▲ 380 points
back
724 comments
Now they'll exhaust interceptors and other long range missiles like tomahawks and whatnot.
And then China gets frisky with Taiwan and the US will totally not abandon them and tell them to just give up pressured by the lack of firepower to defend them, the risks of China getting back into bidding oil in international markets and the mess the treasury would be in if China raises capital by selling bonds (they just told the fed to print more so Japan can buy yens without selling their US bonds, so they are at least very concerned about the possibility).
Sorry for the rant.
If they can exhaust all their firepower in a couple weeks fighting Iran, China would have no reason to feel threatened in the first place.
The reality is that fighting China would be a proper all-out war, not whatever this spitting match with Iran is.
I imagine elements in the Taiwanese govt are pushing a massive drone network to turn the nation into a porcupine.
You're not considering how our economy/manufacturiing is currently not oriented for war but could easily be made to be.
As much as I support Taiwan, there's no realistic timeline where the US goes to war against the PRC over Taiwan. None.
Hey look on the bright side - every time we cut CDC staff by 25% or kick a 100K people off SNAP, we can afford a few more weeks of missiles.
On the flip side, at least the press is not hammering the Epstein files and the lack of any prosecution for the crimes documented in those.
LBH US hasn't been in position to defend 1st island chain in a while, US performance vs Iran just made that obvious.
The one thing we have learned in recent wars is highend hardware can shoot down subsonic munitions reliably, highend missiles can penetrate high end defense reliably. AKA PRC is uniquely positioned to blunt most of US fires (subsonic munitions) while having tons of highend fires vs US defense. But really PRC doesn't even need highend fires for TW scenario, see their subsonic cruse missile / drone gigafactory (like proper not ghetto tier) that can churn 1000s per day, i.e. even with pure subsonics PRC can fully saturate entire US posture/basing structure in 1IC/2IC.
US in westpac has been thoroughly functionally cooked for years. It just took Iran performance for sensible people to realize how cooked. Not just how not up to task i.e. force balance, but how US tech stack uniquely vulnerable to PRC, who TBF has spend past 10 years of modernization strictly on this issue. NVM PRC can now conventionally hit CONUS as recognized by recent Pentagon China Power report, something PLA watchers have known for years, meanwhile said report still assumes PRC highend missile stockpiles is about size of Irans which is kek territory if not delulu.
TLDR people should stop hopiuming about PRC and evaluate consequences of commodity precision fire for mid tier operators. What Iran can do today, most of Americans can do in 10-15 years, i.e. we are entering a world where CONUS is vulnerable due to tech again (remember US project almost extinguished to wooden British boats). CONUS isolation/security as much man made as god/geographic given. It relies on US expeditionary model containing everyone ability to project fires to their shores. Once that's done, entire US defense model post war breaks. All of which is to say, forget Iran, anticipate Monroe wars in the future.
I really dislike the manufactured conflict with China because it only exists to sell weapons. There are several flaws in this theory:
1. All but about 10 countries in the world recognize Taiwan as an independent nation. This always seems to get in people's feelings when I point this out but I'm sorry, the One China policy is the official policy of the US and virtually every country on Earth [1];
2. US military policy is that the US is the only country allowed to be a global superpower (aka "hegemon"). Taiwan is a key link in containment, known as the island-chain strategy [2]. If Taiwan falls into China's sphere of influence then that strategy falls apart. And that's really why this Cold War 2.0 narrative has been manufactured;
3. The level of hypocrisy here is insane. Every allegation is a confession. For one thing, China has shown no imperial ambitions. This gets the inevitable "But Tibet!" rejoinder. It was 1950. Let it go. Also, 90% of the people in Tibet prior to annexation were slaves. They have euphemistically been called "serfs" in Western coverage (when it's mentioned at all) but these "serfs" could be traded like property. You know, like slaves. Also, Tibet and the Dalai Lama is a CIA project [3]; If you find yourself on the same side as the CIA, it's probably time to be asking some questions;
4. In the event of a direct military conflict with China, what are the goals? What is the theory of victory between two nuclear powers? The US has been militarily defeated by Iran. Do you think they'd fare better against China? Really? For one thing, China has a virtual monopoly of rare earths, which are essential for all these missile systems and radars we've depleted; and
5. There's no credible fear of a military invasion of Taiwan. Or even a blockade. China's position is simply to leave the question unanswered, which is typically called strategic ambiguity in policy circles. That's the US position as well, officially. China believes the question will resolve all on its own at some point. That may take decades. There's no reason to do anything, particularly when most of the world already recognizes Taiwan as Chinese territory.
Also, China simply does not have the military to invade Taiwan over 100 miles of open ocean. This would likely require half a million to more than a million troops. The amphibious capability simply doesn't exist. Nor does maintaining the supply lines to maintain that. This is also the issue with any invasion of Iran, btw. It's impossible.
So why are we spending so much time drumming up fear of something that doesn't benefit China at all and is impossible to carry out? That question should lead you to the true motive: American imperial interests and the continued sale of arms.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_China
The USA will not really defend Taiwan anyway. Perhaps they may send some ships or airplanes but even that attempt at show of force will quickly collapse when Beijing increases pressure.
The only thing Beijing can not control is what Taiwan does and invading an island is always difficult. Also Taiwan needs a nuclear arsenal just as Israel has; Japan too, Canada and the EU as well. The days where the big countries abuse the smaller ones are over - we all can see this past the point of Putin starting his genocide against Ukraine. His next step of escalation will be mass mobilization; that's why his propaganda department already now calls the "special military operation" (which it never was) a war (which it always was from the get-go, but now he wants to send more of his slaves to die for him and his oligarch-bros).
3 generations of wealth poured into the most expensive military in recorded history - the reason that we don't have health care, clean energy, decent social safety nets and so many other things... and they can't even control a small stretch of water. What a waste.
>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.
That quite a bit less of an issue than the headline implies.
I'm always confused by prices of "highly regulated" goods in the United States.
When I get a $150,000 bill for a 15-minute hand-reconstruction surgery, how much of that bill is the total margin vs self cost? And how much of that is warranted / acceptable?
When a single Tomahawk missile bills the taxpayer $3,600,000, how much of that bill is the total margin? When I say "total margin", I mean not just the margin of the company that builds the Tomahawk itself, but the margins of all the components that were used in it -- every last bolt and every ounce of aluminum.
Not an American but live here.
But I don’t understand the fixation of US in middle east theatre. With the abundance of onshore oil through fracking revolution, presumably US doesn’t need to police the Middle East. The president himself said US doesn’t need their oil.
So what is this conflict all about? Is there bigger geopolitical price tag attached to victory in Iran? Or US is just besieged by corruption to the extent campaign finding from Israel lobby as they say dictated much of the foreign policy than national interest?
It’s just baffling and public seems largely fine with this with the lack of widespread protest that this should have caused (vaguely remember living across the bridge from Michigan all the protests there post Iraq war).
"There's no such thing as public opinion, merely published opinion". While on the one hand we should never discount the impact of incompetence, gross negligence, or deliberate mismanagement there's a reason this story is circulating. For the most-dominant military power in the world to "whoopsy" run out of weapons because of a low-stakes engagement isn't readily believable.
Suspicious me likens it to the supposed "water shortage deception" at Midway in WW2 https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2024/december/bat...
Slightly concerned that there could be an unreported tit-for-tat. China "allegedly" arming/equipping Iran to perhaps the USA coverty planting unbalancing arms and equipment to Taiwan. The Ukraine (and Iran?) theater has shown how drone warfare has changed the game. A nation without a navy can now inexpensively counter a nation with one (ongoing 2-for-2 at the moment).
That's the one glaring weakness of relying too heavily on missiles. They are expensive and difficult to manufacture. And they have a limited shelf life, making stockpiles also expensive
In previous conflicts the US military could get a lot done with bombs, but that's risky if you can't get air superiority and take out all enemy anti-air systems. Which is more difficult against an enemy who can shoot at your air bases and aircraft carriers. But those previous conflicts might have contributed to a false sense of security about required missile stockpiles
The "drill here and drill now" crowd doesn't understand the concept of managing limited expendable resources?? Say it ain't so!
Did the US just have the same fate as Russia where they where feared for their military until they used it?
North Korea has a bunch they're willing to sell. Russia is buying already so get 'em while they're hot.
I have been vaguely watching the Ukraine conflict over the past few years. From my distant and zero experience observations, it seems like missiles are extremely effective BUT also extremely limited. So you blow up that one building or SAM you targeted. Well done. What about the other 10,000 static targets? What about the guys with FPV drones and shoulder-launched anti-air now inside the rubble of the building you just destroyed? Send another XX-million USD missile to blow up the building you already blew up?
Feels like a determined adversary who is not easily cowed with a quick bit of "shock and awe" and armed with cheap, mobile winged/quad drones and man-portable guided anti-air/-tank missiles has totally changed the equation. Expensive limited missiles/planes/tanks/ships in smaller numbers seem kinda limited in their ability to get results in today's battlefield where there are FPV drones literally at every turn, and can be operated from literally a hole in the ground 15km away by people who aren't about to easily surrender.
It feels somewhat like the US doctrine has been to start with a "hit 'em hard" opening salvo of cruise/ballistic missiles and rockets etc and hope for immediate surrender. So far the lesson from Ukraine and Iran seems to be expect a big wave first attack or two and if you survive that initial push then suddenly the big super-power has no more cards left to play and it's down to men on the ground with hand-held weapons and drones. I wonder if people will look back at this era as a "WW1 moment" where the old ways of battle suddenly looked hopelessly out of date.
US apologists thought this is Hollywood. That Iron man and Thor will fly down from the sky.
Instead we saw videos after videos of Iranian missiles rain down from the sky.
There is a reason distributed systems are resilient. Iran's military doctrine of decentralized mosaic has proven to be a masterclass in military organization.
What's stunning is that there doesn't seem to be a single way in which the United States has come out ahead on this conflict.
We have
* Established that US zero ability or will to protect it's 'allies' in region beyond Israel.
* Permanently ceded de facto control over the straits of Hormuz to Iran
* Significantly strengthened the hardliners in the Iranian regime and cleared the way for them to have absolute power by eliminating all moderates
* Spiked inflation at home and doubled down on pissing off pretty much every single country except Russia by heaping sky rocketing energy costs on them
* Exploded the myth of US military superiority with US warplanes unable to approach Iran and the carrier groups unable to go anywhere near the straits.
And to think we got this in exchange for spending more on our military than the next few countries combined, and the military is asking for 1.5 Trillion more to continue to fight this war.
All of this to get to a point where we are negotiating a deal which is worse than what we already had with the JCPOA.
I think we will look back on this as the US version of the Suez crisis, the beginning of the end of the US empire.
That's hard to believe. US with it's military spending should be able to join two large scale conflicts at the same time, not to have problem with a one minor conflict.
>The U.S. Army has used up
So not the US. There is also the Navy, Air Force etc
Borderline clickbait
A more technical source:
https://www.militarytimes.com/industry/techwatch/2026/08/04/...
It might actually be for the best to stress the system in this way. It's not practical to keep a military based only around "stockpiles" that you're scared to use up. Modern combat looks like long wars of attrition where two countries compete to see who can burn through more missiles so you need to keep the actual supply chain active.
Hopefully they're able to learn lessons from Ukraine as well and pivot towards cheaper missiles and autonomous vehicles
> “U.S. has used…”
Missing the ‘has’ part for “present perfect tense”, e.g. “a past action with present relevance”.
In an ongoing war.
Anyone have insight into the overlap of techies and armchair military experts? Every thread like this ends up overflowing with comments like "Let me explain to you what's really happening..."
This article seems strange to me talking about the lack of ATACMS mattering for a war against China. The publicly available range of the ATACMS is 300 km. Seems to me an ATACMS could not reach China from American bases in Japan, South Korea or the Philippines. The only place you could launch an ATACMS from to hit China would be Taiwan. But Taiwan is so small and likely so well covered by Chinese air defenses that I don't think ATACMS would be that effective there.
Goes to show every army does the same: they make, especially the lower echelons, largely correct predictions of future conflicts. Then they refuse to prepare for them.
The more things change.
The title does not follow from the stated facts. At most one could say that the US Army has used "virtually all" of its long-range munitions. But the war in Iran is mainly prosecuted by the US Air Force and the US Navy, not by the US Army. Is it possible that the USAF and US Navy also used most of their long range munitions? Maybe, but on that the Reuters report does not have anything new compared to guesses by everyone else.
What is there even to say about this? Where does one even begin?
Iwould fire more long-range precision missiles but Iran out.
The headline is inaccurate, as the article actually says that the US Army has used nearly all of its long-range precision missiles, referring to ATACMS and PCM.
First, those are short- to medium-range weapons.
Second, the USAF and USN hold most of the US's long-range precision weaponry, the only real exception being the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW), which is not yet fielded.
Wild how it only took 2 years of a dementia ridden corpse king to fundamentally gut America's global power indefinitely
> Analysts say such weapons – which cost over $1 million each – would also be important in any conflict with China.
Said without context, there are not very many places close to China where these could be fired from, so I'm not so sure how useful they would really be in any South China Sea hot wars
> A fourth person familiar with the matter said that while Central Command — which oversees U.S. forces in the Middle East — has nearly used up the land-based missiles it had before the war began, it has been able to reload from U.S. military supplies elsewhere in the world.
The title seems fairy inaccurate
If I was an ex KGB man running the rump of an ex empire, I'd be thinking of ways of disarming the strongest military in NATO. "Sure go ahead invade Iran, we are so impressed with your leader we wouldn't dare do anything to dissuade you."
Not sure why anyone has a taste for the kind of butch, chest-pounding performative foreign policy we have these days. Not only does it not work, it's dangerous to national security.
I disagree with the war in Iran but this is likely mostly a huge issue for ukraine, who heavily relies on donated arms like the ATACMS from the United States.
How is this not hidden even after 9 hours? The article vs the title is a crystal clear case of clickbait (or as the kids say these days: engagement farming).
Does this mean that from now on bombings will happen with dumb bombs and that we can expect way more Iranian casualties? Otherwise this seems incorrect.
Probably needed an excuse to rotate our stock out.
With stories like this you always have to ask “Who are the sources?”
“People who are familiar with this matter” is doing a lot of work.
This reeks of laundering lies.
And we've advertised it to the entire world. And we've destroyed our economy. And we've further isolated ourselves from the world, culturally, politically, and economically.
Good job everyone with the voting. All those people voted for "let's make things universally worse for everyone except billionaires in America".
This is already the lifeline Europe is using to save its auto industry from the electric... the US is next. Just need to open up competitive bidding for the production of these components. Licensing patriot production to Ukraine will be a good start... S. Korea next
A lot of the problem is with the current commander in chief's not very good strategy. Iran is huge and populous and would be very expensive to occupy with boots on the ground so no one really wants to go there. Trump thought he could just bomb their military assets and government and things would all be ok but the Iranians have been planning for that for ages and have everything distributed, duplicated and protected. A more normal leader might consult with allies who have been dealing with Iran for decades and make a coherent plan but he ignores them, tariffs them and threatens their territories. I'm not sure how it's supposed to work. He could launch 100% of the US's missiles at Iran and still not achive much.
To no farking effect - Iran is still as bellicose as ever.