“No! No! It’s going to stiiiiiiimilate the ecooooonomy!” - neocon warmongers at every opportunity they get to “explain” how emptying our inventory is “good”.
I liked them claiming that the “old worn out stuff is being sent”.
And that’s not the case at all.
The biggest shortage is artillery ammo, but, the Euro's and South Koreans are ramping up fast. Given Western advantages in accuracy and targeting, the effective artillery advantage Russia has is slipping away, and may be gone by the end of 2025. Basically, that draw (Ukraine) on US arty supplies should be gone by the end of 2025. Sooner if Trump successfully gets a peace deal OR if he doesn't and the conflict slides into a guerilla war (quite likely, IMO.)
That of course leaves a conflict with China (heaven forbid), but, the question the wailers never ask is what would be needed where. There's essentially no chance we will get into a long drawn out land war with China. A dust up with China will be an air and sea battle. Of those things we've not sent a single asset to Ukraine. We HAVE moved on nifty items like land launched Tomahawk missiles, with a system somewhere in Philippines right now. HIMARS based systems that can hit even smallish fast moving sea targets (eg., the smaller ships the Chinese have a slew of) will likely be next.
The real concern is seaborne logistics, fleet oilers in particular. THERE we really are short, and we are also very short on capacity if we need to move a large force to retake, say, Luzon (Philippines.) Air Defense missiles are also a worry, although one can argue the experience we are gaining in the ME and Ukraine might justify what we've shot off. That'd be for fleet and critical point defense - to actually defend the US from shipborne missile attacks we'd better hope a "shoot the archer first" strategy works, because actual missile defense for the whole country would quadruple our defense budget, at least.