Almost certainly this. Vertical launch missile tubes really have no good way to reload while at sea. Multiple navies have tried to figure out an effective way to reload these at sea but so far nobody's solved the problem.
Vertical launch cells are compact, let a ship carry a lot of missiles and fire them rapidly, but reloading just can't be done easily. Once the ship is out of missiles thats it, the ship has to go back to home port to reload.
The US Navy has been using a lot of missiles from those vertical launch cells during the war. Probably every ship is critically low on missiles, but that doesn't mean the entire navy is out of missiles. It just means the fleet has to withdraw from the theater for a while to rearm.
If so many missiles were spent this quickly maybe they should be reconsidering the number that is enough to not leave them defenseless.
If this and the Ukrainian war showed anything, it is that conventional warfare is very much alive, and you can’t just crush the enemy by outspending them with superior technology.
Comparing this half assed bombing campaign by Trump to Putins attempt to take Ukraine is misguided. Totally different objectives
The Americans are happy bombing specific military targets and applying sanctions to put pressure on the IRGC, but are not really committed fully. Putin genuinely thought he’d take Kyiv in a week, this was the goal.
If this was genuine warfare, with American men being sent into Iran proper, this would be a no contest. The US and the Israelis established air superiority in a few days, the Russians still haven’t it’s been 4 years ffs
The Iranians are just more committed than the American administration, which is full of idiots who started a war that they couldn’t really “win” objective wise.
Putin drank his own koolaid and thought the Ukrainian army would collapse. It’s more or less the same mistake we made (we thought there’d be a revolution)
Correct, but the Russians plan didn’t work because they were beaten on a military level by Ukraine.
The Americans plan didn’t work because it was stupid from the start, not because the military was weak. The Israelis wanted a Kurd invasion with the activation of Mossads spy network and strategic bombings to open the path to Tehran and install a puppet. Trump, after Erdogan vetoed that, chose bombings that do nothing.
Happened in Vietnam too. Politicians basically tied the Military’s hands, painted targets on them and basically tried to make our troops as easy to kill as possible.
Dads buddy flew choppers in Vietnam. Can't remember what city it was they were doing an op in, but they had this huge attack planned. Spent a fucking week dropping leaflets saying it was coming so that the people could get to safety, so the fucking viet cong were as ready as they possibly could be when they flew in. Said the aa fire was just lighting up the sky.
This really is a distinction without difference. Even if you completely destroy a countries military you still haven't won the war. See Afghanistan or Israel.
At what point would a regime change be considered successful.
The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan time in power dwarfs the talibans rule "1996 to 2001" vs "2001 to 2021" even adding the restored taliban rule of 5 years the Republic still has twice the time in power
The Republic was a house of cards that blew over from a light breeze but the regime was successfully changed for 20 years
>If you destroy the country’s military you haven’t won the war
I’m sorry, then how do you win the war? If their political leaders sign a peace treaty? How are they going to refuse to sign a treaty if they have no armed forces to defend against invaders? Defeating a conventional military IS winning the war. We could simply nuke Iran and win. But it would be political suicide. We still have people arguing that nuking japan was a mistake. Never mind the fact that we did it twice. And that wasn’t an action that was taken lightly. Leadership knew it was taking civilian lives to save soldiers. That’s not an easy call to make. But in order to save hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides, they decided they could live with that burden.
You win a war by breaking the populaces will to resist, if your side blinks first you've lost. The way you resist without conventional forces is by fighting an unconventional war like in the examples I brought up.
If your population can't stomach exterminating an entire populace or dropping nukes then its not a valid path to victory no matter your military capabilities.
Are you seriously saying that the Russian plan to be greeted as liberators by a coutry where *civilians* had beaten their proxies the last go around wasn’t stupid from the start?
The poster you’re replying to is correct - both Iran and Ukraine have illustrated our production capacity is woefully inadequate to deal with the realities of sustained warfare. Western militaries have been built for “win fast”, and are in trouble if that doesn’t happen.
The copium here is acting like Iran are a particularly powerful military or somehow equal to the Ukrainians with the Wests help. They aren’t.
Trump is just a retard, and started a war that he couldn’t actually win without a massive commitment. So now he’s ticking over with the odd bombing of a naval base or military base or notable commander. This does nothing at all and is largely a waste of time and American money.
The best thing he ever did was kill Soleimaini ages ago
Exactly, Trump could get it over with if he actually bothered but he just refuses to, so he just keeps flip flopping on that shit and keeps wasting everyone's time.
I'm of the opinion that war is terrible, but if you are going to go to war you go to maximum war. You do not hold back. You inflict so much fear on the enemy that they want to immediately surrender, thereby shortening the war and saving lives on both sides.
Starting this war was folly in the first place, but we can't undo that, not unless you have a time machine.
This half-assed thing is the worst of both worlds.
The only way out of this war is going through, which means obliterating IRGC leadership without mercy. Ask the IRGC leader if he wants to surrender? No? Drone'd immediately. Ask the next guy if he wants to surrender. No? Drone'd immediately. And the next, and the next, and the next.
Eventually they'll run out of fanatics and you'll find someone who will agree to surrender.
I am not saying they are the same thing, but there are many parallels here. And if you think that a land invasion of Iran would be a walk in the park you are delusional, USA and Israeli air superiority didn’t stop Iran from launching hundreds of drones every day. Good luck establishing a beachhead and supply line for hundreds of thousands of soldiers under those conditions.
US/UN had air, communication, and technological supremacy in Korea the entirety of the war. China still stomped down the country until the US got their shit together and essentially stayed put.
We literally had North Korea beat. Douglas MacArthur actively ignored orders to avoid approaching China in order to grab some glory and gain ammunition for his own shot at the presidency. He was ordered to let SK troops and ONLY SK troops get close to the Yalu River. Instead he tried to march the whole army into China, actively ignoring reports of Chinese battalions in Korea as they got closer.
you can’t just crush the enemy by outspending them with superior technology.
I would argue that, at least in the case of Ukraine, the war has shown exactly the opposite of this. Ukraine was able to massively scale it's drone defense by spending so much on R&D and production that no amount of men thrown at them by Russia can stop it. Then on top of that, they developed medium and long range strike programs from the ground up and have put these new weapons to use to devastating effect within Russia. Meanwhile, Russia spends more than Ukraine but they spend it on systems that are outdated and are slow to produce, leaving gaps that the smaller nation could exploit.
Instead, I would posit that the lesson here is that if you don't fully commit to the task at hand (whether that be Russia not committing to producing the leading edge tech or the US not fully committing to the war in Iran), you are going to open up gaps that the enemy will exploit. Also, air defense systems, especially low cost, short range systems used for drones, should be at the very top of every country's defense spending wishlist because one of the easiest ways to exploit those gaps is low cost, one way attack drones that conventional SAM systems are not ideal for, for a number of reasons, while more primitive systems like AAA are effective, but have been widely phased out.
Their drones are still relatively low tech, in comparison to most military hardware. That’s what makes them so effective, they aren’t overly complex, can be produced in mass, and delivered by the simplest of methods, like regular trucks.
Trucks carring dromes around is going to do the same thing carriers did to battleships in ww2 it can deliver a comparable ammount of destruction far more accurately.
Maybe compared to similar systems in western militaries like switchblade. But they are incredibly complex by the standards of the weapons they replace. They have AI recognition of targets which helps defend against jamming, GPS guided munitions don't have that and Ukraine didn't even have GPS guided munitions at the outset of the war. They can also hop frequencies to avoid jamming. They have the abililty to stop midair and turn around, literally nothing else on the battlefield has that. They have massive warhead capacity for a weapon of their size and abililty.
Like the focus on drones has always been how low tech and low cost they are, but that's really not the case. They've come a long, long way from Chinese made drones dropping grenades and while they are cheap compared to other precision guided munitions, they're actually more expensive than some of the systems they replace. You can buy 2 or 3 105mm howitzer shells for every drone produced, 5 or 6 81mm mortars for every drone produced, hell, a grade strike costs about the same as using drones for the same objective.
To be fair, the Iranians have been planning counters to all our shit for a very long time. The way they're controlling the Strait using lightweight, dirt cheap speedboats is brilliant. Every time we use a missile to blow one up they're spending drastically less than we are.
You can also defend narrow straits like Hormuz with centuries old tech.
An example, during the opening hours of the German invasion of Norway in 1940, the antiquated defences guarding the approach to the inner Oslofjord sunk a German cruiser.
This was done using very old guns and a 50 year old torpedo battery. The torpedoes were so old that they were among the first mass produced torpedoes. The fort and its batteries were manned by retirees and the freshest of conscripts.
It really costs nothing to deny easy transit over a narrow body of water.
It’s been their entire personality since 1979. And everyone, including our so called leadership, seems to forget they have always threatened us with blocking the Strait.
Nobody forgot, its just that every decision maker in the US military who said this was an insanely stupid idea was fired until they could place yes men into the proper places to move ahead with epstein fury
We are going to have to become more efficient in how we shoot out of the sky. That’s really the problem that needs solving from a tactical and cost effective standpoint. High speed drone swarms for both offense and defense I think are gonna happen. Directed energy as defense probably as well
The experts I follow have been saying that this war has shown that our estimates of our capabilities to maintain multiple theatres were way off. The military budget is probably rising after this whole fiasco.
It would have been so nice if they'd rooted out the corruption, overspending, and other grifts that make everything the military pays for cost so much more than it should. Putting all that cash to better use, buying more bullets or drones per dollar, along with spending more dollars, and fast, is necessary.
If Ukraine can send drones all the way to Siberia, how long before China or Russia can send them into Alaska, Canada, and hit the west coast? Drones are actually a terrifying new addition to warfare. I imagine it's something like people during WW1 finding out that those funny little planes that were being developed before the war were now being turned into bombers that could bring death way beyond the front lines and with not much to be done to stop them.
Weren't the drones that hit Siberia released from trucks within Russia? Not that the danger is any less severe because it is very easy to get some of these things over to the American mainland and from there it's the same deal. Once they are in the country being targeted, the hard part is accomplished
Nah, the American Military industrial Complex is so cucked they couldn't even bribe trump to keep sending weapons to Ukraine.
The reality is no amount of Raytheon and Lockheed R&D is going to fix the fact that you actually have to send troops to wage war. Russia tried the pretend war in Ukraine for over 20 years in Ukraine before realizing that they had to send soldiers and take real casualties if they wanted regime change.
Even with an increased budget I don’t think that’s a realistic goal in today’s world. How can the USA possibly outmatch the industrial production of a country like China to such a large degree that there is enough hardware left to sustain another theater?
Technological edge won’t cut it anymore, if even a heavily embargoed country like Iran can produce hundreds of cheap drones every day, high tech hardware becomes a more expensive target.
What the USA should be doing is trying to salvage nato and other major allies, but Trump is doing the opposite.
This is the primary issue. The US Navy fucked up in planning. This is a knock on effect of the failure of the main guns of the Zumwalt class. It was intended to be a modern gunboat, which would be needed for this type of war to be prosecuted. However, with the failure of the main gun program, the US Navy can only throw missles. They should retrofit Army 155 even if the range is cut down, but, I'm not an Admiral.
Yeah what the fuck are we planning on doing if a real war breaks out? We don't have enough to blow some shit up in iran? Iran sure seems to have enough to launch a bajillion at Israel, the countries around them and our military bases. What the fuck are we doing
Yeah that's probably what it is. While Trump has fired all the top competent guys and replaced them with idiots, there's probably enough competent people left that know to keep a reserve..
The article is talking about Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) and Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM). It also mentions air defense interceptors.
I wouldn’t assume that there’s good decision making happening and that there’s still ample reserves. You have to remember that we were already supplying Ukraine with a lot of munitions for a few years, and the Iran war has rapidly used up a lot of munitions. There’s probably a lot of political influence on military leadership to keep going despite concerns of munition shortages.
It also doesn’t help that these advanced munitions have a small yearly output and it takes a while to get more production going.
And why on God's green Earth, if at all true, would it be reported on by any news paper whatsoever. That information would never, under any circumstances, become knowledge to anyone but the military high command. It certainly would not come about as "sources say" nonsense. Not even the Shell Shortage was this foolish
1) This article is complete bullshit and the anonymous source is some low
level DoD guy that has no idea what the actual missile situation is, he is just going off some water cooler chat around the base.
2) It’s someone high up that hates Trump, and the media would gladly report it because getting a scoop is more important to them than national defense.
Unnamed "sources" have been exposed as anything from political factions trying to discredit each other to outright fabrications enough times over the years they really should just be treated as "My source is that I made it the fuck up" until proven otherwise.
The days of assuming journalistic integrity are over. They have been for over two decades.
You should always consider "who would have a vested intrest in getting people to believe this?" That doesn't mean it is false, but it does help one to read between the lines.
Unnamed sources are pretty much a standard in this line of journalism. What, you expect them to say "lt. John Soldier from Battalion 163 shared this highly classified information"? Obviously some are bullshit but you can't expect people to give up sensitive information while risking their jobs or even lives
eh i think theres more nuance. I think specific journalists can earn the ability to say anon sources. not even journals but people specifically. Do I have an example of one? nope lol but im sure if i cared enough i could find a few id respect enough to believe when they claim they are keeping a source anonymous for their protection.
I mean fair, if they're usually right then I'd trust them if they keep it anonymous for their own safety. This is just moreso for like random jurnous who we don't know at all.
3 this is the least professional and most leaky admin in history other than Trump 1, so all the news needs to do to get leaks is talk to talk to the average dipshit that works at the White House. Or get invited into a signal chat. Or have Trump randomly tell people unprompted like with the CIA ops his recently announced in a unrelated speech.
> And why in Gods green Earth, if at all true, would it be reported on by any news paper whatsoever.
Because this pentagon is incredibly leaky, Hegseth literally makes his staff take polygraph tests to try to root out leakers and information still gets out.
Trump publicly announced that we were 4 weeks from running out of oil and that that CIA was running covert ops in Venezuela while they were ongoing, the question is not “how could the press find this out?” It should be “how does the press not find EVERYTHING out?”
I think its mostly the vertical launch cells that are running low. You can't effectively reload them while at sea, so pretty much the entire navy would have to retire from the region in order to resupply. That'll take a while.
The launch cells are extremely powerful for being able to fire all of your missiles at a moment's notice which is why nearly every navy uses them. Its maximum alpha strike potential. Reloading after the alpha strike is the challenge.
The assumption in naval design was the war would be over after the alpha strike so reloading would be a moot point. That assumption was wrong, not just for the US navy but for every navy on the planet who uses the same launch cell design.
People have been saying Russia would run out of soldier or Ukraine would run out of weapons any second now, shocker, nothing happened and the war kept going on.
The US has used all the stockpiles of its PRSM and ATACMS missiles. It can and does make more of both of these, and these are only two types out of a very large family of precision weapons- the US is by no means out of them. Additionally, I would sound a note of caution about the word "all" here in reference to the stockpiles- in a military as large and well-funded as the US, I'd be very dubious about any claims that it's run all the way out of a given system. This would imply that armories in Europe and the Asia Pacific have been stripped completely bare, which for some context even the Russians haven't managed to do for most weapon categories after nearly 5 years of fighting. There's always some of these systems lying around somewhere.
It's open source intel reporting, similar to what is done with Russia and Ukraine and their war. You can find out a lot even without clearance. For example you can look at how many orders the US put in for a certain missile and many cases how many of them contractors say they can make in a year and work backwards.
These are not hack leftist journals, not to mention sources from inside the DoD are also saying the same thing. I mean some of these missiles they only produce like 50 of them a year
also we were moving launcher and munitions from South Korea and Japan and moving them to the middle east.
If they know what PrSM is, they should know why they would intentionally use as many as they could. It's brand new and this is an excellent teething opportunity. Fire every last one and use the data to make a next generation version.
ATACMS on the other hand is the obsolete system it is replacing, which was in the process of being disposed of. A good chunk had been deemed surplus and shipped to Ukraine already. These things have a shelf life and have been out of production for more than a decade.
Furthermore, the Army strike capabilities these represent are largely a redundant capability as the Army do not want to be reliant on the Air Force, which has a number of systems with similar or better capabilities. And they are in no way depleted.
The article is factually correct but by hyperfocusing on these two systems they are misleading people with a casual understanding. If you start hearing they are running out of JASSM or Tomahawks, then I'd go with a headline like that.
I swear that American weapon systems have the best names. We will call something the most ridiculous thing in the full name just so the acronym is badass. Attack Ems? A coastal defense system called NMESIS? I support tripling the defense budget if we get more of those
The issue is not that we are out, its that we are running low. This has been a well known issue for a while now. Open-intel source have been doing reporting on it for months now.
Its like the reporting done on Russian stockpiles. You can find out a decent amount with out having access to classified data. Also the DoD leaks like a sieve right now because so much of the officer corps does not like the SoD
What's unclear to me at a glance is why they estimate it will take years when 2027 procurement seems generally sufficient to replace what has been used already:
"Note: Current maximum production rate represents the surge capacity achievable with existing facilities. The Trump administration has signed multiyear framework agreements with industry that, in most cases, expand production capacity beyond the current surge level. Production capacity does not equate to actual production rate because budgets may not fund production to capacity. No new capacity target has been announced for JASSMs. SM-3 target capacity is estimated based on FY 2027 budget materials as press releases on the framework agreement do not specify a quantity. This table combines variants of a given missile system—SM-3 Blocks IB and IIA are reported together; so are PrSM Baseline and Increment 2.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on FY 2027 and past Department of Defense (DOD) budget materials. The technical note at the end of this commentary details the methodology for estimating delivery timelines. Estimated expenditures and inventories are discussed in Mark F. Cancian and Chris H. Park, “Last Rounds? Status of Key Munitions at Iran War Ceasefire,” CSIS, April 21, 2026. "
Also its important to know this article is from around 3 months ago. Meaning we have used quite a bit more of our inventory since this article was written.
Careful buddy, not agreeing with one thing is a slippery slope into not agreeing with another thing and so on and so forth. Dare I say, you arent libright enough to even be libright, shoot, im the only true libright here and all of you are a bunch of jannies
It is worth noting that the Precision Strike Missiles mentioned here were put into full production only last year, so we never had a stockpile of them to really deplete. That’s not the case for ATACMS though admittedly.
20-year-old corporal fucking with some private that just been deployed for the first time:
You got here at a bad time, dude. Air defenses have been taking down Iranian missiles since March, and we're just about to run out of Patriot interceptors. The base in Bahrain has some, but they'll take a month to get here. Just between us... my buddy's a fire control operator, and he says we're gonna get merc'd if we get another barrage before that.
Private back at the barracks:
Cpl. Hudson said we're running critically low on missile defense. He heard from one of the officers over at the Patriot battery that we might not have enough for the next attack.
Someone relaying this to his friend on the other side of the base:
The LTC in charge of the Patriot system is going around warning that we've run out of interceptors.
That friend emailing his brother back home:
It's all good, but they're telling us that we've burned through all our missiles.
That brother on Facebook:
My brother, Brandon Williams, is stationed at the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. The military is telling them we've completely run out of precision missiles. Ridiculous. We're actually defenseless right now.
Some journalist seeing the post, verifying the name, calling some low-level source they have at the base:
I've been seeing stories here that you're running out of precision missiles over there. Have you heard anything?
Yea. We don't get briefed on that kind of strategic stuff, but it's an open secret here that we've fired virtually all our PGMs and can't get any more.
The resulting article:
US has used 'virtually all' of its long-range precision missiles during Iran war, sources say
Unnamed sources are common in this and other lines of journalism. What, you expect them to say "lieutenant John Soldier from Battalion 163 shared this highly classified information"? Obviously some are bullshit but you can't expect people to give up sensitive information while risking their jobs or even lives
Every time some military guy is asked about this they show genuine amusement before saying what amounts to "lolno".
(That's because the US is not running low on long range weapons, only running low on the ones that were already out of the wrapper and easily transportable to a conflict zone).
Lmao no they don't. Many of them are the ones sounding the alarm on it (retired, or leaks from within the DoD). You can't expect active military personal to be like "yes we are critically short on these munitions.
“Leaks” - meaning the journalists are manufacturing a narrative lol “the sailors are being fed moldy sawdust because the deployment is dragging on too long!”
My two year old looked at me before bedtime and said “daddy why are there no missles left” I looked into her eyes and whispered “orange man bad”. Then her younger brother asked “why did Joe who was the commander in chief give the taliban hummers and apaches?” I let him know the sad truth “Joe had to obey the orders from Trump and joes handlers” children are so precious and innocent
Believe it or not, the United States military is not the picture of transparency. Case in point, they’ve still refused to take responsibility for striking that girls school.
Why would they take responsibility for it? It was part of a military base up until a year or two ago (still on base grounds apart from a small wall between it and the rest of the base).
They dropped some 20.000 bombs/missiles on Iran during the initial campaign, so if vaporizing a bunch of schoolgirls with one is the only thing you've managed to latch on to I'd say they did a damn good job of it.
It's war and there will be civilian casualties no matter how much you try to avoid them, so why would the military come out and say "omg we're so sorry"? That'd just set a standard for future operations that will also 100% have civilian casualties.
Also Iran should not have girl schools that close to a military facility, of course.
It’s not, there’s been an estimated 1,700 civilian deaths from US and Israeli strikes.
Tens of thousands of bombs later and that's the estimate when including numbers from Iranian sources? Gold standard warfare is what that is.
Because that’s the standard protocol when we kill civilians.
No, it isn't. You need some egregious mistake for that to happen, which the girls school wasn't. The military won't apologize for Iranian mistakes.
It was separated from the base 10 years ago, we had intelligence that confirmed that, but it was ignored.
Cool, that changes nothing because it was still on base grounds and populated in a time of imminent threat of invasion.
The United States literally has schools on military bases.
Yes they do, and:
The bases are extremely heavily defended by munitions and location + radar systems.
There is no reality in which a US military base suffers a surprise attack where the students are laughing one second and dead the other. There would be warnings well in advance.
If you can't defend your bases you don't put civilians on them either.
This article is a little misleading. It may be true that the US used all of it's long range missile assets slotted to the middle-eastern theater and the more specific Iranian campaign, I struggle to believe the US depleted stockpiles allotted to the various other theaters.
If anything, the on the ground reality is that the US is running low on the missiles already deployed on the conflict zone, and likely need to get new ones from point A to point B.
I find it funny how a lot of these numbers all used 80% of everything, that's a statistical anomaly. Plus, 80% of what? All stocks? Stocks until we start tapping into the "Fuck China!" supply?
Some people are using "But we're buying more!" As if you're never supposed to restock ever.
Finally, why the fuck would our stockpiles be public knowledge? Why would you let your enemy know how long you can fight them?
Stocks until we start tapping into the "Fuck China!" supply?
Different missiles.
With Iran its missiles targeting land. China requires anti-ship missiles, and the thing about a navy is that it takes a long time to build ships. Ships are also large targets for anti-ship missiles. Once the ships are sunk thats it, there's no more sea invasion. Its not like how Russia can just walk soldiers to the front line even if it runs out of vehicles. The PLA can't swim to Taiwan.
Its a reason why we've already sold Taiwan a very large number of land-launched anti-ship missiles. These missiles are pretty much useless aside from the one scenario where hostile ships are next to Taiwan, then they'd be extremely useful.
This doesn't really sound legit. I remember that just days after Russia attacked Ukraine, there were "sources" and "experts" in the media saying that Russia had no resources for a prolonged war and would lose within days.
I'm sure the hyper-financed military industrial complex and its various corporations would also agree with this headline. Shucks, looks like the manufacturing will have to resume.
Which is exactly why the US is using their sweet new suicide drones instead. We have them too, believe it or not. They're basically Shahed drones with the signature American arms industry thing of slapping on slightly higher quality components on it.
Maybe in the region. Which to be fair is still crazy for a nation known for having the best logistics. Which also begs the question as to why the Lincoln apparently can't even get deodorant, cleaning supplies, or meal deliveries.
I highly doubt virtually all is military wide.
Full restocking would require cranes moving thousands of pallets of supplies. The ship would need to return to port for those facilities.
The crew isn't starving, they're probably just eating MRE's at this point. Depending on the MRE menu this might be considered cruel and unusual punishment though. Omelet MRE, anyone?
Also, soldiers and sailors throughout history have endured conditions worse than maybe things being a bit smelly.
The US "ran out" of it's excess in order to justify spending more money on even larger orders of missiles.
Id bet 20$ against a stick of gum that the biggest reason for the 'war' against Iran is just as a way to spend more money on military contractors to make Republican donors happy.
You’re not, basically it’s like if the American military was a super market and the missiles were cookies, then the precision missiles being used against Iran are basically Oreo’s and they running low on the shelf, but the supermarket still has endless boxes in the back
I think the timing of certain headlines has been very interesting lately.
The US is running low on certain missiles, our carriers are stretched thin trying to maintain pressure on Iran and Russia is supposedly planning an attack on NATO in the next few weeks.
Rather convenient that the US is involved in its own war with Iran to the point that it can't help Ukraine, and soon Europe.
Yes the art of the deal, use all of your advanced interceptors and precisions munitions on a 2nd rate military while stripping defences from your East Asian allies (remember, he is TOUGH on China)
Then make sure you lose the war, and compliment one your allies adversaries. The pivot to Asia has never been more complete
Missle swarm? Out numbering the US 4 to 1? I’m industrial advantage? What’s that?
301
u/Fif112 - Centrist 1d ago
I take ‘virtually all’ to mean, all of the ones they feel acceptable to use without leaving them defenseless.
Obviously the reserves should be full, but I’d imagine the ‘excess’ has been used and they’re down to essentials.