World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, that makes a ton of sense.
Armchair general opinion here, but basically: It pretty much doesn't matter how much armour you pile onto something- it adds weight, fuel costs, and reduces speed, and all the armour in the world will still only last a limited amount of time against powerful explosives specifically designed to destroy armour. The most basic thing about armoured vehicles is doing something in the time that that armour buys you. And to do stuff, you need speed, firepower, and a good optics system.
The Bradley has those three things in spades. Even if it's not the most heavily armoured vehicle ever seen, it's really fucking cost effective, WAY easier to maintain with Ukraine's more limited resources than the US army, and versatile as hell. It uses the time that it has before the armour inevitably fails exceedingly well.
What a lot of people against help to Ukraine don't realize is that the whole country is basically the cheapest Q&A testing facility the US has ever gotten access to. By giving away and monitoring produced vehicles, they strengthen US production while rapidly iterating better equipment. All while frustrating Putin.
That's a really interesting and probably accurate take!
I'm really curious to see all the unexpected innovations that come from this war. ...not that I feel good about the human cost.
Here's one that's happening before our very eyes and very rapidly. Drone and drone warfare.
We're seeing not just how the technology evolves but also how the strategies in their usage are changing.
That makes sense. It definitely all makes me uneasy. We really don't need further depersonalization of killing.
Armor is good against light infantry, right up until they get anti-tank weapons, after which it's a massive coffin/integrated crematorium.
We switched to Strikers and those other stupid things in Iraq for the same reasons, there were rpg-7s everywhere, you just couldn't stop them, more armor slowed you down and made you a worse target in bad terrain.
The Bradley is death against everything its size, and killed a bunch of T-72s because TOWs don't lie. Mainly, if you're worried about RPGs, you can have guys get OUT of the Bradley and chase them with guns.
Bradleys are loads better in open field combat than they are in built up urban areas though. They weren’t designed with that threat model in mind, and it shows. They are going absolutely gangbusters in field combat in Ukraine, for the most part.
Nothing really works in urban combat, it's basically rpg whackamole.
Your only options are sending dudes out on foot, and now drones, and even that has mixed results.
Theres also the Russian option: level the entire urban area to rubble with artillary.
And they learned that by losing tank after tank in Grozny.
That's basically their response to everything, that's their response to seeing a grassy meadow covered in baby deer.
When you have a hammer...
Another ACG here (arm chair general) maybe it's logic today too because so many russian tanks have been blown up and are thus a much smaller threat?
Great news anyways!