U.S. used 'virtually all' of its long-range precision missiles during Iran war
A Reuters report that the U.S. Army has used “virtually all” of its long‑range precision missiles in the ongoing war with Iran sparks concern over military readiness and strategy. Commenters debate whether the headline overstates the problem, noting the Air Force and Navy still hold major stockpiles, but broadly agree the campaign has exposed limits in U.S. industrial capacity, overreliance on expensive stand‑off weapons, and poor political planning. Many see the conflict as a strategic setback that weakens deterrence against rivals like China, destabilizes energy markets, and delivers little tangible gain over previous diplomatic options such as the Iran nuclear deal.
Scope and Accuracy of “Used Up Missiles” Claim
- Several commenters say the headline is misleading: it’s the U.S. Army’s ground-launched ATACMS and PrSM that are “virtually all” used, not all U.S. long‑range precision missiles.
- These are short‑ to medium‑range weapons; most long‑range precision strike capability sits with the Air Force and Navy (Tomahawk, JASSM, etc.).
- Some note the article itself walks back the title (“much” vs “virtually all”) and relies on anonymous “people familiar,” prompting skepticism.
- Others point out Reuters and military-focused outlets echo the claim, and that senior officers have hinted at stockpile strain in congressional testimony.
Logistics, Industrial Capacity, and Stockpiles
- Broad agreement that precision missiles are expensive, slow to produce, and can’t be stockpiled indefinitely due to shelf life.
- One camp argues doctrine assumes short, intense use followed by a “war economy” ramp‑up, but Trump never declared war or prepared industry, so peacetime stockpiles were burned without resupply planning.
- Another camp contends the U.S. simply lacks the industrial base and workforce to scale production quickly after decades of offshoring; even with a “blank check,” ramp‑up would take years.
- There’s extended criticism of the U.S. military‑industrial complex: cost‑plus contracts, “Tiffany” weapons vs cheap mass production, and complex, overregulated supply chains.
Strategy, Effectiveness, and Changing Warfare
- Many see the Iran campaign as a strategic failure: heavy missile expenditure, limited results, Strait of Hormuz effectively in Iranian hands, and no clear path to “victory” without a ground invasion that is politically impossible.
- Commenters stress that stand‑off strikes were overused because leaders wanted to avoid U.S. casualties and captured pilots; that choice accelerated depletion.
- Several note Iran’s distributed, hardened infrastructure and cheap drones/missiles have blunted U.S. airpower and exposed limits of “shock and awe.”
- Drones and cheap precision fire are seen as fundamentally changing warfare; expensive platforms and small missile stockpiles look increasingly vulnerable.
Broader Geopolitical Implications
- Some argue the episode undercuts U.S. deterrence vs China and Russia and shows the U.S. cannot sustain a high‑intensity conflict near China’s shores.
- Others maintain U.S. forces remain uniquely capable but emphasize “power has limits” and that industrial scale now favors China.
- There’s debate over whether the U.S. “loses wars” (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, now Iran) vs “wins tactically but fails strategically.”
Politics, Motives, and Ethics
- Strong blame on the current administration for starting an unnecessary war, ignoring expert warnings, purging competent officers, and running the campaign for domestic optics and market manipulation.
- Multiple theories: distraction from Epstein files, serving Israeli and Gulf interests, boosting defense contractors, or tightening control over oil flows.
- Commenters highlight humanitarian and domestic opportunity costs: trillions on war vs health care, social programs, and clean energy; anger over civilian deaths and covert killings at sea.
- Some question why the U.S. public tolerates this and note propaganda, media capture, and declining trust in institutions.