The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

In a piece for the First Breakfast Substack, Nadia Schadlow (former deputy national security advisor for strategy) outlines key steps for an American defense reindustrialization. She writes, "Reindustrialization is not all about additional government spending. It is about incentivizing new supply and demand opportunities, and unleashing American capital and ingenuity. The new administration should focus on six lines of action. These are the underlying conditions required to make the progress that Trump is driving toward." Quoting key excerpts from her piece, these six lines of action are:

Prioritizing Critical Sectors

The United States must focus on the “manufacturing trifecta” for critical components: chips, batteries, and rare earth magnets. These are the necessary building blocks for virtually all electronic systems, from consumer electronics to advanced military weapons systems. Without electronics, missiles will not be intercepted, soldiers will struggle to communicate, and precision weapons will be less precise...

Reducing Regulations

Second, Trump should undertake a regulatory reset. Reports indicate that 40 percent of major manufacturing projects linked to the CHIPs Act and the IRA have been delayed due to permitting and compliance with environmental standards. TSMC experienced initial delays although now its first factory in Arizona is producing chips; operations in its second fabare projected to start in 2028, followed by production in its third fab by the end of the decade. The new administration should seek national security waivers to clear these obstacles...

Closing the Skills Gap

Third, the new administration should solve – not merely describe – the industrial workforce challenge. A decade ago, one manufacturing association noted that the biggest problem was the dearth of skilled workers who knew robotics and basic engineering. Another study has estimated that by 2033, 3.8 million new jobs will exist, but we might not have skilled workers for half of them. Workforce shortages have already had negative impacts on a range of U.S. military programs and have even contributed to delays on presidential aircraft...

Powering Manufacturing

It will be impossible to reindustrialize America without abundant energy, and there is a growing realization that the United States and other industrialized societies are running out of electricity.

Currently, the industrial sector accounts for roughly 35% of total U.S. energy consumption, and manufacturing consumes about 76% of total industrial energy consumption.

Energy demand is set to rise dramatically, with data centers driving unprecedented growth in electricity requirements. This data is required to train and power AI’s complex computation systems and thus is integrally linked to U.S. national and economic security. 

Capital Mobilization

A successful reindustrialization strategy also requires capital. But the good news is that the U.S. government itself does not have to spend billions of taxpayer dollars. One of many of America’s advantages is its liquid capital markets. By some accounts, there is some $56 trillion in U.S. capital markets. Investors are eager to put this capital to work. If the government creates the right incentives to shape the “playing field,” these private funds will drive reindustrialization.

The new administration can advance policies to make the government a more efficient and effective partner in building new manufacturing facilities.

Trade

Finally, trade policies will be an essential component of rebuilding American domestic manufacturing. Globalization in the presence of mercantilist nations has been a disaster for the U.S. industrial base and those who worked within it, leading to what many have described as the deindustrialization of America...

The next administration should first identify the sectors that are so vital to the United States that it must retain a domestic manufacturing base. Tariffs should be used to create a protected market for U.S. manufacturers (though this should be a competitive market involving multiple U.S. firms) and used against states that engage in systematic abusive trade practices. 

(TL;DR) Schadlow summarizes: "A second Trump administration could redefine America’s industrial future by focusing on strategic sectors, regulatory reform, workforce development, energy reliability, capital mobilization, and trade. This comprehensive approach would not only bolster national security but also ensure long-term economic prosperity, restoring America’s position as a global manufacturing leader."

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

Found out recently the next gen Bradley replacement will also only house 6 men. Its clear they want to double down on the highly effective Bradley as an AFV, it does great supporting infantry, supporting tanks, hunting tanks, performing recce, calling for fire, etc.

But it doesn't transport troops well.

Sure a small team of FOs/JTACs/Scouts, or a small team operating ATGMs, MANPADs, or drones are very useful on the modern, hyper lethal battlefield. But you're also still going to need resilient, attritable infantry to take and hold ground, to screen an armoured push, to storm a trench or building, take the inevitable casualties, and remain a cohesive and effective unit to continue its mission at less than full strength.

A 6 man infantry squad isn't going to cut it for that role. The moment they take casualties, they aren't going to remain combat effective for long. Sure you can merge attritted squads, but C2 wise thats a headache, as a squad is designed to be a cohesive unit. Better to have 2 squads of 9 than 3 squads of 6 when they all take a few casualties each. (Counter argument is if an IFV is wiped out on the way to unloading its troops, you don't have as many eggs in one basket).

The Russians used to have the Mi-24 hind helicopter as a combination troop transport and attack gunship. It was kind of ass at both. Now they have their Kamovs escorting their Mi17s.

Would it make more sense with IFVs, to ditch the troop carrying requirement altogether (or bring it right down to 2-3 for recce scouts, small atgm/manpad/drone teams, and picking up dismounted crew from mission kill vehicles) and focus even more on being effective fighting vehicles (clearly their main focus now), and design a sister tracked and survival APC to go alongside it, get escorted into battle by the IFV/AFVs, share logistics (can't have Strykers and Bradleys together for that reason)?

I think so. What do yall think? And if you disagree, where do you reckon I've gone wrong doctrinally or overlooked something?

Late to the party, but found out that the next gen US IFV is only going to seat 6 dismounts, so similar problem to the Bradley. I know the Bradley kicks ass as a fighting vehicle, particularly alongside tanks as more of a Tank Support Vehicle and Tank Destroyer (Gulf Wars), or in armoured Cav/Recce roles, and no doubt the next gen IFV will be even better with its 30-50mm+ cannon, upgraded ATGMs, and vastly superior armour package.

But lessons in Ukraine give me the impression that chasing this goal of a jack of all trades IFV is going to be a mistake. On one hand, small teams with advanced weaponry (ATGMs, MANPADS, Drone Operators, FOs/JTACs, Scouts/Snipers), acting a lot more self sufficiently and decentralized obviously have their place on the modern battlefield. These small teams certainly make sense accompanying armoured Cav or manning outposts.

But Ukraine (and recent middle eastern conflicts in urban environments, and also Fallujah a while back) have shown us that both high intensity urban combat, and high intensity near peer conventional warfare has an incredibly high rate of attrition...

My point is, you need infantry to take and hold ground, and a 6 man infantry squad is very quickly going to end up combat ineffective after taking casualties. I don't really like the idea of "just send two squads," because I believe it misses the point. A squad is a cohesive unit C2 wise. A mission could always dictate sending more man power, but it makes sense to me to send two cohesive and resilient 9 man squads (18 men total) than it does to send 3 incohesive and almost guaranteed to be attritted and become combat ineffective 6 man squads (18 men total). Sure they can consolidate and merge after taking casualties, but that is a bit of a headache C2 wise in comparisson.

I know I might be missing something, I'm not militarily trained, I'm not an officer, I'm a nerd who plays a bit of combat mission and geeks out about military stuff. I'm not even good at combat mission. And even I can see that well maybe when fighting alongside an IFV an infantry squad doesn't need the firepower or base of fire element allowed by 3 extra men, when you've got an autocannon and coaxil 308 acting as your support by fire element while your 6 men manuever and assault. And maybe less men loaded into IFVs on the modern battlefield adds resilience because those IFVs are easy prey for drones and ATGMs, so less men per IFV is akin to not putting all your eggs in one basket.

It just seems to me that we are always going to need resilient, attritable infantry squads in an assault, in taking trenches and urban streets, and at the same time it is so obvious the military really wants the IFVs to be more combat effective in roles such as TSV, Armoured Cav, Fire Support Vehicles, C2 vehicles, SHORAD, and in future probably NLOS ATGM Carriers...

So when do we learn what the Russians learnt with the mi24 hind (something we already knew from the start), that this thing is held back by it's troop carrying requirement, and is less effective at everything for it? Now they have Kamovs escorting their Mi-17s, the Kamov infinitely superior to the hind as an attack helicopter, and the Mi17 infinitely superior as a troop transport. And apparently worth the risk of losing more troops in one helicopter being shot down too.

Guys I'm kind of retarded and welcome a friendly correction wherever I've gone wrong or missed the point. But I think the US Army is nuts not to do the following:

- Create your up-armoured, survivable APC hull/vault and track system with a 9+ troop capacity. Slap your basic 50cal and/or 40mm Mk19 on top, remote operated of course, and that's your base model mechanised APC. Designed to keep up with the tanks, go where they go, share logistics, be survivable for fellas inside etc.

- Then, at the expense of troop capacity, add all the extra AFV stuff to it. Don't worry about leaving room for 6 dismounts, really go all in making a fighting vehicle. At most, leave room for 2 or 3 dismounts for certain mission purposes (dropping off a scout team, ATGM team, or picking up dismounted crew from mission kill AFVs). Give it a remote operated, autoloaded turret with high angle traverse, give it a big 30-50mm autocannon with smart fused, airburst rounds for killing drones and entrenched infantry, or infantry high in tall buildings. Give it a bunch of NLOS ATGMs or SHORAD, give it its short range, drone detecting radar, UAS countermeasures/jammers, give it its FCS, give it a huge stockpile of ammo where the troops would go, give it a bunch of drones. Make it modular to fit different mission requirements (SHORAD, MEDEVAC, C2, FSV, IFV, TSV)

- In terms of weapon systems, you may as well merge the IFV and TSV roles. Now you've got an armoured beast with crazy tank and drone killing capabilities that can escort your APCs (now more survivable and sharing logistics with your mech/armoured brigades - no point mixing Strykers and Bradleys), can act as a base of fire for infantry, suppress/bombard likely enemy infantry positions to cover the tanks, act as an extended range tank destroyer with its long range, NLOS ATGMs, really shine as a scout/recce/fire control vehicle, do all the stuff it wants to do now as an AFV, without being held back by the lukewarm requirement to carry an impotent 6 man rifle squad.

Its so clear these guys want the Bradley replacement to be even more kickass than the Bradley as a fighting vehicle, but it just seems clear that it could be even better if they ditched the troop carrying requirement, and created a sister APC that actually carried troops well to go along with it. We do it with helicopters, why not with IFVs?

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

While continuing my research on the first and second Armenia-Azerbaijan wars, I had the opportunity to meet the commander of the entire army during the first war. He acknowledged that Azerbaijan had superior technology and weaponry but was firmly convinced that war is ultimately like a chess game: even if you start from a disadvantage, the better player will prevail.

When asked about the significant role of technology, particularly since his side lacked it, he explained that technology and weapons primarily serve to minimize losses; they are not the deciding factors in achieving victory. According to him, victory is determined by strategy, with weapons and technology acting merely as tools to reduce casualties. This was evident during the first war when Armenia lagged behind in both weaponry and manpower.

I found his perspective to be quite opinionated—perhaps even a bit cynical. As someone not deeply involved in this subject, I would like to ask the community: What are your thoughts on the balance between discipline and strategy versus technology and weapons? How much can superior discipline and strategy compensate for weaker technology and weaponry? I would greatly appreciate any feedback or opinions on this topic!

Following an offensive led by the rebel group HTS, the Assad regime has officially fallen and the rebels have now seized control of Syria. This is a significant development that has no doubt shifted the geopolitical dynamics in the middle east. In light of these recent developments, I am interested to ask: Who would you say are now the key military powers that operate in Syria, based on their military power? And how has this changed from the height of the Syrian civil war? Who were the key military powers in Syria during that period?

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

Read the full report

The Arctic region is facing a rapidly changing security landscape due to geopolitics, strategic competition, and climate change. Russia's increasing aggression and militarization in the region pose a threat to NATO and regional stability. The article highlights the need for the US and NATO to develop a comprehensive approach to Arctic security, including a predictable and transparent military security framework, to deter Russian aggression and ensure regional stability.

Key Points:

1. Russia's Arctic Aggression: Russia is rapidly militarizing the Arctic, including the Northern Sea Route (NSR), and is seeking to extend its interdiction capabilities away from the Arctic and deeper into NATO and allied territories.
2. NATO's Role: NATO must define its approach to Arctic security, including its role and place in regional security, and develop a credible voice in circumpolar security.
3. US Presence: The US must avoid being a bystander in the wider Arctic and focus on having a global perspective regarding presence and access to the region.
4. Arctic Military Code of Conduct: An Arctic Military Code of Conduct (AMCC) is needed to define the rules of the road for peacetime military activity in the region and increase transparency and predictability.
5. Deterrence: Deterrence against Russian aggression in the Arctic is crucial, and the US and NATO must exercise regional presence while preventing horizontal escalation and subthreshold operations.
6. Climate Change: Climate change is adding complexity to the Arctic security landscape, and the region is becoming more accessible due to diminishing ice coverage.
7. China's Role: China's approach to Arctic security is driven by resource access diversification and a desire to impose Beijing-friendly governance rules for regional access and resource exploitation.

Recommendations:

1. Develop a comprehensive approach to Arctic security, including a predictable and transparent military security framework.
2. Strengthen NATO's internal awareness of Arctic affairs and streamline existing endeavors under one umbrella.
3. Increase information and intelligence sharing among allies and partners.
4. Develop an AMCC to define the rules of the road for peacetime military activity in the region.
5. Exercise regional presence while preventing horizontal escalation and subthreshold operations.
6. Consider the impact of climate change on the Arctic security landscape and develop strategies to address it.

The US and NATO need to take a proactive and comprehensive approach to addressing the rapidly changing Arctic security landscape and deterring Russian aggression in the region.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

How will the United States and other societies steel themselves against the "dark arts" that artificial intelligence systems have the potential to unleash?

This is the subject of a new report authored by Philip Zelikow, a historian and diplomat who served as Director of the 9/11 Commission; Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Eric Schmidt, former chair and CEO of Google; and Jason Matheny, president and CEO of the RAND Corporation.

The report contains actionable steps US policymakers can take immediately to better prepare the nation for defending against AI weaponization and ensuring democracies maintain the edge in frontier AI capability. An essential starting point, the authors note, is to establish a national security agenda for AI.

“Many Americans assume the US is far ahead in AI development, but such complacency is dangerous,” said Schmidt. “The time to act is now, and it will require the involvement of policymakers, tech leaders, and international allies to tackle national security risks, drive global cooperation, build historic public-private partnerships, and ensure governments can independently assess the threats posed by powerful AI models.”

“The AI safety agenda is about far more than regulating private products,” said Zelikow. “We have to think about defense, with a roadmap to prepare for what the worst people in the world could do with frontier AI.”

The full report, available here, builds on the assessment that "competence [in AI development] is widespread; it just may be the available computing power that matters." The authors name several recent Chinese open-weights models that demonstrate continued advancement in the development of this technology by that nation.

This means that the current, widely perceived American edge in artificial intelligence may prove transitory, a development that would have wide-ranging technological and geopolitical implications.

How do you think the incoming administration will frame policy around AI safety, governance, and public-private partnerships?

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

Hi! I'm writing a paper or the use of drones in Ukraine-Russia war. The tactical and operational effects when using drones is something that has been written a lot about the last year. Tough the ethics when it comes to using FPV drones is something I cant find any articles or disccusions about. Historically there have been huge amounts of discussions about bigger UAVs with the distance between the operatiors and the drone. I am wondering if could some of the same questions be raised about smaller FPV, particulary suicidedrones. The broadcasting and dehumanitizing of people that we get to see through these FPV drones is something I think is worth talking about. What are your guys thoughts of this.

Thanks- (english is not my first language.)

This article by Charles Lister covers a wide range of topics about Syria. For this post, I’ll focus on the section about HTS’s Operation Deter Aggression from November 27 to December 3. I initially planned to save parts of it for my next Syria update comment on the daily thread, but this article is too detailed to bury small bits in the comment. While the full article is free and worth reading, I’ll highlight what I believe are the key details before the start of the offensives, and the start offensive itself. I'll let Lister's words do the talking and just give my comments on what he has written.

Though this dramatic surge in hostilities has been described by many as a “surprise offensive,” it was not in fact much of a surprise. In fact, the operation launched on Wednesday November 27 was originally intended to begin in mid-October. For several weeks, beginning in early-September, senior military leaders from a coalition of 10 armed factions based primarily in Idlib had been meeting to plan a major assault into western Aleppo. Their goal was to remove the regime’s expansive artillery launching zone west of Aleppo – from where it had sustained years of daily indiscriminate shelling of civilian communities – and create an opposition stand-off threat to Aleppo city.

According to two well-placed sources within that coalition, news of the plans leaked to Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization, or MIT, prompting a swift and decisive Turkish intervention – including two meetings in Idlib and several in Turkey – that put the plans on hold.

To make matters more complicated, at least eight 3-to-6-man cells from HTS’s elite Asaib al-Hamra (Red Bands) had just gained access into the regime-held Aleppo city in order to launch diversionary attacks as a ground assault got underway – according to a senior armed opposition source based in Idlib. Turkey’s order to call off the offensive created significant tensions, but it also triggered the return of Russian fighter jets to northwest Syria’s skies, with a four-day targeted air campaign striking HTS and opposition targets across Idlib between October 14-17.

In the weeks following Turkey’s intervention, tensions continued to escalate in northwest Syria, as the regime’s attacks on the region steadily intensified. While artillery shelling across northeastern Hama, western Aleppo, southern Idlib and northeastern Latakia all surged, the regime’s suicide drone campaign escalated to unprecedented levels – with 201 drones directed into civilian areas in the area in the five weeks that followed. That represented a near-tripling of the rate of attacks compared to the four months prior (the Syrian regime’s Russian-directed suicide drone campaign began in late-June 2024). Under increasing strain, civilians began to flee border areas, creating the kind of conditions that have historically encouraged offensive regime ground maneuvers.

To see the offensive evolve from its initial limited goal of removing the SAA's artillery zone to a massive, regime-crippling operation is truly remarkable. The incompetence of the SAA and Russian forces in Syria is on full display here—attacking Idlib while unprepared for a breakout is telling. The fact that Turkey knew about the offensive and engaged diplomatically with HTS hopefully reveals opportunities for future talks.

The decision to launch the offensive was, I’m told, made on Monday November 25. Two days later, on Wednesday November 27, the HTS-led coalition launched Operation Deter Aggression. In the initial phase of the attack, at least three locally engineered “Qaysar” cruise missiles were launched onto regime frontline positions in Qabtan al-Jabal, Sheikh Aqil and Anjara – their explosions acting as a de facto equivalent of a suicide truck bomb. As those never-before-seen missiles were launched into the air, several swarms of suicide drones were launched at regime posts, tank hideouts and frontline lookout points by the newly formed drone unit, Kataib Shaheen (the Falcons Brigades). Guidance for those strikes was provided by a fleet of reconnaissance drones. The smaller munitions were directed into their targets by teams of drone operators who had been trained intensively in secret over the past year. Artillery and mortar shelling added to the wall of multi-layered munitions directed at regime frontlines – clearing the way for a ground assault on five parallel axes.

As the ground assault began, HTS’s Asaib al-Hamra cells inside Aleppo city were activated. Several conducted drive-by raids on regime checkpoints in the city’s western New Aleppo, Salah ad Din and Hamdaniyah districts, but one attacked a hurriedly convened emergency meeting involving senior commanders from the Syrian Army and Military Intelligence, as well as Russia’s military and the IRGC. The attack killed at least six people, including IRGC Brigadier General Kiomars Pourhashemi (Hajj Hashem).

Within 12hrs, the core initial goal of the offensive had been achieved, as regime frontlines repeatedly collapsed one after the other across the western Aleppo frontline. The opposition coalition appeared exhilarated by their rapid gains and although pushing towards Aleppo city had not been part of the initial plan, another new and largely untested HTS unit – Saraya al-Harari, or the Thermal Brigade – had been prepped to fight at nightfall. With at least 500 fighters at its disposal, Saraya al-Harari had been trained over the past two years to specialize specifically in night-time combat, with each and every one of its fighters equipped with assault rifles, sniper rifles and RPGs equipped with night-vision scopes. Their deployment onto the battlefield late on November 27 triggered disarray in regime ranks. Until now, darkness typically led to a temporary respite from fighting – not anymore.

Knowing this, we can see how HTS has not only achieved victory in Aleppo but is continuing to succeed with the fall of Hama. They’ve advanced in technology with homemade “Qaysar” cruise missiles, and their Asaib al-Hamra special forces have caused chaos through key assassinations. Their new Saraya al-Harari night fighters and Kataib Shaheen drone unit are reshaping the battlefield. This is no longer a terrorist organization using classic suicide bombings but a well-equipped military advancing locally in technology, focused on achieving success against the SAA.

Ultimately, the transformational events witnessed over the past six days were not in themselves a geopolitical strike by Turkey, and nor were they a crippling blow to Iran, Hezbollah or Russia resulting from events elsewhere. They were the result of a coalition of armed groups that have spent four years planning to resume the fight and choosing to do so despite the clear and well-known opposition from Turkey. The intensive work undertaken by HTS in particular since 2020 to develop a far greater level of military capability — particularly in terms of drone warfare, night-time combat, the development of special forces units and the establishment of indigenous weapons production oriented around rocket and missiles — has clearly made a qualitative difference on the battlefield. HTS and its coalition has also demonstrated a far greater level of operational security, command and control, and integrated warfare, utilizing multiple ground, air and stand-off assets simultaneously. On the other side of the line, the regime’s military apparatus appears to have stagnated.

HTS is truly a powerhouse for the SCW, growing every day with more land, equipment, and moderate statements that are winning over the Syrian population. It’s clear that HTS has learned modern warfare since being trapped in Idlib, and has dominated the SAA, with some help from the SNA. However, comparing HTS and SNA now is night and day. HTS is a modern fighting force that will continue to succeed against the SAA, especially now with the capture of Hama and the apparent absence of the Regime's allies.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

This piece by Aaron Zelin covers the current state of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and the Syrian Salvation Government. In it he describes how HTS and it's predecessors have transformed from a Salafi jihadist organization into a political jihadist one, pragmatically moderating it's institutional views and scope. He uses it's leader, Abu Muhammad al-Jawlani, to illustrate this change by covering Jawlani's transformation from one of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's lieutenants into a locally focused technocrat who has disavowed both the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. Under his leadership HTS has largely successfully rooted out and destroyed both the Islamic State and al-Qaeda operations in their region of control. (side note: HTS killed the fourth and previous caliph of the Islamic State)

Zelin then describes how this moderation and pragmatism have manifested through Jawlani's philosophy of leadership. Jawlani clearly seeks not to merely conquer the country but to construct an alternate state and societal model to compete against that offered by Assad's regime.

“the current stage is one of preparation and institution building” that will pave the way for an eventual victory. “Every institution we build in the liberated areas represents a step toward Damascus. … Our battle is on every level. It’s not just a military battle, because construction is harder than war. There are many hardships.”

“there is a double responsibility to liberate areas in the right way and to build institutions in the right and honorable way.”

Through this philosophy, Idlib has been transformed into something like a government-in-exile for the rest of the country with institutional structures built and ready to easily accept and manage newly conquered territory. This focus on professionalization and institution building manifests on the military side as well with the construction of a military college in 2021.

The fruits of these efforts have become apparent in the aftermath of HTS' takeover of Aleppo and subsequent offensive toward Hama. Zelin gives a number of examples such as how immediately after the campaign was announced, the SSG reactivated it's emergency response committee to coordinate the governmental response. Within hours IDP camps were under construction by the Ministry of Development and Humanitarian Affairs and emergency communication networks were established for civilian aid. When Aleppo fell, the SSG was able to surge bread production across Idlib and send over 100,000 loaves to the city. The committee even managed to rapidly deploy street cleaners to not only remove rubble from the battle but to clean the city generally as a sign of the the competence of the new government. There is also a concerted effort to restore basic services in the newly liberated areas.

“we will start by repairing the gaps and restoring the service sectors to work, including communications, electricity, water supply, cleaning work, supporting bakeries, restoring transportation, and removing the explosive remnants left behind by the criminal regime.”

Next Zelin describes how HTS' nation-building project is messaging itself, both to other Syrians and internationally. One particularly notable example is

maybe for the first time ever, a non-state actor dropped leaflets on the local populations using drones in the areas they were about to overrun. They were small cards from the Syrian Salvation Government’s center for safety and defection, which was created in December 2023, and called on individuals that were part of the regime to flee or defect. It also provided contact numbers on how to do so.

Jawlani has put out a series of recommendations for soldiers attempting to prevent abuses against the civilian populace.

Jawlani reminded revolutionaries that true victory lies not only in the current battle, but also what follows after (governance and providing for the population).

The SSG's Political Affairs Department has also attempted to highlight to engage with outside actors, issuing statements aimed at both Russia and Iraq attempting to prevent them from intervening.

Zelin concludes by saying it's too early to tell if HTS' attempts at institution building will let them successfully stabilize their conquered territories and reminding the reader not to view them simply as an al-Qaeda or ISIS offshoot as it severely underestimates them.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

First Signs Russia Is Evacuating Navy Ships From Syria - Naval News

In case something happens and rebels capture the Tartus port - what do Russians do with their warships in the Mediterranean? How would they maintain a whole task force of 15 (?) warships? Neither Gibraltar nor Bosphorus allow Russian military ships. I think their best choice would be to pass by the Suez and anchor the force at Iranian ports, but it would greatly diminish their presence in the MENA. What are other chances? Even if they get to make deal with the Tobruk government, I don't think Libya would be very safe for such a fleet.

A quick search of the sub did not turn up any relevant threads, so I suppose it’s a question worth asking.

With ~1,200 airframes in service in the US Army inventory and an ongoing effort to modernize the fleet, why has there not been an effort to provide rotary attack platforms to Ukraine comparable to that of the F-16 fighters?

The Apache platform has the ability to engage both aerial and ground targets with relatively-low-cost rockets too

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

As drones increasingly make their way into hot conflicts, battlefield necessities will increase the diversity and rate of production of drone types. I've seen some news stories over the years of large "aircraft-like" drones crashed somewhere behind enemy lines. Surely any military aircraft that crashes behind enemy lines will be analyzed and reverse engineered by that enemy. But in the grand scheme of things, there aren't that many "large drones" compared to what I suspect we'll be seeing in the relatively near future: swarms of thousands of drones operating as a unified attack vector. Somebody somewhere must already be working on this. What happens when thousands (instead of only a few) drones crash behind enemy lines? How do drone users/manufacturers protect all that software/AI-intelligence being built into tomorrow's drones? Losing one or two sophisticated aircraft is one thing--it'd be extremely difficult to rebuild and use. But if you have hundreds or thousands of drones of the same model crashing into your land, isn't there a higher probability that what's broken in one isn't broken in another...so you (the enemy of the force that used the drones against you) can more easily reverse engineer and even rehabilitate the drones and "send them back where they came from" with more/better munitions or maybe even better intelligence? To me, this seems like a "quantity and probability" issue: isn't there a higher probability that the enemy can reverse engineer something if, say, they have access to hundreds or thousands of those "somethings" instead of one or two?

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis nor swear,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.