The U.S. Ammo Shortage Is Worse Than You Think
42 points by Teever 2 days ago | 26 comments
  • mikestew 2 days ago |
  • pstuart 2 days ago |
    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...

    • bigfatkitten 2 days ago |
      A large part of the problem is that the defense procurement process is so burdensome, in the interests of appearing to ensure value for money, that suppliers must wade through years of bureaucracy before they see a dime.

      This is why a $700 printed circuit assembly for a weapon system sells for $50,000, and why investors discourage startups from chasing defense business.

  • theultdev 2 days ago |
    Kind of a nothing article. I think the title hinges on this once sentence:

    > 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.

    • bigyabai 2 days ago |
      Magazine depth is a matter of national security, you won't get close to the "actual amount" even with an insider leak.
      • theultdev 2 days ago |
        Yeah I realize that. I just don't see the point of the article then.

        They have NO information in it, purely speculation.

      • treetalker 2 days ago |
        Not to mention that all war is based on deception.
    • JoBrad 2 days ago |
      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.

      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.

  • readthenotes1 2 days ago |
    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.

    • rpcope1 2 days ago |
      Hopefully your question is sarcasm, as it should be obvious why this is a terrible idea on many fronts.

      In case it isn't, for starters, especially given the way the world seems to be changing these days, if you put all of your critical supplies in the hands of another nation, especially an adversary like China, you basically are at their beck and call when things get ugly. Even non-advesary states can either have regime change or just not want to deal with you, and all of a sudden everything is completely out of your control. Others basically own you at that point, which is obviously unacceptable from a defense or critical logistics standpoint.

      On a whole other level, it's incredibly immoral and stupid that we're ok with externalizing problems that labor and environmental standards protect. If you wouldn't accept having your kin or friends work in the sort of conditions you see in many exploitative "cheap labor" centers overseas so much so that it's codified in law, why is it OK to just pawn it off on another nation's people? If you wouldn't accept the environmental damage that other countries seem willing to inflict, why is it suddenly ok when laundered as free trade, especially given how concerned we are with the global reach of environmental problems. If there were ever an application for tariffs that made sense it would be to ding the shit out of products and services that come from states that don't meet minimum levels of labor and environmental law.

      The only reason we don't do this is that we're addicted to cheap shit and can't think more than maybe a year ahead.

      • gotwaz 2 days ago |
        Well read about the last years of the British Empire. They too spent a lot of time and energy giving speeches about what is "unacceptable" but that has nothing to do with what actually happened to the country after the empire wound down.
        • toomuchtodo 2 days ago |
          Paper tigers preach and bully because words are cheap, winners build. Americans who have only known unearned prosperity through historical inertia are in for a painful century.
    • theultdev 2 days ago |
      We do to some extent, but it's a national security issue to depend on it.

      Personally I buy IMI 5.56 ammo because it's cheap and good quality.

      I'm more concerned about civilians access to ammunition vs the government. I have no doubt they'll be able to get what they need.

  • ferryth 2 days ago |
  • rjsw 2 days ago |
    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.

  • queenkjuul 2 days ago |
    Can't help but wonder what the fuck the trillions of dollars has been doing all these years if not buying weapons

    Good to know the US can't even get its military right, though.

    • MrDrMcCoy 11 hours ago |
      The problem is precisely that those trillions have been spent buying "better" weapons. What they should have been spent on is factories. All the lessons of WWII have been forgotten.
      • JoBrad 2 hours ago |
        I agree that the US is wildly overpaying for what it gets, but from what I can tell we are directing that money to US-based factories. Just because those factories are also producing improved weaponry doesn’t mean they can’t produce more basic ammo, albeit at lower volume. We don’t need full-scale production capacity when we’re not in a large-scale war.
  • lofaszvanitt 2 days ago |
    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.
    • rickydroll 2 days ago |
      I suspect it's because they know that shooting another human being does a great deal of mental damage to themselves, and they want to avoid that.
    • yorwba a day ago |
      It's called "suppressive fire": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressive_fire

      "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."

      • lofaszvanitt 21 hours ago |
        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.
  • analognoise 2 days ago |
    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.

    This person is an evil ghoul.

    • mritterhoff a day ago |
      Most Americans have some form of health insurance [1].

      I'd argue that my country is worth defending, despite its many flaws.

      1. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2025/demo/p60-28...

      • analognoise 19 hours ago |
        About 50,000 Americans die a year due to lack of health insurance. Estimates are about 25k in 2006 years to 60-80k now.

        Americans are more likely than any other nationality to see other Americans as bad, immoral: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2026/03/05/in-25-countr...

        At least Americans have mostly come to realize the problem is other Americans.

        It’s a little wild to run into someone willing to defend the place.

        • mritterhoff 30 minutes ago |
          You're moving the goalposts. There's tons we can do to improve US healthcare outcomes (we overspend compared to what we get [1]) by emulating what has succeeded in other countries. But that conversation and solution is different than "nobody has healthcare".

          As to defense, I live here, as do the majority of the people I love and like. It's in my interest to have my country continue to exist as a sovereign nation with the ability to defend itself from foreign adversaries.

          1. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy-vs-health...