The U.S. Military Might Not Have Enough Missiles for a War with China

Is the United States Running Out of Missiles? Another day and another problem with the U.S. defense industrial base.

You probably realize that all of these munitions and missiles going to Ukraine during its war against Russia have stretched the American military arsenal thin. After assisting Kyiv for the last few years, some in Washington and those in the Navy brass are worried.

What if not enough supplies and munitions were available if war commenced in the Indo-Pacific?

War Has Cropped Up Everywhere, It Seems

It’s not just Ukraine. The Middle East has been problematic for supplies. The Iranian-backed Houthi rebels often fire their own missiles against shipping transiting the Red Sea. The U.S. Navy has stepped into the region to counter-act the Houthis.

This means interceptor missiles from the Aegis Combat System have been deployed repeatedly. Ship-to-shore munitions have also been fired at Houthi positions. This has been a costly campaign that has made commanders and logisticians wonder if there are enough missiles left over for an East Asian contingency.

What Are Commanders Saying?

U.S. Navy Admiral Samuel Paparo, head of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, was direct about his concerns during a speech on November 19 at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington, D.C.

He was asked during Q&A if the United States could handle supplying Ukraine and the Middle East with weapons and missiles without American supplies running dry.

“Up to this year, where most of the employment of weapons were really artillery pieces and short-range weapons, I had said not at all,” he explained. “But now, with some of the Patriots that have been employed, some of the air-to-air missiles that have been employed, it is now eating into [our] stocks. … and to say otherwise would be dishonest.”

The United States has run through numerous air defense interceptors and strike weapons in the Middle East. Defensive NASAMs and offensive HIMARS have been used in Ukraine to good effect, but this is crimping supplies in the United States that would normally be saved for the Indo-Pacific, especially if there is an intervention in a Chinese invasion or blockade against Taiwan.

Indo-Pacific Command Is Getting the Shaft

“If there are x [munitions in the] inventory of the United States of America, which is fungible across all theaters, that can be applied equally across any contingency, … none are reserved for any particular theater,” expending them elsewhere “inherently, it imposes costs on the readiness of America to respond in the Indo-Pacific region,” Paparo said.

This is not good news for the U.S. military and its allies in East Asia. Warfare is about logistics and re-supply. If the cupboard is not full, this is problematic for war fighters. The conflict, should it arise against China, would require numerous attack and air defense missiles and interceptors. That is the 21^st century way of war – to fight with missiles. Now, it is not clear if the U.S. defense industry can keep up.

Leaders Who Are Fighting With U.S. Assistance Want More and More Weapons

One idea is to produce smaller-sized munitions faster while continuing to focus on big-ticket items. But try telling that to Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky who just got permission to use long-range strikes with ATACMS missiles deep into Russian territory. Or try explaining that to allied shippers who are in the crosshairs of Houthi missiles. Then attempt to reassure the Israelis who are fighting against Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran and who depend on the United States for re-supply. They all want major end items, not smaller-grade munitions.

Few Predicted World War Three

Most American battle planners did not foresee just how long the war would last in Ukraine and the depth to which the Ukrainians relied on the United States for munitions. The Houthi problem could not have been predicted, and few thought that in 2024, Israel would be fighting for its survival and be dependent on U.S. assistance.

Most American military personnel and Congressional members point to 2027 as the year China’s Xi Jinping would order an incursion or blockade against Taiwan. That is only a few years away and the U.S. industrial base would have to kick it into high gear to keep up. This means that lawmakers must earmark even more money for long and short-range anti-ship and surface-to-surface missiles, plus defensive interceptors.

It is not clear with military budgets approaching a trillion dollars a year if this can happen indefinitely. The Americans have always planned for a two-front war – one in Europe and one in Asia. But there was always questions about logistics. Now, we are looking at the possibility of a three-front war, and this is unsustainable. The Pentagon will have to adapt, and it must solve this problem soon. The incoming Donald Trump administration has not commented on shortages of munitions.

But the Trump defense team will try to seek cease-fires in Ukraine and in the Israeli conflicts in the Middle East while it prepares for an aggressive China. Let’s hope they don’t wait too long to address these logistical problems.

About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood

Brent M. Eastwood, PhD is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: a Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for U.S. Senator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former U.S. Army Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.