> 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

I don't think so. This observation completely misses the root cause, and it ain't missiles.

Armed forces size their stockpiles in terms of their short term needs focused on rapid reaction and deterrence. The goal is to be able to react to immediate threats and then shift the economy to a war economy to supply the effort in economically efficient ways.

What failed this time is that the trump administration was hoping to attack Iran without having to declare war, effectively starting a war without preparing for the war.

The results are obvious: the peace time stockpile was depleted at a time where the country was not prepared to replenish it. Trump shifter the us armed forces to deplete their stockpile while avoiding the responsibility of supporting them in their mission by taking care of supplies.

And so they ran out of ammo.

There are further compounding factors such as a lack of plan and lack of exit strategy. But placing your military in a state where they spend their ammo without any plan to ressuply it... You will have the same problem if you replace hellfire missiles with sticks and stones.

▲

simonh 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Those are interesting points. The US military is optimised for limited strike "special military operations", which it does all the time, and deterrence. Neither of those require a super deep arsenal, just enough to complete a limited intervention, or blunt an initial assault. Initiating a long deep ongoing offensive campaign is a whole other thing the US never planned for.

	▲	locknitpicker 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Those are interesting points. The US military is optimised for limited strike "special military operations", which it does all the time, and deterrence. I don't think so. The US military still has the same Gulf War kind of punch. It's the same armed forces that supported multiple large scale military engagements and outright invasions without requiring changes to it's economy. But that requires preparation and planning. Trump did nothing of the sort, and forced the us military into an untenable position. The same armed forces that could easily occupy both Afghanistan and Iraq can't even support a limited engagement with Iraq until they started running out of ammo. That tells you everything about the level of planning that went into this mess.

▲

lowercased 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"...deplete their stockpile while avoiding the responsibility of supporting them in their mission by taking care of supplies."

And blames Biden for this mess. "Oh... the cupboards were bare when I came back...". If you KNEW you were running low on supplies, why start a war? There's enough general answers to this, all revolving around his immaturity, lack of intelligence and the cult around him - the truth is somewhere in the middle of all that...

▲

Yokolos 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This logic doesn't hold under closer scrutiny. The timeline to expand missile production is on the order of years. This isn't the 1940s anymore where you can convert every car factory into making tanks and missiles. The idea of a war economy is wildly outdated. Either you have enough stockpiled until your weapons manufacturers can scale their production, or you're just out of missiles. Being out after some weeks of a "military operation" is frankly a damning indictment of the US military's logistics and manufacturing.

	▲	locknitpicker 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> This logic doesn't hold under closer scrutiny. The timeline to expand missile production is on the order of years. You're missing the whole point. The point is not that missiles are easy to build. The point is that military interventions planned not only to prop up logistics but also to accommodate for supply constraints. There is no plan on earth that consists of firing a constant barrage of expensive missiles, and instead you have armed forces planning around using dumb and cheap alternatives that are easier to source and provision. And Trump did nothing of the sort. There was no plan, no exit strategy, nothing. Not even a war declaration to kickstart the country's logistics infrastructure. Of course ammo runs out if there is no plan to provision it. > This isn't the 1940s anymore where you can convert every car factory into making tanks and missiles. That's also another point you missed. Trump even failed to mobilize the infrastructure to supply with basic ordnance. There is no plan. Pay attention to what you are saying yourself: how do you start a war when you don't even secure your own supply needs for the first weeks of the engagement?