acrashb

Technical rate of fire of 2A28 gun is up to 8 shots per minute. I, think future CM should have opportunity to set desirable RoF for any weapon system, not only for artillery  

As far as I can tell from reading several thousand year's literature, human _nature_ has remained the same.
But when you say 'tech evolves', there are two kinds of technology- physical and social.
Both evolve.  In the Oddessey, Odysseus returns home and slays the suitors.  Today, we hire a lawyer.  That's social technology; just like we no longer have honour duels because we can sue for defamation.
So human nature intersects with social technology - to the extend that the social technology works, we no longer need be savage.

Chimps raid, and it's horrifically barbaric. Like, pile-on and rip their jaws off is a standard tactic, I was once told. But that's more raw opportunistic violence than a structured approach to conquest.
I...did not care for that book series. The basic logic was brutally sound - treat the universe as a jungle that will kill you, so kill anything you meet because it is impossible to tell who is truly friend or foe and the penalty for not being zero-sum is the destruction of your entire civilization. Some scenes/set ups were interesting. But holy crap was he unutterably bad at characterizations (especially women), had no clue about human society under pressure and ridiculously, RIDICULOUSLY chauvinistic and paternalistic. 
Aside from that basic concept, T3BP read like an old sci fi book from the 50s. And not a great one.
Give me Simmons, Asher, Greg Bear (RIP) any day.

What?  Can you please point me in the direction of a significant contingent of "far right figures" who "openly state" this?  

And again, being an ocean away from any enemies, US is at a huge advantage. 

AbramsX prototype, electric powered. It's a good Infographic video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKOEdX4VU-I

Great stuff gents, many thanks as always. 
I have been fortunate to find plenty of spaces where I am by far the smartest guy in the room, so it's great to be not even close in this one.
That won't stop me from asking dumbass questions, peeking under rocks and being devils' advocate though; it's a great way to learn.

gosh, yes, that's embarrassing.  Point taken 🙄

looks like a banter over Putin. It is said that in the morning he was upset by the report on the Russian economy because of the sanctions. In the afternoon, he was upset by news from the front from the Lugansk region. And in the evening, Putin, having stumbled, fell on his *** and, in front of his personal guards, crap himself. It is associated with cancer of the internal organs

After all this time I would have thought you had worked out how to use google translate by now
 

Mendacity is the perfect word. Nice. 
 

Giving them the weapons requires also giving them the logistics, case in point is the logistics for the western supplied howitzers. Keeping them operational is already a big challenge, let alone if we add brigades of heavy advanced stuff with which Ukraine doesn't have experience / infrastructure in place. 
But I guess this topic has been discussed quite a lot here already.

Explosive Leak of ‘Presidential Lockdown Order’ Roils Kremlin (msn.com)

Support for Putin's war in Russia has plunged, leaked poll reveals (msn.com)

Per CNN, sooooooo.... 
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/30/politics/us-military-expanding-training-ukraine/index.html
2500 UKR a month, general training. Add to UK,  French et al and in 4-6 months ZSU could be looking at 5,000+ fresh, NATO trained input each month, onwards. 
Any RUS spring surge would step into the open arms of this opposing fresh influx on the UKR side. 
And something tells me the UKR troops will be orders of magnitude more effective than the 2nd, 3rd wave of Mobiks... 

Please not here.

One assumes this is a joke, but for clarity - it could not be more wrong.  The US' foibles loom larger on the world stage because they matter more; Canada's foibles get regional coverage, partly because of the much smaller economy and partly because Canada seems non-threatening to other parts of the world and so is discounted.  
But 'reason' is in short supply with our leaders and commentariat as much as elsewhere.  If the US seems more 'out there', in addition to the above, and to deliberate gridlock built into the US political system, there is the issue of gerrymandering, a pox on democracies everywhere.  Schwarzenegger's core legacy in California is, and will be seen as, attempts to dampen this.
Back to lurking.

On the contrary - if that breakdown is correct, Ukraine is almost out of the woods regarding the missile threat.
- Iskanders are the most dangerous of all of these, by far - the stock is almost depleted and they really have to keeps some for an emergency. Same is the Kinzhal
- Onyx while super potent as anti-ship weapon, has only 300 km range or so, and that's with the high-low flight profile. 
- S300 is purely a terror weapon, and not relevant to attacks on the infrastructure, and so is mostly the Kh-22
- Kh35 is way too short ranged to be useful against most of the UA territory
That leaves Kh555, Kh101 and Kalibrs. Given that in last attack Russians fired more than 100 of these, they have enough juice for only a few more waves.

The idea that Congress won’t feed the MIC is frankly laughable.   
Such funding will have plenty of Democrat votes, so the fringe GOP members are not really an issue for passage, just good for ratings as mentioned.  
 

Who knows they've been playing tons of CMBS? Assumptions 😉

I mean ... have you actually read many SAMS student papers? There is some genuinely good stuff there.
Some.
edit: There are a few SAMS grads here. I know a some of them. One of them told me about the evolution of his final paper, the short version of which is "My supervisor gave me my argument, I just had to prove it." I.e., the conclusion lead to the evidence, rather than the evidence lead to a conclusion. Rather like the difference between debating a point, and arguing a point. McGregor is debating a point, and his team says "Yellow!", so MacGregor debates yellow. Just like his training at SAMS taught him.

Put down all beverages first. It is that funny.

100% agree. Not concerned with oversight at all. It's the role of Congress. There is chance to actually get more support for Ukraine. No politician wants to vote against a nation on the verge of a major geopolitical shake up in the West's favor. Rogue votes will be made, but they are for representative's constituents to high five over. Those votes will have nothing to do with Ukraine per se. But just a protest about foreign spending in general. Ukraine does not have a blank check, but the support required for victory will be there in the end. This might be the most bipartisan issue in years and really tick off cable news. There are no ratings fighting over a few hundred million one way or the other. 

A few random comments from the bleachers:
1. In a non-military industry, I've worked with some of the best AI gurus in my business who have been trying to apply and leverage machine learning and artificial intelligence for years.   MASSIVE amounts of data. It's not easy and not nearly as productive as many selling the technology proclaim.  Like--"don't believe 90% of the BS because it's all wishful for thinking for most of them."   There is gold in AI---but be careful about who proclaims they've found it and when they will be able to truly deliver.
2. The daily Russian kill/destroy numbers over the past few weeks are significantly and fairly consistently high on casualties, low on weapons destruction.  Is this because of the weather? A pause in combat operations? Russia running out of military hardware?  Mobilized forces being thrown into the meat grinder?  Something else?  Or "D", all of the above?
3. I'm still of the strong opinion that there will not be a tangible decrease in Republican/Conservative support of Ukraine.  Yes, there are rumblings and some outliers--but when all is said and done the support will remain.    My reasoning and to reiterate--just my humble opinion:
The conservative voices questioning support of Ukraine are being magnified beyond their actual political power and influence.  Certainly wouldn't be the first time the media or some self-interest group tried to sow division where it may not be and push their own agenda. Conservative support for Ukraine is still strong and most Republican politicians know and understand that.  I was raised and live in the South---Ukrainian support is flat out solid in my little sphere of the world.  I work and talk with people all over North America--I don't here any rumblings of dissatisfaction.  And to the very esteemed posters who have mentioned this topic over the past 24 hours--the locations are California, Seattle, Oregon, etc.  Just like my residence in Tennessee is not indicative of the opinions of the rest of the country--those views may not be reflective of the flyover states.  Where we live influences our perspective whether we like it or not. Rand Paul is not as crazy or Putin loving as some may believe.  I grew up in Western Kentucky and have friends that know him.  He is outspoken and takes a different approach than many, but underneath he's fairly reasonable and his verbal positioning is to frequently just challenge the traditional group think of his own party.  Accountability is important to him, so it's no surprise he questions spending---but his desire to cut funding to Ukraine may be less than it appears. Peace and thanks to everyone on this forum for their brilliant and informative comments.

At the pace of the internet this is an old statement, but I've been thinking about it since (and before, just more so now).
On the natural born killers, this is a Hobbesian view.  We do not, and I do not wish to, live in a Hobbesian world.  Locke was much more accurate, and his views create a world worth living in - as it happens, his views strongly informed the US constitution (and others).  Both spoke of man in a natural state, before society takes hold, and while Hobbe's views have some traction - members of primitive societies live in constant fear of disease, starvation, and violence, the latter supporting Hobbes' "nasty, brutish and short" - overall Locke was correct.  
Having said that, if we summarize Hobbes' views, Russian society tends in that direction.  In this table we see echos and outright images of Russia under the Czars until and including now. 
 
Which leads us to the slippery slope.  The angle and length of that slope would, I think, depend on the starting point.  Further, if humans are natural born killers, more would shoot during combat. Modern training leads to a higher active rate in modern armies, but during WWII it was three out of ten doing the shooting, even after becoming combat veterans.
Rather than being natural born killers, isn't it reasonable to say that the horrors of war brutalize away natural restraints?  If the horrors are worse and the starting point worse, the slope is short and steep.  Perhaps Russian society pre-brutalizes residents. 
If the horrors are moderated (through training, medevac, micro-social structures aka "band of brothers", etc.) then the slope would be longer and shallower - allowing more time to catch soldiers before they slip right off the slope.
Or I'm talking out of my butt; but I like to think that my neighbours aren't ready to kill me because I don't cut my grass regularly.