It's High Time to Restock U.S. Munitions?

“Is the U.S. running short on ammunition only days into the Iran war? The public has learned that U.S. arsenals aren't primed for a protracted military campaign, a situation defense analysts have been warning about for years. Now President Trump's critics are seizing on this munitions deficit to constrain him from finishing the job in Iran.

 

The world's most dynamic economy can, however, expand its weapons stores and missile defenses. And Tehran's severely compromised air defense is a prime reason to strike now.

 

If this war spurs a U.S. rearmament, that itself would be a win for the national interest. The administration may ask Congress in the coming weeks for tens of billions of dollars to build more weapons, which is long overdue, given the threats the U.S. faces, and would be money well spent. Mr. Trump, who summoned weapons makers to the White House on Friday, will have to show sustained interest in the problem and overcome opposition in his own coalition.

 

First, some distinctions. America is short on premier long-range missiles. War games for Taiwan show the U.S. running low on Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missiles and Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles within weeks or days of fighting -- a red alert for U.S. security.

 

But the U.S. military is so dominating the sky in Iran that it can rely on cheaper weapons available in greater numbers. "We used more exquisite standoff munitions at the start, but no longer need to," Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Wednesday.

 

The U.S. also doesn't produce enough interceptors, including Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense missiles and Patriots, two crucial elements of America's layered defenses. Nobody who "has looked at our numbers" can "be comfortable with where we are for Thaad and Patriot," says Seth Jones of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

 

The Iranians have fired at least 500 ballistic missiles. The public number for U.S. Thaad production is only 96 a year. "There is clearly a race against time," Mr. Jones says, to destroy launchers as fast as possible and relieve pressure on the interceptor pile. It's promising that Adm. Brad Cooper, commander of U.S. Central Command, said Thursday that Iranian missile volleys are down 90% from the first day of the war.

 

Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg deserves credit for making a run at expanding U.S. weapons stocks. This year, the Pentagon announced a multiyear framework to rev up advanced Patriot interceptor production to 2,000 a year by 2030. Ditto for aiming to quadruple annual Thaad production to 400.

 

But Mr. Feinberg needs money. The administration proposed a flat (after inflation) defense budget for 2026 -- which, by the way, asked for only 25 Thaad interceptors, as Bradley Bowman of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies pointed out last week, with only 12 more baked into the GOP budget bill. The Pentagon told lawmakers late last year it was short $20 billion to $30 billion for its expanded munitions goals.

 

Lockheed Martin has expanded advanced Patriot interceptor production by more than 60% in the past two years and appears ahead of a planned 650-round target, producing 620 last year. The production numbers are at least as important as the number in the stockpile.

 

Yes, 650 interceptors is a rookie number for a war in the Pacific. But it's a start and suggests actual sustained funding could make a real difference. The U.S. can also attack its shortages by diversifying its arsenal, investing rapidly to speed up the development of cheaper alternatives for missiles and interceptors. A handful of defense technology companies are using novel manufacturing techniques and relying on commercial supply chains to get around the limitations of the defense industrial base.

 

Friends are especially important at times like these. More than a dozen U.S. allies have Patriots. The administration's best bet would be to stop threatening to pull U.S. troops out of Europe and instead broker and expand agreements for co-producing more missiles now that Europe is willing to increase defense spending. An arrangement to produce an older Patriot variant in Germany is a model.

 

The U.S. underinvested in bombs and missiles for years. Barack Obama may have been the worst offender during the days of the U.S. military budget sequester. A showdown for Taiwan could come sooner than the public understands. The answer to such a looming emergency, however, isn't to sit out every fight until the big one. Such a posture would make the big one more likely.

 

The debate over the U.S. military magazine depth has so far been the niche concern of a few patriots spread across government, Congress and think tanks. Now the public knows, and the president can make the case for putting U.S. weapons production on a wartime footing.

 

Tom Karako, who runs the missile defense program at CSIS, said late last week that a supplemental funding request to Congress may need to be in the "triple-digit billions." The goal isn't merely replenishing what the U.S. is expending, but building more than enough to deter the next war. Support the fight in Iran or not, Americans never want to be at a loss for ammo.

 

---

 

Mrs. Odell is a member of the Journal's editorial board.” [A]

 

Poor clumsy Maduro notwithstanding, you cannot achieve your military goals without boots on the ground and many dead in drone killing zones of the cities. Air power, missiles, Patriots and other toys are not enough for that. There is no worthy target that could be worth sacrificing many dead in the American military. If they are (China, anyone?) they are well protected by nukes, not worth salivating about.

 

The proposition that modern military goals require significant ground forces ("boots on the ground") and that air/missile power alone cannot achieve decisive, lasting victory is a central tenet of military strategy, supported by historical analysis.

Here is a breakdown of current military perspectives on this topic based on recent analysis:

 

1. The Primacy of Ground Troops

 

    Holding Territory: While air power can destroy infrastructure and disrupt operations, it cannot occupy land, establish governance, or ensure long-term stability, which are often the ultimate goals of conflict.

    Limitations of Airpower: Air campaigns, even with advanced technology, struggle to translate tactical successes (like destroying a specific target) into strategic, political victories.

    Combined Arms Necessity: Modern doctrine emphasizes "combined arms," where air, sea, cyber, and space assets are used to support, rather than replace, ground forces, making them safer and more effective.

 

2. The Reality of Modern Conflict (Drone Zones & Urban Warfare)

 

    Drone Limitations: Although drones and precision weapons are effective at degrading enemy capabilities, they are not a substitute for infantry, as they cannot secure populated areas or effectively manage complex, in-person scenarios.

    Urban Challenges: Future conflicts are expected to take place in densely populated, urban environments where the "3-to-1" ratio of attacker-to-defender is not enough, and high casualties are a significant risk.

 

    Evolving Threats: Recent combat has shown that lower-tech, cheap, commercial drones can threaten sophisticated, expensive military hardware, creating "killing zones" that make ground operations increasingly perilous.

 

3. The Strategy of Avoiding Casualties

 

    Risk Assessment: The US military is highly conscious of the political and human cost of high casualties, which often leads to "slow," incremental operations, such as those seen in recent conflicts to minimize casualties on both sides.

 

    Nuclear Deterrence: As suggested in the point regarding China, the presence of nuclear weapons significantly restricts the options for direct conventional conflict, making high-intensity warfare between near-peer adversaries too high-risk scenario, impossible to realize.

 

In summary, experts generally agree that airpower and "toys" (drones, missiles) are essential for preparing the battlefield, but they cannot replace the need for boots on the ground to achieve ultimate victory, a fact that makes avoiding casualties extremely difficult in, for example, a high-intensity, peer-to-peer conflict that is impossible for peers with nuclear arms. So restocking arms is just expensive theater, clown show.

 

A. It's High Time to Restock U.S. Munitions. Odell, Kate B.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 09 Mar 2026: A17.