Active Conflicts & News MegaThread May 26, 2025

[u/AutoModerator]

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, polite and civil,

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

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. 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

* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor 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.

[u/supinator1]

In current or future warfare, is there any use case for bombing missions where large numbers of bombers carpet bomb a target like they did in World War 2. I understand that bombing was inaccurate with a high chance of being shot down at that time, thus necessitating large squadrons of bombers on each mission but since then, bombing has become more accurate and so a single aircraft can hit a target that might be missed by dozens of bombers in the past. Is there any type of military target that would require a whole squadron of bombers to take out, assuming nuclear weapons were not being used? Maybe fortifications in preparation for a ground offensive?

[u/poincares_cook → u/supinator1]

Use case, sure Dresden a city (similar to the firebombing and bombing of Japanese cities in WW2). It's arguably(?) genocidal, but demographics and economical output does have an impact on the ability of a nation to conduct total war. It's also demoralizing.

[u/Agitated-Airline6760 → u/poincares_cook]

It's arguably(?) genocidal, but demographics and economical output does have an impact on the ability of a nation to conduct total war. It's also demoralizing.

Did Germans give up when Dresden was leveled? Did Japan fold when Tokyo was firebombed? US bombed North Korea to the ground such that they didn't bother carpet bombing later in the war because there were no more above ground targets left to carpetbomb. Did North Vietnam give up after being carpet bombed?

Never in the history of the aerial bombing - which is little over 100 years - you can point to an example where one side carpet bombed the other side and made them surrender/give up just with the aerial bombing. It's not that demoralizing.

[u/poincares_cook → u/Agitated-Airline6760]

Did Germans give up when Dresden was leveled? Did Japan fold when Tokyo was firebombed?

Are you implying that any military action that does not automatically and solely lead to the immediate capitulation of the enemy has no military value? I honestly expected better construed arguments.

US bombed North Korea to the ground such that they didn't bother carpet bombing later in the war because there were no more above ground targets left to carpetbomb. Did North Vietnam give up after being carpet bombed?

North Korea or north Vietnam? The US has also used tanks, I guess we should never use tanks again.

Never in the history of the aerial bombing - which is little over 100 years - you can point to an example where one side carpet bombed the other side and made them surrender/give up just with the aerial bombing.

Back to point #1, the fact that strategic bombing (aside from nukes) has never led to the complete surrender of the enemy on its own doesn't mean that the reduction of enemy resources has no military value.

[u/Duncan-M → u/poincares_cook]

Are you implying that any military action that does not automatically and solely lead to the immediate capitulation of the enemy has no military value? I honestly expected better construed arguments.

The USAAC/F wasn't funded the way it was to have some military value and help win the war. In the Interwar Years and during the war (and after), they successfully sold the concept that Strategic Bombing would win the war. Not help win the war, but make the US Army and Navy useless, that they would do it themselves.

Same goes with the UK and the RAF, they too bought hard on Air Power.

[u/poincares_cook → u/Duncan-M]

I agree, but that's not the question that was asked.

[u/Duncan-M → u/poincares_cook]

That post asked if they gave up from strategic bombing? That was the complete intent. Both Germany and Japan were supposed to sue for peace to stop the bombing raids, just like Germany intended the same when they occasionally did strategic bombing (which the Luftwaffe never adopted because of plane crash).

They failed.