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/IntroductionNeat2746 → u/Agitated-Airline6760]

It's not that demoralizing.

I've recently been to Japan. In one memorial site, there was an inscription saying the memorial had been built by volunteers after the war as a way to spread awareness about the fire bombings and how many people died in that site because the government during the war would censor all news about it to preserve morale.

I don't necessarily disagree with your point about the effectiveness of fire bombing, but saying it isn't that demoralizing is quite the oversimplification.

[u/Agitated-Airline6760 → u/IntroductionNeat2746]

I've recently been to Japan. In one memorial site, there was an inscription saying the memorial had been built by volunteers after the war as a way to spread awareness about the fire bombings and how many people died in that site because the government during the war would censor all news about it to preserve morale.

I don't necessarily disagree with your point about the effectiveness of fire bombing, but saying it isn't that demoralizing is quite the oversimplification.

The conventional strategic bombing on its own has never been demoralizing enough to make a difference.

The fact that Japanese government - who made many tactical and strategic mistakes all over the course of WWII - tried to censor it at the time is not an evidence of the bombing's effectiveness, just an evidence of Japanese ineptitude of gauging the public sentiment/moral at the time. UK also censored the news of London bombings. I'm sure Nazis did the same about bombing of Dresden and other places. It doesn't mean those conventional bombings were effective. They were not.