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.

Genuinely what is their purpose? What can a tank do that an infantryman can’t today?

Also, since the start of the war in ukraine we’ve seen plenty of russian and ukrainian tanks get destroyed by drones, and when somebody asks why this happens the response generally boils down to “they’re not using them correctly”, which is confusing, as, if one of the strongest militaries in the world can’t properly utilize them, then what other nations can?

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 we all know the Ukrainian summer offensive of 2023 failed dramatically in a strategic and tactical sense, zero of the set goals of the operation were achieved and the offensive got bogged down after breaching the first line of defense.
This is namely because Surovikin line employed a defense in depth, with three defensive lines set up with kill-zones, pre-sighted artillery, minefields and tank obstacles in between them, all while every move made was being observed by recon drones.
Even if the Ukrainian military had air support, I doubt they would have been able to breach through all 3 defensive lines, meaning that there is a high likely hood that even modern Western militaries utilizing combined arms warfare would struggle to breach such a defensive line (outside of going around it which isn't always an option.)

So my question is: How would a modern military go about defeating a defense in depth such as the Surovikin line?

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.

A new issue of Strategika, a journal of the Hoover Institution Military History Working Group, examines the issue of military recruitment in the United States.

In "A Cultural Decline in Defending America," the background essay for the new issue, Marine Corps major and former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations Owen West and coauthor Kevin Wallsten, professor of political science at Cal State Long Beach, chart the rise and fall in young Americans' interest in military service over time. They argue that "institutional confidence is ephemeral, tied to politics and performance," and that to restore confidence today, "the uniformed military—the generals and admirals as the leaders—must reconcile the military meritocracy with efforts that broaden the pool and retain top talent, as Colin Powell did in the 1990s." West and Wallsten also stress how "the military must get serious about heeding its core constituency: the veterans whose endorsements are key to sourcing 80% of its volunteers."

In "Saving Private Ryan," retired Army colonel and former Siena College president Chris Gibson argues that to remedy the recruitment challenge with Gen Z in particular, compelling narratives highlighting the lifelong value of military service are essential. As he writes, "we will need to convince today’s young Americans that they are part of something special and that now is their time to step forward to protect this cherished way of life, even if only for a few years. Time in the military for citizens is more than worth it, it’s life-defining and good…and necessary for a free-people. More than any other policy that addresses this concerning trend of recruitment shortfalls, including smart and deserving economic incentives for service, this inspiration to serve must be imparted if we are to survive and flourish in the 21^(st) century."

In the third essay, "Military Recruiting Shortfalls—A Recurring Challenge," Ohio State military historian and retired Army colonel Peter Mansoor charts how, since the inauguration of the all-volunteer force in 1973, "recruitment has risen and fallen in conjunction with civilian employment. When economic activity dipped, young men and women could find employment at decent wages by joining the armed services. As wages stagnated in the 1980s and 1990s, military wages compared favorably with civilian jobs and recruiting remained relatively constant. Young Americans serving a tour of duty could acquire job skills and save money for college, helped by the GI Bill. After 2008, educational benefits increased significantly, allowing veterans to attend up to four years of college essentially for free. America’s strong economy has disincentivized enlistment in the armed forces in recent years..."

But Mansoor joins the other authors in noting that, beyond labor market economics, "deeper cultural issues are also at play. Fewer Americans today view a tour in the military as a rite of passage or as a debt owed to the nation." While acknowledging that there is no "silver bullet" that will change the cultural attitudes of America's youth toward military service overnight, Mansoor points out, "One thing the Marines do is put a great deal of emphasis on recruiting by putting their strongest personnel into recruiting positions, something the other services should copy." He also floats the idea of Congress passing legislation to grant "citizenship to immigrants who serve for a certain number of years in the military."

Finally, turning to an alternate mechanism to boost military membership— the draft—Mansoor argues, "reinstituting the draft is an option, but absent an existential national security crisis, doing so is politically unpalatable. The shortfall in recruiting is relatively small compared with each draft-eligible year group, meaning the drafting of personnel to fill the shortages would be seen as highly unfair and inequitable to those drafted. The armed services do not want to go back to the days of the draftee military, with its discipline and morale challenges. Absent a clear and present danger to the nation, the draft will remain dormant. It is instead incumbent upon the leaders of the armed services to work with the administration and Congress to enact policies that will overcome their current recruiting challenges."

This writeup is intended to provide an overview of arguments and authors in this essay series; you can view the full Issue 96 of Strategika here.

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.

Russia puts nuclear weapons in Belarus which deters NATO invasion (if NATO would want such a thing in the first place).

On the other hand, there was all the talk in NATO about conscription for fighting Russia after Russia defeats Ukraine, including president Biden talking about it.

It looks like NATO is perfectly willing to accept a Russian invasion of Poland and Baltic states and fight a war of attrition here.

Why doesn't NATO want to prevent such war through nuclear deterrent?

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.

After tragic military mishaps, accountability can flow downward - away from institutions and onto those with less power.

1989 - USS Iowa

On April 19, 1989, a turret exploded on the USS Iowa during a training exercise in waters off of Puerto Rico.

Over time, it would become known the tragedy was caused by Navy leadership directing a turret crew to use a specific combination of powder and projectiles, despite it being expressly forbidden for its potential to cause a catastrophic explosion.

When it did cause a catastrophic explosion, 47 people were killed.

However, rather than admit fault or wrongdoing, the Navy decided to blame Gunner's Mate 2nd Class Clayton Hartwig (who died in the explosion) and his best friend Gunner's Mate 3rd Class Kendall Truitt (who survived) for the tragedy.

According to the New York Times in May of 1989, the Navy initially presented Truitt as a hero for his actions that day. But leadership needed an out, so they came up with a story about Truitt and Hartwig. They crafted a narrative about the two being in a gay love triangle, and suggested Hartwig deliberately detonated an explosive device after an alleged falling out with Truitt.

Soon after, Truitt was having to defend himself and the legacy of Clayton Hartwig in the media against the Navy’s false narrative – the same Navy that had only just recognized his heroism. The impact this had on Truitt’s life was undeniable: His wife’s family lost their business after publicly supporting him, he divorced not long after, and 30 years on he continues to have an unstable relationship with stable employment.

When asked by those who did not understand why he wouldn’t just let it go, Truitt said:

"I didn't feel like anyone else could defend Clay the way I could, so I felt very alone in my pursuit to clear him and his family name.”

Finally, after years of fighting, the Navy reluctantly apologized to Hartwig’s family for their cover-up.

But the Navy refused to apologize to Truitt -- they insisted they did him no wrong.

2023 - GUNDAM-22

On November 29, 2023, the CV-22 Osprey callsign GUNDAM-22 crashed while leading a power projection exercise roughly one half mile off the coast of Yakushima Island, Japan. Its left-hand proprotor gearbox failed catastrophically while converting for landing, sending the aircraft into an unrecoverable roll.

Eight special operations airmen were killed:

Maj. Jeff T. Hoernemann; Maj. Eric V. Spendlove; Maj. Luke A. Unrath; Capt. Terrell K. Brayman; Tech. Sgt. Zachary E. Lavoy; Staff Sgt. Jake M. Turnage; Staff Sgt. Jake Galliher; and Senior Airman Brian K. Johnson.

The crash was caused by a failed high-speed pinion gear within the gearbox. The gear had cracked through and eventually shattered in-flight as the result of non-metallic inclusions – a type of manufacturing defect – present in the raw materials used to produce the part.

Despite being the result of a mechanical failure, when the public-facing mishap investigation was released on August 1, 2024, it devoted itself almost entirely to suggesting the crew was to blame. The news reporting that followed focused heavily on Maj. Hoernemann, the lead pilot, despite him being his unit's subject matter expert on the CV-22B and the Chief of Weapons and Tactics for our Osprey squadrons stationed in Japan.

But as the months passed, an unflattering picture of the V-22 Osprey program itself emerged:

• For a decade, the Osprey program knew about dangerous non-metallic inclusions in critical gearbox components – no corrective action was taken.
• To reduce costs, they sourced the failed raw materials from Universal Stainless – a supplier notorious for quality control problems.
• They never tested how these gears would fail, and wrongly dismissed them as not being single points of failure.
• They withheld known material risks from pilots, leaving crews to fly without crucial safety information.
• After the crash, training protocols were dramatically revised – the original training had been inadequate.

In essence, the Osprey program knew about dangerous metal defects for a decade, chose a low-tier supplier to cut costs, and failed to test how critical components might fail —all while hiding serious risks from crews, leaving them to operate on incomplete information and training.

Worse, another CV-22 Osprey was nearly lost less than a year after GUNDAM-22 for the same root-cause. Only then did the Osprey program acknowledge the defects in the V-22’s gearboxes with dramatic flight restrictions -- ones that would have prevented GUNDAM-22 from taking off on November 29, 2023.

Yet just as with the USS Iowa decades before, by the time the bigger picture came into focus, the initial narrative of crew responsibility had already taken hold. Though subsequent reporting exposed larger failures within the Osprey Program – failures that likely made the mishap inevitable – these revelations gained little traction. The first wave of news coverage suggesting pilot error had already solidified in the public consciousness, and the public moved on.

Reverse Accountability

Though not disclosed in the initial investigation, leaked documents would identify Universal Stainless as the producer of the raw materials that failed in GUNDAM-22.

The company's record raised serious concerns:

• Workplace accident rates quadruple the industry average
• Unprecedented margin growth with no clear explanation
• Three different auditors in a single year
• A former employee who refuses to fly, citing firsthand knowledge of quality control

Yet, their stock price had more than doubled since the tragedy. In response, shareholders just sold the business to foreign buyers at an even higher price -- an illustration of what flows uphill.

While Universal Stainless prospered, the families of those lost with GUNDAM-22 were left with an institutional narrative – one that tarnished the legacies of their fallen heroes.

Source: gundam22.com

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.

I've come across a multitude of videos on various sites that show Ukranian drone operators engaging either unarmed or seemingly surrendering combatants. A variety of people are claiming or dismissing that doing so is a war crime so I was hoping that the people in this subreddit could shed some light on it.
Here's some examples as to what I mean, I'd appreciate it if someone could affirm whether the videos are considered war crimes or not -
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1gyac7l/final_moments_of_encounter_between_fpv_drone_and/
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1gaj2ea/ukrainian_kamikaze_drone_hits_a_group_of_russian/
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1cvksxy/ukrainian_fpv_drone_takes_out_3_wounded_russian/
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/16os33s/russian_soldier_begs_for_mercy_from_a_ukrainian/

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.

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.

My understanding is that the usage of machine gun turrets to defend bombers ended with development of missiles. But I am getting intrigued by the rise of armored vehicle active protection systems such as Trophy and by CIWS on US carriers.

I am imagining a truly huge aircraft, maybe a 747 equipped with six AESA radars (one on each side) and six cannons. This should be able to track and shot down incoming ground to air and air to air missiles. Instead of being stealthy it would rely on massive armament to thwart any attack. The primary purpose of such a thing would be heavy bomber, but I suppose you could mount howitzers to the side and use it as an oversized AC-130.

Would something like that be feasible?

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.

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.

A story broke today in the Telegraph (archived here) about the potential deployment of French and British troops to Ukraine as part of a post-war settlement.

Article 6 of the Washington (NATO) treaty explicitly includes 'occupation forces' of the allies within Europe under Article 5, without definition.

(Edit: this is incorrect - the 'occupation forces' clause only applied to those present in 1949. Serves me right for quoting off the top of my head...)

If deployed - would these forces likely be designed essentially as an Article 5 tripwire, similar to those in the Baltic states, with an inherent risk of escalation, or would it be more likely they'd be set up as independently credible deterrents in and of themselves?

And was there any precedent in international law established about the extent to which Article 5 protects NATO forces in 'out-of-area' operations during the IFOR or KFOR deployments that might be relevant here?

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.

GCAP and FCAS

Why does GCAP seem like it's going full steam ahead, while FCAS, which is an older program, seems like it's going to be canceled every month?

More over, since the GCAP nations are F35B users, wouldn't it make sense for them to also develop a vertical takeoff naval fighter project? ^(it would ease the french in the process too) I don't understand why the european giants (and Japan) simply don't develop two fighters, one for land and one naval, indigenously? Instead of one program remaining stagnant on the ground and the other developing a plane for one thing, and buying from the USA for another

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.

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.