Posted on 07/14/2025 10:06:31 AM PDT by Kazan
President Donald Trump was reportedly caught “flat-footed” when the Pentagon abruptly announced it was freezing shipments of critical weapons to Ukraine, including Patriot missile interceptors, precision-guided GMLRS, and artillery rounds.
The rationale for halting shipments of defensive weapons to Ukraine stems from a review that found that the U.S. only has about 25 percent of the Patriot interceptors needed for all Defense Department military plans.
Yet just days later, Trump reversed course. “They’re getting hit very hard now,” he said. “We’re going to send some more weapons — defensive weapons primarily.”
The rapid pivot back to arms transfers to Ukraine illustrates just how deeply embedded interventionist reflexes remain not just in Congress and the Pentagon, but even within Trump’s own orbit.
US Running Low
At the center of this internal tug-of-war is Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby, a leading voice for a more restrained, realist approach to America’s military posture, which is a position that has reportedly frustrated some hawkish members within the Trump administration.
Colby has warned that U.S. weapons stockpiles are running low, defense manufacturing is lagging behind adversaries, and that it is time for Europe to take primary responsibility for Ukraine, while America focuses on shoring up its limited resources by preparing for a far more dangerous geopolitical challenge: China.
A recent analysis by Foreign Affairs aligns with Colby’s assessment, stating that the United States “has low stockpiles of munitions, its ships and planes are older than China’s, and its industrial base lacks the capacity to regenerate these assets. In war games that simulate a conflict in the Taiwan Strait, Washington runs out of key munitions within weeks.”
The U.S. Air Force’s fleet is showing its age, with planes averaging 32 years old, and some exceeding 50 years. Developing new major weapons platforms like these can take more than eight years, however if the F-22 Raptor is any indication, the process could take more than 15 years.
The U.S. Navy is in an equally perilous situation. Though the average U.S. naval vessel is 19 years old, some vessels like cruisers are pushing almost 30 years old. To meet future demand, the Navy may require extending the lives of some non-nuclear surface ships to over 50 years old.
In stark contrast, 70 percent of China’s naval ships have been launched since 2010. China’s annual shipbuilding capacity is an astounding 26 million tons, which is 370 times greater than the United States’ capacity of 70,000 tons. The U.S. industrial capacity is so limited that it cannot even produce a single 100,000-ton Ford-class aircraft carrier annually.
Still, Washington clings to a WWII-era fantasy, believing that it can arm the world while neglecting its own arsenal.
Two Systems in Low Supply
Two systems that are in high demand and low supply are the National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAM) that Ukraine can’t get enough of, and the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators that were recently used in coordination with Israel against Iranian nuclear sites.
It takes around two years to manufacture and deploy a NASAM battery, which is capable of launching 72 missiles into the sky at once and is jointly produced by Norwegian Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace and U.S. RTX Corporation.
Why so long? While Kongsberg, like most Western defense firms, designs and assembles its weapons systems, it doesn’t manufacture most of the components in house. Unlike the mass production lines that made the weapons used to fight World War II, more than 1,500 suppliers across two continents contribute to the weapons produced at just one Kongsberg factory, with the U.S. defense contractor RTX supplying the radar and the actual missiles.
In terms of the 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOP), the situation is even worse.
Before Trump’s airstrikes on Iran, the United States possessed only 20 MOP bombs, however 14 of these were expended on two targets in Iran, leaving only six. According to National Interest, it took more than a decade to produce the initial 20 GBU-57s, and their production line has been closed while the Pentagon currently awaits bids from American defense contractors for a Next Generation Penetrator (NGP) contract.
Embracing Realism
The truth is simple: the United States is under no obligation to indefinitely bankroll Ukraine’s war effort or come to Israel’s defense, especially not at the expense of our own military readiness.
These weapon systems are not only costly, but limited in their ability to be mass produced, and should be reserved first and foremost for the defense of American troops in any future conflict. It’s long overdue for the United States to reevaluate its foreign policy and embrace a path of prudent foreign policy realism, while focusing on rearmament through reindustrialization.
This is not isolationism, it’s prioritization. A foreign policy rooted in realism begins by recognizing limits: of production, of attention, and perhaps most of all, of obligation.
Rebuilding American strength starts at home, not in Kyiv, not in Tel Aviv, and not in another foreign aid or weapons package.
America will not compete in the 21st century if it’s stuck in a 20th-century mindset.
“and slowdowns by expediting data rights”
Tech Data often can be purchased from an OEM but it comes at a very, very steep price. That is why we don’t buy it anymore.
What obligation? The same old bless those who bless thee line of S are a pee?
That was a long long long ago promise that Jesus the Savior of Jews and Gentiles alike, would come from Abrams seed. You do know that Abrahams first born was not born of a Jewish woman. So his seed would also be likely a Muslim or Middle Eastern non-Jew, RIGHT?
BUTT, the deficit is going up slower than in 2020 under DJT.
100%
We sell IT ALL at a loss.
Let Nato take care of their own. US out of the UN, and NATO.
No we don’t, and the most expensive trap of all is to be in the situation Russia is in now that the world has seen their weapons in action, their foreign markets dried up which means the taxpayer has to pay for everything without foreign buyers paying a lot of the freight.
Who cares if they are buying weapons we can't afford to lose because our stockpiles are critically low?
But, let me get this right -- you want this war to continue so the defense industry can make money? Who says war isn't big business!
btt
You overlooked my specific caveat in the OP: “I am not a ‘neocon’ or someone who wants “forever wars”.
You also apparently missed the point were I pointed out that mass production will make them cheaper for our own country to buy, which means we don’t have to deplete anything! We’ll get them replenished faster and cheaper.
I’m not interested in it as business. I’m interested in it as economic policy for the good of America. Replenish supplies, create jobs, have someone else pay, earn more tax revenue.
One final point. President Trump wouldn’t be doing this if Zelensky and Putin had not left him without the option of ending the war. He is pivoting brilliantly to solve the problem that US taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for the war and to send a message to Putin: “if you think you hold all the cards, you don’t”.
And, you, apparently, don't grasp that we're not in a position to mass produce weapons or ammo at where near the rate Ukraine needs to them, let alone to come close to matching Russian production.
It will take years to replenish our weapons stock.
Trump can end the war quickly by telling Zelensky to take any deal he can get and by cutting off all weapons and military intelligence to Ukraine.
THERE IS NO NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST IN UKRAINE. And, the vast majority of the base don't want anymore money or resources wasted on it.
It's only neocon war pigs like Lindsey Graham and others that have a financial stake in keeping this war going that care about continuing military aid and support to Ukraine.
What in hell about that don't you understand?
https://english.nv.ua/nation/majority-of-u-s-republicans-oppose-continued-ukraine-aid-wsj-poll-shows-50504126.html
Seventy-nine percent of Republican Party supporters in the United States oppose continuing aid to Ukraine in its defense against Russia, The Wall Street Journal reported on April 6, citing the results of its latest survey.
No need to get touchy. We’re supposed to be the reasonable ones.
I am equally surprised to find that you don’t accept that there is any argument on the other side. Particularly, you also don’t realize that we are not arming the Ukrainians if the Europeans are paying for the weapons. Other than that, it is America First in every way: restocking, saving money, jobs, etc. Again, they’re going to continue fighting anyway. President Trump did his best to get them to stop but they dug their heels in.
President Trump might be looking at the problem as trying to bring balance back to the strategic equation in which there are enough incentives and disincentives to get them to the table.
PS. I actually love how Trump can figure out a way of monetizing every situation in favor of the USA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.