There was a RUSI paper at the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine that identified this problem.
The one area of munitions supply that was in good shape was 5.56mm, the "assault rifle" culture in the US means there are enough people plinking at targets to keep a good number of factories profitable.
Unrelated. After seeing some videos of people fighting on the UKR/RUS front. The first thing that struck me is, that people shoot like they are playing Counterstrike. Shooting in the air, in the ground, everywhere, just not on anything that resembles any enemy.
"The primary intended effect of suppressive fire is psychological. Rather than directly trying to kill enemy soldiers, it makes the enemy soldiers feel unable to safely perform any actions other than seeking cover. Colloquially, this goal is expressed as "it makes them keep their heads down" or "it keeps them pinned down". However, depending on factors including the type of ammunition and the target's protection, suppressive fire may cause casualties and/or damage to enemy equipment."
Yeah I know about that, but there is no brain behind these mindless shootings. Just the instinct that if someone shoots at me I shoot back into nothingness.
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.
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.
I’d argue a country that spends $500 billion additional dollars on its military, after spending $800 billion a year, but nobody has healthcare, isn’t worth defending.
We’re at the stage of open corruption now that this kind of thing isn’t called out for being as disgusting, but it is. It’s disgusting.
We need a military that is well-equipped but also cost-conscious in how they are provisioned. The Military Industrial Complex is designed to extract as much cash from the coffers as possible without regard for the value added to national defense.
This is yet another example of two sides yelling past each other where the Left simply insists on cutting military spending and the Right glorifies the military and salutes increased spending as "patriotic".
This is the rot of our politics today across all projects...
Why can't we just import munitions and medicines from overseas as usual?
It's inefficient to manufacture in the US because of all the regulations to prevent occupational hazards and environmental destruction, the minimum wage and unions, the high price of medical care, and having to transport all the input materials to a US factory.
30 comments
The one area of munitions supply that was in good shape was 5.56mm, the "assault rifle" culture in the US means there are enough people plinking at targets to keep a good number of factories profitable.
"The primary intended effect of suppressive fire is psychological. Rather than directly trying to kill enemy soldiers, it makes the enemy soldiers feel unable to safely perform any actions other than seeking cover. Colloquially, this goal is expressed as "it makes them keep their heads down" or "it keeps them pinned down". However, depending on factors including the type of ammunition and the target's protection, suppressive fire may cause casualties and/or damage to enemy equipment."
> 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.
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.
We’re at the stage of open corruption now that this kind of thing isn’t called out for being as disgusting, but it is. It’s disgusting.
This person is an evil ghoul.
Good to know the US can't even get its military right, though.
This is yet another example of two sides yelling past each other where the Left simply insists on cutting military spending and the Right glorifies the military and salutes increased spending as "patriotic".
This is the rot of our politics today across all projects...
It's inefficient to manufacture in the US because of all the regulations to prevent occupational hazards and environmental destruction, the minimum wage and unions, the high price of medical care, and having to transport all the input materials to a US factory.