Friday, February 17, 2017

U.S. Military Running Out Of Bombs And Other Munitions In The War Against The Islamic State

Senior Airman Daniel Stehley, of the 20th Equipment Maintenance Squadron munitions flight, spray paints build codes on inert guided bomb units after helping assemble each weapon at Shaw Air Force Base, S.C., on Feb. 27, 2012. Senior Airman Kenny Holston, U.S. Air Force

U.S. News and World Report: U.S. Raiding Worldwide Weapons Stockpiles for ISIS War

The intensity of the ISIS campaign has required the Pentagon to draw from its stores around the globe.

Shortages of bombs and other munitions have forced the U.S. military to pull weapons from headquarters in other parts of the world to sustain its 2 1/2-year-old air campaign against the Islamic State group, despite billions of dollars invested in increasing the stockpiles.

"We are concerned, worldwide, when looking at ammunition needs," Deborah James, the former head of the Air Force, said in an interview shortly before stepping down from her position last month. "We've been expending so many in the Middle East we've had to borrow in some cases from other areas."

"What we want to do is replenish," James says.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: Oh oh. I guess I was right when I explained this .... U.S. A-10s Used Depleted Uranium Rounds On Two Airstrikes In Syria In 2015 (February 16, 2017).


B.Poster said...

So much for the ridiculous idea of the United States as some sort of "super power" or "hyper power." Of course those who are paying attention and not prone to ignore reality already knew this.

"Super power", "hyper power" or whatever were this not so serious the joke would be funny. Given the severity of the situation, it's not funny. At this point in time, the US military would be hard pressed if not totally incapable of defending the Us mainland from an invasion. US military commitments are completely out of sorts with US military capabilities. It's long past time for a complete reorientation of US policy on all levels.

Reality is not necessarily one's friend. She is what she is. Ignore her or act contrary to her and she can and will b!tch slap those who ignore her or act contrary to her.

Caecus said...

Well you're at least lucky that no nation on earth is capable of organizing a trans-pacific amphibious assault of the US mainland and keep it supplied

James said...

" no nation on earth is capable of organizing a trans-pacific amphibious assault of the US mainland and keep it supplied" you're right. But nothing lasts forever.
The US relies so heavily on trade that I wonder just how well we'd do not just with the loss of a given market, but with denial of sea passage, if only in certain areas.

B.Poster said...


I'm not sure your assertion is true. In fact, based upon my research which is easily findable on the internet I don't think it is true. Also, US government projections on this sort of thing tend to be overly Pollyannnish. As such, if I'm a military planner my working assumption would be that the major powers can do what you suggest they can't and can keep it supplied and act accordingly.

This does NOT mean you do not challenge them when and where it is crucial to our interests to do so. Underestimating an adversary or potential adversary coupled with overestimating your own is a recipe for death actually.

Even if we assume you are right which I think unlikely, as James so correctly points out nothing lasts forever. As for this reliance on trade, very respectfully James I would call it "dependence upon others for things we need."

As such, even if someone is right about the US being "lucky" no one can do what Caecus suggests, which again I think a very dubious assumption that military planners would be downright stupid to act under meaning no one any disrespect we would suffer significant loss of markets that would be VERU substantial and loss of sea passage in a number of areas which I think would be very significant as nations we thought were our allies would quickly line up behind the invader at the first sign of success.

As I've stated here and elsewhere, the main threats to US national security are as follows. 1.) An all out nuclear attack by Russia. Or arsenal is old and badly in need up modernization and upgrades. Reports have shown the people responsible for this have suffered from low morale and poor training. These factors perhaps in concert with cyber attacks may render any response by us problematic at best. 2.)An attack by Islamic terrorists using "dirty bombs" and very likely suitcase nuclear weapons detonated simultaneously across multiple metropolitan areas. 3.) An invasion of the US mainland by Russia, China, both Russia and China, or Russia, China, and some combination of their allies.

In terms of the most dangerous threat it is obviously scenario 1. In terms of most likely scenario as of today, it is scenario 2. In either case, the type of amphibious assault mentioned isn't necessary. Even in the case of scenario 3 due to America's lax immigration policies, numerous nations south of our borders who would gladly harm us, and poor border security much of any invasion force is likely already here. Even in the case of 1 and 2, the necessary forces are probably already here necessary to commit any kind of sabatoge necessary. As such, the type of sustained amphibious assault at the beginning may not be necessary assuming it isn't possible by our adversaries and potential adversaries which respectfully I think a dubious assumption that neither military planners nor POTUS should assume. I'd suggest assume the attack can take place at any time and act accordingly.

It's never a good idea to rely on "luck." In any event, if/when the attack does come, expect the United States to be completely and totally alone. NO ONE is going to offer us ANY assistance. Not only will these so called "allies" be gone like the wind but many of them will line up alongside the invaders.

As such, we should be prepared for the attack, be ready to respond, but in our position it's probably not going to be prudent to take actions that someone might deem hostile for no good reason that serves our national interests or defense needs.

B.Poster said...

I meant don't take actions that someone might deem hostile against anyone for no good reason that doesn't serve our national interest. The sentence structure on the previous post was horrible. I apologize.

Caecus said...

The obvious major problem for the Chinese and Russians is that their combined fleets are both outnumbered and of lower quality than the U.S 3rd and 7th Fleets which include 5 Carrier Strike Groups. The Russians only have 5 destroyers and a cruiser deployed in the Pacific (excluding subs). The Chinese navy is improving rapidly, but their objective is to project power in the South China Sea. Engaging the Chinese would be dangerous in that area, but once the Chinese enter the Pacific and head towards the Western coast of the United States they are in big trouble. It's a simple fact that neither the Russians nor the Chinese have a "blue water navy". And I won't bother mentioning the extensive problems linked with sending the millions of men, tens of thousands of armoured vehicles and artillery pieces, anti-air systems, the ammunition, rations, hospital ships, tankers, that would be needed to even establish a bridgehead in the United States.

Operation Overlord was a massive undertaking for the U.S in WWII, and that was across a channel only a couple of miles wide, that was highly vulnerable to weather conditions and German intelligence, and was possible only because the UK was available as a base across the Atlantic. Had the UK fallen to the Nazis I don't see how the U.S could have landed in Europe at all.