WI: Troubles continued into 2000s

What happens?

Do you mean the Northern Ireland Troubles?

If so it would depend on a number of factors ranging from what if any political change has happened in NI, what's the economic state, what level of military is deployed. Would SF/IRA have tried a political solution (which reduced the operations in the 90's and led to splintering) or would it continue operations? Would security services co-operation grow as it did OTL?

The reality is that while the Troubles ended, persistent attacks have continued with varying levels of success and scale, that you haven't seen the same type of extremely large events like the Troubles is just luck and success by the security forces.
 
Sadly given the continued activity by Dissident Republicans and Loyalists making total arses of themselves you can argue that the Troubles have just mutatesmd into a different form. To keep them at the level of intensity that existed Pre-1994 you need things to have gone much worse during the 70's and 80's. one of the reasons why the IRA went along with the peace process was war weariness among its members who had realised that a military victory was impossible, SF's political success gave them the cover to drop the armed campaign while still saying they'd been undefeated. So as a POD, Gerry Adams is assassinated by Loyalists in 1984 resulting in SF's political strategy never advancing, the militarists remain dominat and keep the campaign going.
 
Just saying the "Troubles" leaves it open for any issues around the world, just because Anglo-Irish and connected nations think of that at once, doesn't mean that it means the same to everyone else.

Like US posters forget that other countries have had civil wars, or British posters forget other countries have Liberal and Conservative parties, or north americans dont know that 'war of 1812' is ambiguous in parts of Europe.

It is, of course, best to be clear. But most of us fall into that trap at some point.
 
Top