7 ms·

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

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.

bigyabai 6mo ago
Magazine depth is a matter of national security, you won't get close to the "actual amount" even with an insider leak.
- theultdev 6mo ago
  Yeah I realize that. I just don't see the point of the article then. They have NO information in it, purely speculation.
- treetalker 6mo ago
  Not to mention that all war is based on deception.
JoBrad 6mo ago
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-challenge-us-defense-industrial-base 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.

bigyabai 6mo ago

Magazine depth is a matter of national security, you won't get close to the "actual amount" even with an insider leak.

theultdev 6mo ago
Yeah I realize that. I just don't see the point of the article then. They have NO information in it, purely speculation.
treetalker 6mo ago
Not to mention that all war is based on deception.

JoBrad 6mo ago

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-challenge-us-defense-industrial-base 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.