The U.S. Army has used up much of its stockpile of highly accurate long-range missiles during its five-month war with Iran, according to three people familiar with the data, raising concerns about the military’s readiness for future conflicts.
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 are an important part 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.
its soley used for targets that cant fight back.
I just read the prologue for The Enemy Within don’t spoil the rest of the story
They’ll just print money and pay Lockheed Martin to build a shit ton more
Americans are idiots for allowing this debt on their ledger.
Ah yes. Like every government asks their populace what atrocities they’d like to commit. I hate an argument by hypocrisy, but your statement is stupid. The majority of Americans want nothing to do with this, if they even have the knowledge of how any of this economic stuff works…just the usual stupid 30% brainless sycophants.
You think we actually vote on it? Both parties bomb the shit out of other countries
Why do I have a terrible sneaking suspicion, propaganda or not, that this will be used as an excuse.
Rumors are floating that Russia is toying with making a move on Poland, or perhaps a smaller NATO member. One theory is they’re just posturing to detract from the situation with Ukraine and appear strong. Despite this, Ukraine relies heavily on assistance from EU/NATO countries for supplies/money. Even mildly credible threats may force some of those countries to scale back some assistance and focus on internal efforts, which impacts Ukraine’s supply chain.
How does this tie in with the US? If a NATO country is attacked and goes Article 5…the US might try to use this as an excuse for lack of significant aid.
The source of those rumors . . . .is apparently the US.
Why would Russia attack Poland, to widen a war that is already a quagmire?
I suspect that the US under Trump not coming to help if a smaller NATO members was attacked by Russia is pretty much considered a realistic scenario in the military planing in Europe for such an event.
Europe’s sudden desire for greater military investment started with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine but really took of when Trump became POTUS and started his adversarial posture towards Europe (most notably on Greenland), cutting down on help to Ukraine and general militaristic dick-waving.
I think the plan is for Europe to face Russia in a united way and, if the US actually helps in that, that would be nice but not critical.
Judging by the situation in Ukraine if Russia faced a united Europe even without the US it would be crushed no matter how many millions of conscripts they threw at it in human waves.
IMHO the critical part here is a united Europe directly engaging Russia militarily (rather than merely helping with weapons) if Russia attacks an European nation, no matter how small or peripheral, not the participation of the US military.
When the stakes are high and the costs of it real and significant (even just economically, as we saw with the delays in stopping importing Russian fossil fuels when Russia invaded Ukraine) Europe has trouble becoming united in an expedient way.
Judging by the situation in Ukraine if Russia faced a united Europe even without the US it would be crushed
I think that’s not the correct lesson. Ukraine, and now Iran, have shown that like in WWI the defenders in 21st century wars have incredible advantages. And that you need to be able to produce drones in massive numbers.
Neither of those favors Europe attacking Russia. Who, you might want to ALSO remember, is a fucking nuclear power.
If you’re so eager to go fight Russia, go sign up in Ukraine. But it’s a very bad idea for Europe to do so.
One man’s shortage is another man’s bounty.
No they haven’t. This is propaganda 101. Do you REALLY think they’re advertising their actual supply and production capacity?
These types of lies were the backbone of the Russia strategy, let the Russians advance, deplete themselves while we ramp up our production, then they not only won’t be able to defend their gains but they’ll have to retreat.
All the while having provoked them so we can use Ukraine as a bulwark and voluntary cannon fodder. Wadn’t us, it’s them!
Don’t fall for it, these people are trained killers and do it for a living. They know what they’re doing and they’re running out of missiles like the US is running out of active shooters.
What do you think the goal of this propaganda would be? If it’s not true, and enemies of the US believe it is, that they attack isolated US bases on in other nations? To what benefit?
The scientists and experts in most things throughout most of the US government that had the spine and integrity to stand up to blatant bullshit, lies, and crimes were either fired or resigned. That includes high ranking military who would refuse illegal orders. What’s left is a mountain of the least capable and most corrupt willing to bend the knee and kiss the ass.
You genuinely think if Trump kept insisting on something this stupid they would refuse his orders? Or that Trump isn’t stupid enough to insist? Or that he takes heed to wise counsel?
No I think this is true. Some “defense industry” people play magic at my LGS and they’ve been talking about this obliquely.
Your friends are complicit in war crimes.
Literally never said they were my friends. But thanks for assuming my life and moralizing my choices.
Mockheed Lartin is loving this.
Capitalism compromises national security.
What would conservatives/regressives be doing if they weren’t wasting all our money on things that don’t benefit Americans?
It’s almost like we should be voting for the other side that’s proven to be better regarding our tax dollars and economy as a whole. But I guess we could keep voting for the side that’s openly bigoted and really, really bad at managing money. You know, for the lols.
Being bigoted is a feature for the regressives.
Source: Pete Kegseth keeps drunktexting reporters when he’s schlammered
How much does this reduce security for Americans locally? Like are we more likely to be invaded because of this or is it just the waste of resources we should be mad about?
These are ground attack missiles. Not used for defense.
Also not used against aircraft or ships
Nobody’s going to invade the US from the outside, you can sleep tight. Completely pointless to even try, y’all are protected by geography before the expensive military even comes into consideration.
Canada and Mexico are the only countries that could invade without being completely bogged down by super long supply lines. Both added together still have a much smaller population than the US. And the US has mountains which can be leveraged to slow down enemy advances.
Let’s say the US finds itself without any allies whatsoever. It would take Canada + Mexico + multiple large, well-equipped countries with large navies to have any real hope of getting the US to surrender. Canada, Mexico and China at the very least, someone would also have to come from the Atlantic side with a large navy. It would have to be from all 4 sides, not necessarily at once either - get the US to concentrate the forces to either the atlantic or pacific coast, then surprise them from the other side with an even larger force.
Basically pointless to try, nobody is this stupid. The US is more likely to have an internal coup.
Hawaii could be in trouble, but odds are they’d be better off under new management anyway
You are probably right, b ur bu really wonder how the drone + ai situation really changes the economics.
The situations in Iran and Ukraine are very eye opening and I worry the us military is way more focused on big strong boats.
That’s okie, the US plebery will foot the bill for new ones, no big deal.
It’s just exposing how the weapons belong to a dead end tech tree. The future of war is getting fragged by dollar store drones.
Honestly I don’t think that’s what we’re looking at. This is closer to what happened with machine guns and then later tanks during WW1 and WW2. What we’re looking at is a cavalry charge getting shredded by a machine gun and saying mobile warfare is dead, meanwhile the British and French are doing tank R&D.
This happens every couple of decades and lasts about a decade before proper counters can be developed, mind you it’s still busted as shit until said counters appear but still.
I can’t wait for the weapons industry to unveil the next man made horror beyond my comprehension they’ll think of to counter drone swarms
In this particular case it’ll probably be something we already have just cheaper and more specified. Personally my money is on automated AA designed for drones specifically using relatively cheap parts and firing cheap munitions like small caliber rounds to detonate drone payloads. Will probably still cost a hundred bucks or two but that’s well within acceptable costs if they work well enough.
Things are so bleak my mind automatically answered “decoy conscripts.”
This just means we will transition to cheaper less accurate ordinance, killing even more innocent civilians.
That jives with the underlying class war objectives.
i love broadcasting opsec to the world through social media.
really makes me feel like we have this shit under control, ya know?
