129
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2024
129 points (92.2% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6623 readers
252 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
11. No misinformation
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
- !militaryporn@lemmy.world
- !forgottenweapons@lemmy.world
- !combatvideos@sh.itjust.works
- !militarymoe@ani.social
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Ryan McBeth responded to this exact thing. The short version of his answer was that the first run through showed the red team won. That information was written down and learned. With the main lessons now learned, the wargame was restarted under different conditions to allow the other troops to train who weren't used in the first run. A bridging team that just 'dies' in the wargame doesn't get to hone their valuable skills in the most realistic situation they will ever be in short of people actually getting shot. So, you want subsequent runs to include the bridging team, and all the other teams that were not used in the first run.
Restarting wargames under different situations and with different restrictions is expected and normal.
Correct. This allows those pilots to get experience doing what they were trained to do. Those individual pilots don't learn shit if they were told they 'died' and immediately return to base and sit on their ass the entire exercise. You need a followup run where they get to do their thing.
Yeah, I agree with all of this. I said basically what you just said (with a lot less detail / citation) in my comment that starts "I mean I get it" (which I just recently edited to expand it a little).
I understand why they did it. I'm not saying it wasn't productive to do. I actually think the way it played out probably made it extremely productive to do, and it's to the US military's credit that that type of outcome can even happen, as opposed to most authoritarian structures where the red team would just understand that they're "supposed to lose" and wouldn't even try to do something like Riper did. You don't have to have the final "official" outcome be a blue team loss in order for everyone to learn valuable lessons from it.
What I was disagreeing with was your assertion that they just changed the conditions. They changed around the parameters and rules underlying the situation, specifically to railroad the simulation into a particular outcome. Even if I understand why that happened I can still point it out and think it's notable, no?