There was a RUSI paper at the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine that identified this problem.
The one area of munitions supply that was in good shape was 5.56mm, the "assault rifle" culture in the US means there are enough people plinking at targets to keep a good number of factories profitable.
I’d argue a country that spends $500 billion additional dollars on its military, after spending $800 billion a year, but nobody has healthcare, isn’t worth defending.
We’re at the stage of open corruption now that this kind of thing isn’t called out for being as disgusting, but it is. It’s disgusting.
Unrelated. After seeing some videos of people fighting on the UKR/RUS front. The first thing that struck me is, that people shoot like they are playing Counterstrike. Shooting in the air, in the ground, everywhere, just not on anything that resembles any enemy.
We need a military that is well-equipped but also cost-conscious in how they are provisioned. The Military Industrial Complex is designed to extract as much cash from the coffers as possible without regard for the value added to national defense.
This is yet another example of two sides yelling past each other where the Left simply insists on cutting military spending and the Right glorifies the military and salutes increased spending as "patriotic".
This is the rot of our politics today across all projects...
A large part of the problem is that the defense procurement process is so burdensome, in the interests of appearing to ensure value for money, that suppliers must wade through years of bureaucracy before they see a dime.
This is why a $700 printed circuit assembly for a weapon system sells for $50,000, and why investors discourage startups from chasing defense business.
Whether true or not, the article’s author also argued this point in 2023 (link below), and this article uses some of the same language (empty bins) as the paper.
For me, the main point comes down to exactly how much of a weapons stockpile should a peaceful nation carry? We (US) already have a large number of nuclear weapons, and have been fighting a proxy war of sorts with Russia for over a year. Now we’re the aggressor in several other high profile strikes that have taken out the leaders of several nations. In my opinion, this _should_ be stressing the supplies of our military, _because it’s not (or shouldn’t be) our normal mode of operation_. We already have mechanisms like the Defense Production Act which would allow us to rapidly scale the creation of weapons when needed. Carrying enough weaponry to fight an extended large-scale conflict is incredibly wasteful, and seems like it would mostly serve those who would profit from the required spending to accomplish it.
Why can't we just import munitions and medicines from overseas as usual?
It's inefficient to manufacture in the US because of all the regulations to prevent occupational hazards and environmental destruction, the minimum wage and unions, the high price of medical care, and having to transport all the input materials to a US factory.
Hopefully your question is sarcasm, as it should be obvious why this is a terrible idea on many fronts.
In case it isn't, for starters, especially given the way the world seems to be changing these days, if you put all of your critical supplies in the hands of another nation, especially an adversary like China, you basically are at their beck and call when things get ugly. Even non-advesary states can either have regime change or just not want to deal with you, and all of a sudden everything is completely out of your control. Others basically own you at that point, which is obviously unacceptable from a defense or critical logistics standpoint.
On a whole other level, it's incredibly immoral and stupid that we're ok with externalizing problems that labor and environmental standards protect. If you wouldn't accept having your kin or friends work in the sort of conditions you see in many exploitative "cheap labor" centers overseas so much so that it's codified in law, why is it OK to just pawn it off on another nation's people? If you wouldn't accept the environmental damage that other countries seem willing to inflict, why is it suddenly ok when laundered as free trade, especially given how concerned we are with the global reach of environmental problems. If there were ever an application for tariffs that made sense it would be to ding the shit out of products and services that come from states that don't meet minimum levels of labor and environmental law.
The only reason we don't do this is that we're addicted to cheap shit and can't think more than maybe a year ahead.
Well read about the last years of the British Empire. They too spent a lot of time and energy giving speeches about what is "unacceptable" but that has nothing to do with what actually happened to the country after the empire wound down.
Paper tigers preach and bully because words are cheap, winners build. Americans who have only known unearned prosperity through historical inertia are in for a painful century.
https://archive.is/6o3SP
There was a RUSI paper at the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine that identified this problem.
The one area of munitions supply that was in good shape was 5.56mm, the "assault rifle" culture in the US means there are enough people plinking at targets to keep a good number of factories profitable.
https://archive.ph/XQINK
I’d argue a country that spends $500 billion additional dollars on its military, after spending $800 billion a year, but nobody has healthcare, isn’t worth defending.
We’re at the stage of open corruption now that this kind of thing isn’t called out for being as disgusting, but it is. It’s disgusting.
This person is an evil ghoul.
Unrelated. After seeing some videos of people fighting on the UKR/RUS front. The first thing that struck me is, that people shoot like they are playing Counterstrike. Shooting in the air, in the ground, everywhere, just not on anything that resembles any enemy.
I suspect it's because they know that shooting another human being does a great deal of mental damage to themselves, and they want to avoid that.
Can't help but wonder what the fuck the trillions of dollars has been doing all these years if not buying weapons
Good to know the US can't even get its military right, though.
We need a military that is well-equipped but also cost-conscious in how they are provisioned. The Military Industrial Complex is designed to extract as much cash from the coffers as possible without regard for the value added to national defense.
This is yet another example of two sides yelling past each other where the Left simply insists on cutting military spending and the Right glorifies the military and salutes increased spending as "patriotic".
This is the rot of our politics today across all projects...
A large part of the problem is that the defense procurement process is so burdensome, in the interests of appearing to ensure value for money, that suppliers must wade through years of bureaucracy before they see a dime.
This is why a $700 printed circuit assembly for a weapon system sells for $50,000, and why investors discourage startups from chasing defense business.
Kind of a nothing article. I think the title hinges on this once sentence:
> The U.S. lacks enough munitions to support its war plans if a protracted conflict with China, Russia or North Korea arises.
But no actual amounts or anything mentioned, just supposing.
Not that I expected anything more from WSJ.
Whether true or not, the article’s author also argued this point in 2023 (link below), and this article uses some of the same language (empty bins) as the paper.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/empty-bins-wartime-environment...
For me, the main point comes down to exactly how much of a weapons stockpile should a peaceful nation carry? We (US) already have a large number of nuclear weapons, and have been fighting a proxy war of sorts with Russia for over a year. Now we’re the aggressor in several other high profile strikes that have taken out the leaders of several nations. In my opinion, this _should_ be stressing the supplies of our military, _because it’s not (or shouldn’t be) our normal mode of operation_. We already have mechanisms like the Defense Production Act which would allow us to rapidly scale the creation of weapons when needed. Carrying enough weaponry to fight an extended large-scale conflict is incredibly wasteful, and seems like it would mostly serve those who would profit from the required spending to accomplish it.
Magazine depth is a matter of national security, you won't get close to the "actual amount" even with an insider leak.
Not to mention that all war is based on deception.
Yeah I realize that. I just don't see the point of the article then.
They have NO information in it, purely speculation.
Why can't we just import munitions and medicines from overseas as usual?
It's inefficient to manufacture in the US because of all the regulations to prevent occupational hazards and environmental destruction, the minimum wage and unions, the high price of medical care, and having to transport all the input materials to a US factory.
Hopefully your question is sarcasm, as it should be obvious why this is a terrible idea on many fronts.
In case it isn't, for starters, especially given the way the world seems to be changing these days, if you put all of your critical supplies in the hands of another nation, especially an adversary like China, you basically are at their beck and call when things get ugly. Even non-advesary states can either have regime change or just not want to deal with you, and all of a sudden everything is completely out of your control. Others basically own you at that point, which is obviously unacceptable from a defense or critical logistics standpoint.
On a whole other level, it's incredibly immoral and stupid that we're ok with externalizing problems that labor and environmental standards protect. If you wouldn't accept having your kin or friends work in the sort of conditions you see in many exploitative "cheap labor" centers overseas so much so that it's codified in law, why is it OK to just pawn it off on another nation's people? If you wouldn't accept the environmental damage that other countries seem willing to inflict, why is it suddenly ok when laundered as free trade, especially given how concerned we are with the global reach of environmental problems. If there were ever an application for tariffs that made sense it would be to ding the shit out of products and services that come from states that don't meet minimum levels of labor and environmental law.
The only reason we don't do this is that we're addicted to cheap shit and can't think more than maybe a year ahead.
Well read about the last years of the British Empire. They too spent a lot of time and energy giving speeches about what is "unacceptable" but that has nothing to do with what actually happened to the country after the empire wound down.
Paper tigers preach and bully because words are cheap, winners build. Americans who have only known unearned prosperity through historical inertia are in for a painful century.
We do to some extent, but it's a national security issue to depend on it.
Personally I buy IMI 5.56 ammo because it's cheap and good quality.
I'm more concerned about civilians access to ammunition vs the government. I have no doubt they'll be able to get what they need.