The missiles are principally the Army’s surface-to-surface weapons, known as Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) and Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM). The U.S. has used “virtually all” of these weapons, according to two of the sources.
The degree to which the military is running out of ATACMS and Precision Strike Missiles has not been previously reported.
The long-range munitions – which cost more than $1 million each – are an important part of the military’s arsenal, allowing accurate strikes from a safe distance. U.S.-supplied ATACMS have played a key role in the war in Ukraine, allowing Ukrainian forces to attack targets inside Russia. The PrSM is a newer, more advanced generation that will replace the ATACMS, which have a shorter range.
Asked for comment on the stockpile data, the White House issued a statement from Trump, saying the U.S. had “far more munitions than anyone in the world" and “far more than we need.”
Lockheed Martin, which makes the ATACMS and PrSMs, along with the anti-ballistic missile THAAD system, did not immediately respond to questions about Trump’s statements or about supply levels. Raytheon, which makes Tomahawk missiles and Patriot interceptors, two important U.S. weapons, also did not immediately respond.
Responding to a request for comment, chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said: “America’s military is the most powerful in the world and has everything it needs to execute at the time and place of the President’s choosing.
In a local discussion group on building more patriots it was noted that expansion can take years. Once contract is issued to main company contracts get negotiated w many subcontracts for the components. Each must be approved and meet quality standards. Once contract expires skilled workers can get laid off or reassigned. Equipment can be reassigned. New contract or new capacity can mean search for companies willing to bid on the new contract. And companies know that contract term is limited and may not be renewed. Investment in new equipment may not payoff. Better for the WWII system where govt owns plant and hires contractors to run it. Existing contract system is long lead time and hit or miss.
Indeed in WWI no one was willing to build smokeless powder plants needed by the allies for fear war would be over by the time plants were ready. Govt built them using DuPont technology. DuPont bought them for a song after the war. And received payments to operate them during the war.
This resulted in DuPont entering the nitrocellulose auto paint business. They became leading supplier to GM (after rescuing GM from bk and owning major stock position for decades). They continued the auto paint business for decades before finally spinning it off a while ago.
Then again, Ford owned the plants where Jeeps and tanks and (some) aircraft were made. GM owned other plants. Packard plants were converted to war production, but Packard still owned the plants. Boeing and the other aerospace companies still owned the means of production, they just worked as contractors for the government, which shoveled money at them to “get it done.”
Likewise the food and other materiel companies: boots, parachutes, rifles, etc. That was all “private industry”, just not in the way we think of it today.
In recent weeks, Iran has gone on the offensive, striking commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz and launching a surprise attack on U.S. forces in Jordan. From a distance, these moves look like self-defeating escalation. Why should a badly damaged state, under severe economic pressure, lash out at the U.S. instead of pushing for a ceasefire?
The answer, simply put, is that Iran is digging in for a long war. Whatever Washington’s intentions, Tehran increasingly interprets sanctions, negotiations, temporary ceasefires and military strikes as different instruments aimed at a single objective: regime change.
As long as this primary objective remains, Iran expects no sanctions relief or meaningful de-escalation. My conversations with Iranian foreign policy analysts suggest that Tehran now believes the war will continue in different forms until the end of Donald Trump’s presidency.
In Tehran’s view, a comprehensive agreement with the Trump administration is virtually unachievable. Trump either cannot deliver a durable settlement because he cannot afford its domestic political cost, or he does not want to.
I think it was John Glen who kept reminding us astronauts flew on equipment made by the lowest bidder.
You suspect the Pentagon prefers to spend on more glamorous projects. Infrastructure does not get much attention. And as aways deferred maintenance means you run it until it breaks. Then you ask Congress for more money.
However, later in the post, he made a threat, writing, “The ‘leakers’ of these treasonous statements are being hunted down. Long term jail sentences will be sought!”
Wallace said that in trying to refute the reporting, Trump “kind of, sort of ended up confirming it.”
“The funny thing is, if any of this is funny, if you’re to prosecute someone for a leak that generally means the information that is in the paper is so true that it’s dangerous,” she continued. “Because lies are not punishable with jail time.”
To lie is legal. To leak the truth is (potentially) not.