Of course, business centres outside London could be targeted too.

I do not think a unilateral withdrawal femrom Northern Ireland would be on the cards. But Westminster would be more interested in a political solution than OTL. Possibly even one the Unionists disliked but Nationalists could accept.

But how would ASLEF and the NUR react to their members being targeted?