International Defence Green and White Papers

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

This next is an in-depth report on the top 15-20 acquisition programs of the 2000's and how they died by sequestration and other means tied to the budget (See page 4/Table 1-PDF page 10.) and future acquisitions into the 2030's again by all services. The source is well respected. For most of you Pg. 4 might be enough as Table 1 also shows how much was spent and what the alternative to the cancelled program was as well. Beyond that it's how the budget has dictated the future acquisition programs of the various services as described above. Just started it myself and am finding it interesting, but, of course that's me!?!
https://csis.org/files/publication/1...zation_Web.pdf

Regards,
Pat

[IronDuke99]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

Well its been a longtime since I posted anything here but, I think it's time to separate out items like the below that work their way into the more equipment orientated threads I use for my submission work and for others as they see fit. So this will be more for the "bigger picture" items.

1. EU President calls for a unified EU Army and Air Force. The article concerning a unified AF is more in depth as it appears in full length and touches on the first issue. Once in a while JANES will present you with a gift and the latter is just that.
http://www.janes.com/article/49843/e...-european-army
http://www.janes.com/article/49838/a...pean-air-force


This is a good start for now. Any feedback on Defence24 from Items 2 and 4 would be appreciated here by SERIOUS readers please.

Regards,
Pat

As of early 2016 I don't see very much chance of unified EU Armed Forces, nor do I think they would be a good thing.

NATO is the basis of Western European security and I think it should remain so.

The UK is, of course, due to vote on leaving the EU in June. I for one support the UK leaving and regaining real political independence, while remaining a full part of NATO and continuing to cooperate with our friends and allies on Defence and security.

http://grassrootsout.co.uk/

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

1. Let's just call these...He kept his word...
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...id=mailsignout

2. Austria seeing "shadows"...
http://www.janes.com/article/58745/a...efence-decline

3. ISIS and the use of "technicals"...
http://www.army-technology.com/featu...-isis-4789324/

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Europe will you please allow us to send more troops there? This and more for what I've called the "Warm War" for awhile, it seems it's getting "chillier" as time goes on. Russia in it's long history has always looked to the West to provide a "buffer" to "Mother Russia" it's understandable to some degree given their long history of invasion. They've lost that option now with the break up of the Soviet Union and collapse of the Warsaw Pact. So with NATO to the West and China to the East you can see things are getting harder. Crimea will I believe be lost to the West for a very longtime and maybe beyond due to it's strategic location and it's importance to it's NAVY, which has been more actively involved in operations in the Mediterranean than it has probably going back to the end of the Cold War. Georgia would become a flash point as well, it would be hard for Russia to accept Georgia as a member of NATO, and I wonder if the process was to start if the Russians wouldn't just change the landscape there. It's a hypothetical, but what's not is though requested by Georgia to become a member, NATO has thus far only taken it under "advisement" if that far.

Now there's a campaign maybe for someone to tackle!?!

Anyway here's the latest on what the U.S. hopes to accomplish in the city of my birth. "I "R" ARMY Brat after-all!" I've also posted from NATO the current members list-somehow I missed Croatia getting in.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...id=mailsignout
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/nato_countries.htm

This next I thought might be interesting to some, I seem to remember a similar controversy over this topic I thought a few years back along the same lines without identifying the personnel involved. Anyway something a little different for a change anyway.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/mar...id=mailsignout

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

As you say Russia tends to be a little on the paranoid side due to the number of times it's been invaded. Their mania for buffer states is totally justified and reasonable from their perspective. As are their recent aggressive aerobatic and naval displays, can't have the neighbors thinking you're weak! The problem is I don't think some (many?) members of their government realize that no one in the West has any particular interest in invading them anymore.

##########

As to the claim that one of the people on Suribachi has been misidentified all these years ...
The three survivors (Bradley, Hayes, and Gagnon) never commented on the matter once they themselves were correctly identified, and I tend to give someone that was actually there and knew the men involved a lot of credibility.

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

##########

As to the claim that one of the people on Suribachi has been misidentified all these years ...
The three survivors (Bradley, Hayes, and Gagnon) never commented on the matter once they themselves were correctly identified, and I tend to give someone that was actually there and knew the men involved a lot of credibility.

Here is a very detailed account of the claim..........

http://dataomaha.com/media/news/2014/iwo-jima/

[DRG]

I'm interested in your take on this when the evidence is reviewed some of it is compelling, others not so much

There were LOTS of marines around during the second flag raising.....the "Gung Ho" shot proves that but "clue #2" that Bradley's helmet does not show a soft cap inside and there isn't one on his head during the "Gung Ho" shot proves nothing since you don't see his left hand and that could easily have the cap in it OR when he raised the helmet the cap fell out and is on the ground when the shot was taken OR if you look at the second group shot under clue #4 he is holding his helmet by the right side of the brim and his thumb could easily be holding his soft cap tight against the inside of the helmet

BUT

The cuffed / uncuffted pants is significant and "Clue No. 4: Sousley's helmet, belt and uncuffed pants " is very significant and I am inclined to think that is Sousley not Bradley.... but Bradley WAS there during the raising of that there is no doubt

[Suhiir]

Given the information in the detailed account you provided I have to agree it's probable that wasn't Bradley on the flag.
With two flags being raised and a battle raging at the time I'd say it was an honest mistake on his (and everyone's) part.

[DRG]

Every Marine on Suribachi that day " helped raise the flag " and Bradley was there for both of them. Given Hayes reluctance ( to put it mildly......) to be named initially and what seems like a general lack of interest by any Marine there to step into the spotlight it seems posssible ( this is conjecture on my part ) that Sousley and Bradley agreed it would be Bradley named since he was there for both and leave it at that as nobody I'm aware of ( I admit limited knowledge ) involved ever went on to make a big deal out of their participation in the events that day . ( The Marines......the goverment and media are another matter...)

EDIT......I have seen this " I don't want to talk about it.........the past is past" attitude personally. I had an uncle who was a DonR ( motorcycle dispatch rider ) wounded in Normandy when a truck full of infantry he was following hit a big AT mine and he just happened to move when the following troops were sorting through the resulting carnage and he spent the rest of the war in hospital...... I tried once to talk with him about it ....I was curious what bike he rode most....and he refused to talk about it so I can see how someone might tell a battle comrade " Leave me out of this please" and that's where the matter ends for them.

It's significant as well that both of the guys who initiated this have no axe to grind....they just both noticed things that didn't add up and came forward with their findings. What's far less impressive is the reaction of some of the "historians" unwilling to even look at the evidence.

Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well I just found where the Iwo Jima went I was looking for when the final results of the USMC review board found Schulz was at the 2nd flag raising and not Bradley. Much like the below ended up in the Venezuela Thread just below this in Thread order. So I award myself (And the Olympics are on after all. ) another Gold Medal in the category. Michael Phelps eat your heart out, I now have more "DAaaa" "DOHhhh" combined Gold Medals then you have Olympic ones. Guess I showed him!?!

Anyway...

"Don't worry I'm not advocating for Russian armored trains to be entered in the game, but this next is after all something you don't hear about everyday. Note the look of the soldier on the right in the picture, I wonder is he thinking "I'm not feeling as protected as my comrades inside the train!?!" Probably he's just bored! Anyway...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/augus..._11508161.html"

Regards,
Pat


P.S.
Maybe it was just this... or ? Nah,definitely the above.