Which of the following best defines "least dangerous" targets?

The term "least dangerous" targets refers to those that do not pose an immediate or significant threat to friendly forces. In this context, identifying targets that are "not capable of defeating friendly forces" aligns most closely with the definition, as these targets are recognized as having a limited or no ability to harm friendly units or operations.

When categorizing threats in military strategy, "least dangerous" targets are typically those that present minimal risk to the mission and can often be prioritized lower than more threatening entities. The focus is on distinguishing between targets that could conduct effective actions against friendly forces versus those that lack the capability to do so.

The understanding of the other options provides a clearer distinction of why they do not match the definition of "least dangerous" targets. For example, targets that can coordinate with other threats or have external support may still pose a significant danger, while those that are actively preparing to defeat friendly forces are clearly classified as more dangerous, rather than "least." The essence of identifying targets hinges on assessing their potential to inflict damage, and the correct answer highlights that some targets simply do not possess that capability.