2 hours ago, JensenZ said:

Ok, so... China, Russia, Iran, Korea, and other "friendly" nations get accurate and up to date information about the US weapons stockpile by clicking the CSIS link above? How easy could it be?

They all get information from lots of different sources.

Then they do their own math.

Assuming our arsenal is so dangerously low, will the Democrats agree to increase defense spending to restock, or will they leave the country defenseless to spite Trump?

10 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Irrelevant, as the USA has no enemies. The thought of invading the USA doesn't cross anyone's mind, now or ever.

Well donny boy is doing his best to make a bunch of enemies,

And nobody has to physically attack the excited states of america

A massive sell off of Treasury bills would do the job quite nicely

7 hours ago, Lacessit said:

If the USA has no enemies, why does it act as if it is surrounded by them?

What borders on Insanity?

Canada and Mexico

Always conserve your ammo you never know whe you might need it. Don't be an Animal.

12 hours ago, bannork said:

The United States has exhausted vast quantities of its most advanced weapons during Donald Trump’s war with Iran, raising urgent concerns over military readiness and the cost of prolonged conflict.

New figures suggest America’s arsenal has been pushed to its limits, with replenishment now measured in years, not months.

Meanwhile, our friend Xi is having a ball.

3 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Meanwhile, our friend Xi is having a ball.

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake" Sun Tzu or Napoleon, take your pick.

17 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake" Sun Tzu or Napoleon, take your pick.

SunZi, or Sun Zi, take your pick.

Wade-Giles is very outdated, you know.....

9 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Assuming our arsenal is so dangerously low, will the Democrats agree to increase defense spending to restock, or will they leave the country defenseless to spite Trump?

Its probably more of a case of production capacity rather than lacking the moolah. For instance, it takes 24 months to build a single Tomahawk missile. A current use rate, 7 years to replenish the stockpile. Product rates are about 1000 per year, can increase to 2500 a year. There are quite a few rate limiting steps. First a foremost, the hardened electronics; there aren't many manufacturers with this capability. The energetics part is a tricky step.

One outcome might be that the Tomahawks aren't replaced like for like. Its a Rolls Royce solution when all that is needed is a Rover.

The Tomahawks were supposed to have a 30 year lifespan, with a 15 year recertification refresh. Most of the current stockpile was built 2000-2010. Come 2030, they'll be thinking about a replacement anyhow, and so will start scrapping or giving away those end of life weapons; this is what the UK did with the Storm Shadows and NLAWs given to Ukaine. These were of such an age, its unlikely the UK forces would actually use them. The NLAWs would be replaced by new build NLAWs. The Storm Shadows are due to be retired in 2028, to be replaced by MBDA Stratus family missiles.

Navy Tomahawks are due to be replaced in 2028; the Navy is still deciding which offering. But basically the costs of these are already baked into defence budgets. The weapons being used now were paid for 30 years ago or even 40 years ago, largely by long dead taxpayers. Defence capital spending now is on procurement for a war 10-15 years away.

In GW1, about 15% of the Tomahawk inventory was used. In the currently conflict, about 40-60% have been used,

The US made the choice to attack Iran now, and in the manner it has done. If and when China attacks Taiwan, then the US will have available what it has available at that time, and its response will be calibrated accordingly.

At the end of the Vietnam war, US stocks of artillery and air dropped bombs were seriously depleted. Stocks were not fully replenished until the mid-80s. But that replenishment wasn't like for like; the replacement bombs were a much newer design.

There will be no danger of the US being unable to defend it self, something that seems to frighten you right now. Current defence spending is far in excess of what is needed to defend the United States. You have repeatedly complained about US bases overseas, and the expense of operating those to no apparent benefit to the United States. So obviously you are in favour of significant cuts in the defence budget. Current defence spending is based on US foreign policy requirements, which are extra-territorial. When the US fired dozens of Tomahawk missiles at camps in Nigeria associated with attacks on small village chapels, did you feel that was necessary for the defence of Townville USA?

With that in mind, did you feel really scared in the late 70s and early 80s?

3 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

Its probably more of a case of production capacity rather than lacking the moolah. For instance, it takes 24 months to build a single Tomahawk missile. A current use rate, 7 years to replenish the stockpile. Product rates are about 1000 per year, can increase to 2500 a year. There are quite a few rate limiting steps. First a foremost, the hardened electronics; there aren't many manufacturers with this capability. The energetics part is a tricky step.

One outcome might be that the Tomahawks aren't replaced like for like. Its a Rolls Royce solution when all that is needed is a Rover.

The Tomahawks were supposed to have a 30 year lifespan, with a 15 year recertification refresh. Most of the current stockpile was built 2000-2010. Come 2030, they'll be thinking about a replacement anyhow, and so will start scrapping or giving away those end of life weapons; this is what the UK did with the Storm Shadows and NLAWs given to Ukaine. These were of such an age, its unlikely the UK forces would actually use them. The NLAWs would be replaced by new build NLAWs. The Storm Shadows are due to be retired in 2028, to be replaced by MBDA Stratus family missiles.

Navy Tomahawks are due to be replaced in 2028; the Navy is still deciding which offering. But basically the costs of these are already baked into defence budgets. The weapons being used now were paid for 30 years ago or even 40 years ago, largely by long dead taxpayers. Defence capital spending now is on procurement for a war 10-15 years away.

In GW1, about 15% of the Tomahawk inventory was used. In the currently conflict, about 40-60% have been used,

The US made the choice to attack Iran now, and in the manner it has done. If and when China attacks Taiwan, then the US will have available what it has available at that time, and its response will be calibrated accordingly.

At the end of the Vietnam war, US stocks of artillery and air dropped bombs were seriously depleted. Stocks were not fully replenished until the mid-80s. But that replenishment wasn't like for like; the replacement bombs were a much newer design.

There will be no danger of the US being unable to defend it self, something that seems to frighten you right now. Current defence spending is far in excess of what is needed to defend the United States. You have repeatedly complained about US bases overseas, and the expense of operating those to no apparent benefit to the United States. So obviously you are in favour of significant cuts in the defence budget. Current defence spending is based on US foreign policy requirements, which are extra-territorial. When the US fired dozens of Tomahawk missiles at camps in Nigeria associated with attacks on small village chapels, did you feel that was necessary for the defence of Townville USA?

With that in mind, did you feel really scared in the late 70s and early 80s?

So, you think the Democrats will hold the country hostage? I agree.

Donald Trump has a long long track record of spending other people's money wastefully, not paying his bills and then walking away with a fair chunk of the loot. Nothing new here. Anybody who did any cursory research could have told you what was going to happen.

17 hours ago, 3NUMBAS said:

They need to test new weapons on the battle field before they’re obsolete,they have a shelf life,and need improvement anyway

And another strw floated downstream, @3NUMBAS clinging on for dear life!

Are US weapons stockpiles public information?

58 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So, you think the Democrats will hold the country hostage? I agree.

<deleted> off, I never said that. Go and do one. I was trying to engage in honest debate, by providing insight into defence procurement. You were reverting to type, by acting like a w anker.

You have a serious <deleted> lack of reading comprehension.

2 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

<deleted> off, I never said that. Go and do one. I was trying to engage in honest debate, by providing insight into defence procurement. You were reverting to type, by acting like a w anker.

You have a serious <deleted> lack of reading comprehension.

Sorry, guess I hit a nerve, poor dude.

51 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Are US weapons stockpiles public information?

Partially. eg Budget documents showing procurement totals, Congressional reports on on munition shortfalls. Additionally, there are disclosures the US is obliged to make because of International Treaty commitments. Otherwise aggregated, or with a lag. The skill of the analyst is to use alternative data sets to dig through the numbers. Foies r instance, do you think anyone has any idea how many surgeries are carried out in the US? The American government doesn't know, so they publish stats which are basically an educated guess based on surveying 16 states and extrpolating. The insurance companies don't know because none of them covers the entire US. But analysts can get a very good idea, and we know that their estimates are good, because the SEC filings confirm the estimates.

Similarly defence analysts use all sorts of sources to estimate things. eg. Raytheon has to disclose quite a lot of what they do in filings., and you can quite easily figure out production rates to their only customer from that.

In Ukraine, UK MOD estimates and UKR MOD estimates for Russian losses are fairly close, and their was good concordance, for equipment losses with the sheer amount of photographic evidence and geolocation data available online. Over time, we have found these estimates, for casualties, are actually pretty good, because we can now see things like Russian death notices, the payment of widow pensions, and even things like public hospital tendering (Russia has anti-corruption laws that mean all pubic hospital tenders are on line), and these support the analysts original estimates.

For the big stuff, there isn't much that is secret.

6 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

Partially. eg Budget documents showing procurement totals, Congressional reports on on munition shortfalls. Additionally, there are disclosures the US is obliged to make because of International Treaty commitments. Otherwise aggregated, or with a lag. The skill of the analyst is to use alternative data sets to dig through the numbers. Foies r instance, do you think anyone has any idea how many surgeries are carried out in the US? The American government doesn't know, so they publish stats which are basically an educated guess based on surveying 16 states and extrpolating. The insurance companies don't know because none of them covers the entire US. But analysts can get a very good idea, and we know that their estimates are good, because the SEC filings confirm the estimates.

Similarly defence analysts use all sorts of sources to estimate things. eg. Raytheon has to disclose quite a lot of what they do in filings., and you can quite easily figure out production rates to their only customer from that.

In Ukraine, UK MOD estimates and UKR MOD estimates for Russian losses are fairly close, and their was good concordance, for equipment losses with the sheer amount of photographic evidence and geolocation data available online. Over time, we have found these estimates, for casualties, are actually pretty good, because we can now see things like Russian death notices, the payment of widow pensions, and even things like public hospital tendering (Russia has anti-corruption laws that mean all pubic hospital tenders are on line), and these support the analysts original estimates.

For the big stuff, there isn't much that is secret.

So, it's not public information, thanks.

18 hours ago, bannork said:

The United States has exhausted vast quantities of its most advanced weapons during Donald Trump’s war with Iran

No it hasn’t since the pentagon insures enough stock to handle all potential fronts not to mention ramped up manufacturing. Besides that fact that munition ordnances stock is classified, which makes your post lacking any credibility and not well thought out. But it sure makes a feel good for the haters.

Edited April 26Apr 26 by novacova

11 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Assuming our arsenal is so dangerously low, will the Democrats agree to increase defense spending to restock, or will they leave the country defenseless to spite Trump?

Are you afraid China is going to invade the USA?

22 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Are you afraid China is going to invade the USA?

No, they need to the ammo to defend Europe.

25 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Are you afraid China is going to invade the USA?

The Chinese are a lot smarter than that.

They'll just watch the US self-destruct under an increasing, unsustainable debt load.

6 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The Chinese are a lot smarter than that.

They'll just watch the US self-destruct under an increasing, unsustainable debt load.

China also has a debt problem.

18 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Irrelevant, as the USA has no enemies. The thought of invading the USA doesn't cross anyone's mind, now or ever.

Is that supposed to be sarcasm?

11 minutes ago, Effective altruism said:

China also has a debt problem.

$19 trillion vs $39 trillion.

4 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

$19 trillion vs $39 trillion.

100% of GDP vs 130% of GDP. assuming China is honest

Such a dumb war, and no end in sight. None of the objectives have been achieved. None. Dumb Don. Very, very dumb Don.

Trump says there’s a new regime that’s easier to deal with, but actually it’s the same regime but worse — run by hardened, fanatical generals. Iran has not turned over its enriched uranium, and negotiations are touch-and-go.

The Strait of Hormuz, which Trump keeps insisting is open, is closed. Trump is blockading the Iranian blockade.

When he was running in 2016, Trump deemed the invasion of Iraq “a big, fat mistake” that destabilized the Middle East and cost too much, in money and lives.

But, seduced by the detestable Bibi, he got suckered into the blood and sand. Unlike W., who had the good grace to trump up a case for war, Trump let Bibi lead him by the nose into this one, blowing off Congress, our allies and many furious MAGA acolytes.

His staff is resigned to a midterm electoral disaster brought on by higher gas prices and a lack of focus on the economy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/25/opinion/trump-iran-war-israel.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

$19 trillion vs $39 trillion.

China has problems.

https://www.wsj.com/world/china/china-economy-excess-debt-gdp-46c69585?st=PGf1Dv&reflink=article_copyURL_share

The yanks are so dumb they do not realise its there Tax dollars

Every country has 'problems'

It's a matter of relativity plus who's got a plan and abilities to carry out the plan.

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

100% of GDP vs 130% of GDP. assuming China is honest

The debt problem that is a threat to the U.S. economy is not the Federal debt but that of the Non Bank Loan Sector…. It’s unregulated and it is far from healthy.