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.
The degree to which the military is running out of ATACMS and Precision Strike Missiles has not been previously reported.
The long-range munitions are an important part the military’s arsenal, allowing accurate strikes from a safe distance. U.S.-supplied ATACMS have played a key role in the war in Ukraine, allowing Ukrainian forces to attack targets inside Russia. The PrSM is a newer, more advanced generation that will replace the ATACMS, which have a shorter range.
Why do I have a terrible sneaking suspicion, propaganda or not, that this will be used as an excuse.
Rumors are floating that Russia is toying with making a move on Poland, or perhaps a smaller NATO member. One theory is they’re just posturing to detract from the situation with Ukraine and appear strong. Despite this, Ukraine relies heavily on assistance from EU/NATO countries for supplies/money. Even mildly credible threats may force some of those countries to scale back some assistance and focus on internal efforts, which impacts Ukraine’s supply chain.
How does this tie in with the US? If a NATO country is attacked and goes Article 5…the US might try to use this as an excuse for lack of significant aid.
The source of those rumors . . . .is apparently the US.
Why would Russia attack Poland, to widen a war that is already a quagmire?
I suspect that the US under Trump not coming to help if a smaller NATO members was attacked by Russia is pretty much considered a realistic scenario in the military planing in Europe for such an event.
Europe’s sudden desire for greater military investment started with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine but really took of when Trump became POTUS and started his adversarial posture towards Europe (most notably on Greenland), cutting down on help to Ukraine and general militaristic dick-waving.
I think the plan is for Europe to face Russia in a united way and, if the US actually helps in that, that would be nice but not critical.
Judging by the situation in Ukraine if Russia faced a united Europe even without the US it would be crushed no matter how many millions of conscripts they threw at it in human waves.
IMHO the critical part here is a united Europe directly engaging Russia militarily (rather than merely helping with weapons) if Russia attacks an European nation, no matter how small or peripheral, not the participation of the US military.
When the stakes are high and the costs of it real and significant (even just economically, as we saw with the delays in stopping importing Russian fossil fuels when Russia invaded Ukraine) Europe has trouble becoming united in an expedient way.
I think that’s not the correct lesson. Ukraine, and now Iran, have shown that like in WWI the defenders in 21st century wars have incredible advantages. And that you need to be able to produce drones in massive numbers.
Neither of those favors Europe attacking Russia. Who, you might want to ALSO remember, is a fucking nuclear power.
If you’re so eager to go fight Russia, go sign up in Ukraine. But it’s a very bad idea for Europe to do so.
It’s been no secret that the orange turd has wanted to pull the US out of NATO. It’s also no secret that when he got back into the white house several European countries began to strengthen themselves and each other in the event that does happen.