The Problem With America’s Military Arsenal

Daily Signal ^ | 10/15/26 | Victor Davis Hanson

[EnderWiggin1970]

We’re in the eighth month of an on-and-off war, as we all know, with Iran, and since 2022, we have been watching Ukraine and Russia fight, and we have been supplying Ukraine. And one of the problems with these multifront wars, and we have been conducting operations against Iran as well as helping Israel supply its forces against the Houthis, Hamas, Hezbollah.

Part of the problem is that in Ukraine, in Iran, in the Middle East, we have now, because of the use, cut our inventories of Patriot missiles by about 25% or 30%. And remember, we export them all over the Western world, and our Hellfire and Tomahawk missile inventories are cut by 50%.

And the problem is even greater than the erosion of our safety net because if we would have a problem with Taiwan or elsewhere in the world, we would be in trouble.

But the Patriot missile costs about $4 million and $4 million-plus, per missile. The Hellfire is shot by a plane, about $150,000, $200,000. The Tomahawk is about $3 million to $4 million.

So what I’m getting at is our enemies, whether in Iran or the enemies that are trying to squeeze Israel or the Russians that we supply Ukraine to fight, they are using cheaper drones, and some of them are only $5,000 or $6,000.

[EnderWiggin1970]

I think VDH correctly understands the problem with American military strategy. The problem is that putting more emphasis on quantity over quality means accepting more casualties as part of the equation. And US politics/culture seems extremely casualty-averse, meaning it ends up being worn down and defeated by enemies with a greater will to win. You cannot win wars fought as if you are a dilettante. (Note that I'm not speaking here of the morale or courage or mindset or training of the actual troops; that's not where the problem is.)

The risk here is that at some point an enemy is going to find a way to make America's elite assets vulnerable, either through swarming them or finding kinks in the armor. And once we start losing an aircraft carrier or even a single B2, the risk of attrition starts looking very ugly.

[fruser1]

Which means we should be making more of the $6000 stuff.

For every one of those they lob at us, we lob 10 back at the bargain price of 60K.

[Destroyer Sailor]

But we are doing the same thing to our enemies as well. Remember we have some new weapons that are unknown to the world. Neither side is without problems.

[Mariner]

ALL military expenditure should be for offensive weapons, not defensive.

We also need the ability to put 1000 tons on a target in and hour. You can’t do that at $4mil per ton.

Only heavy conventional bombers, and lots of them can do that.

Or very big guns.

[rlmorel]

I assure you, our military is not blind to these issues.

Doesn’t mean we have fixed them, but neither does it mean we are approaching them in the same fashion we did in 1941 with our battleship-based navy.

I am against any aid or assistance to Ukraine, but...I do have one subject I have changed my mind on, and that is leveraging of Ukraine to field test various aspects of drone warfare.

I was against even that, initially, even if I recognized we might be able to learn something from them on this subject. But the more I think of it, the more I think we should find a way to allow them to battle-test concepts, especially if they share their practical knowledge of the drone warfare environment as they are experiencing it with us.

Granted, that has a double-edged risk on some developments that might be compromised with them, as I see them as wholly untrustworthy. But there is something there we might be able to use.

And the details of how this might happen-I don’t know. But it is the only form of assistance I can conceive of to work with them.

Because it is in our interests to do just that. Others may disagree, but I see value in it.

And Victor Davis Hanson is a voice to listen to. He is right to voice concern, and when he does it, it isn’t to curry favor.

[PeterPrinciple]

ALL military expenditure should be for offensive weapons, not defensive.

---

https://www.war.gov/Default.aspx

it is a start

[Liz]

Harvard Kennedy Center
April 7, 2026

The war in Iran costs America two billion dollars PER DAY and will end up costing at minimum......at least one trillion tax dollars.

On February 28, the United States and Israel launched attacks on Iran, killing supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. By early April, the United States had more than 56,000 troops in the war zone (including some 50,000 on ships, military bases, and other installations, as well as 4,500 Marines and 2,000 troops from the 82nd Airborne), and the United States was considering deploying 10,000 additional ground troops.

Professor Linda Bilmes, the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Senior Lecturer in Public Policy and a leading expert on public finance, talks about the financial cost of the war in Iran as of April 6, 2026.

Q. How expensive is the war in Iran for American taxpayers?
A. Wars always cost more than expected. Throughout history, those who get into wars tend to be optimistic about the cost and about the length of time it will take. For example, Russia thought it could take control of Ukraine in a few weeks. President George W. Bush fired his economic advisor, Larry Lindsey, for predicting that the Iraq War might cost $200 billion (it ended up costing $5 trillion).

We see the same pattern with Iran. The Trump administration expected that this war would be over quickly and would be relatively inexpensive. According to the Pentagon, it cost $11.3 billion in the first three to five days—but that is an underestimate. According to my calculations, those first few days cost at least $16 billion. We are spending down munitions at an extraordinarily fast pace—to put it in perspective, we fired more Patriot missiles in the first four days of the Iran war than we have given to Ukraine over the past four years.

pic-—U.S. Southern Command Commander Gen. Francis Donovan speaks at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in Washington, DC, seated beside U.S. Northern Command and NORAD Commander Gen. Gregory Guillot, with other military officials lined up behind a long table

pic-—U.S. Southern Command Commander Marine General Francis Donovan (R), accompanied by U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command Commander Gen. Gregory Guillot (L), speaks during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on March 19, 2026 in Washington, D.C.

It is hard to measure the exact cost. But based on what we know now, it is costing about two billion dollars a day in short-term, upfront costs......which is just the tip of the iceberg.

Q. What are some short-term costs of the war in Iran?
A. Short-term costs include things like the munitions, which are the missiles, bombs, and interceptors we are firing; the cost of maintaining two or three carrier strike groups in the region with aircraft, submarines, destroyers, supply ships, etc.; and the cost of maintaining personnel, combat pay, extended deployment pay, as well as the cost of unexpected things like the fact that we lost three F-15 fighter jets to friendly fire from Kuwait. And now Iran has already shot down U.S. aircraft, including an F-15 fighter, an A-10 attack plane, and multiple drones. So we are losing high-cost assets.

But the short-term costs are even higher than they appear. The Pentagon reports costs based on the historical value of inventory, instead of the actual cost it takes to replace what we are using. And those replacement costs are far higher.

For example, the Tomahawk missiles being used are valued at around $2 million each in inventory, but replacing them today costs $3 to $3.5 million. Patriot missiles in the inventory were valued at $1 to $2 million, but newer versions cost $4 to $5 million each. The same is true for fuel and other supplies, where we are drawing down inventory purchased at lower prices and replacing it at much higher current prices.

We are not accounting for the full cost of repair and maintenance, or for what it costs to keep forces deployed months beyond their planned rotations.

Q. Can you share examples of those additional costs?
A. Take the USS Gerald R. Ford, an exceedingly high-tech $13 billion aircraft carrier which just limped off after a massive fire in the laundry exposed 600 sailors to serious smoke inhalation. It was deployed six months longer than planned, with about 5,000 personnel on board, and the sewage system failed, so it cost $400,000 to flush the toilets with chemicals every day. The carrier now requires 14 months or more of repairs. None of those costs are reflected in the initial operational estimates.

These gaps are one reason why the reported $11.3 billion is closer to $16 billion, and they reflect a persistent gap between what the Pentagon reports in real time and what the war actually costs.

You can see that gap clearly in the Trump administration’s request for roughly $200 billion in emergency funding, much of it to cover repairs, maintenance, and replacement costs that were never included in the upfront costs that get announced.

snip

[reasonisfaith]

VDH has no idea.

We have weapons nobody knows about. I’m not talking about the ones that use sound waves or the ones that use EMF technology. Although these alone give us an overwhelming advantage over our globalist enemies.

My advice to you: pay attention to what President Trump say about our weapons. VDH still thinks according to the old system.

You are witnessing/watching the systematic destruction of the OLD GUARD.

[spintreebob]

When I was in Vietnam it was often observed that we were equipped to fight WWII and the Korean War.

[OldGoatCPO]

I disagree. The Corps got rid of artillery and tanks and has been developing drone swarms as an alternative. They kept some artillery and tanks; I am told Congress and the Army objected. Army would have had to fill the gap when tanks and artillery were needed. They did not have that capability yet. I have no inside info; that is just the scuttlebutt. But over the last 6-7 years, the emphasis has been on drone swarms. So yes, we are well aware of the changing battlefield and weapons. Hanson is very smart, but unless he has a clearance, I doubt he knows our drone capabilities. In Iran, Trump is using standoff weapons to minimize casualties. This does not mean the US military and Israel are not stockpiling drones. Right now, Drone swarms are not the weapon of choice in a standoff war, but do not be surprised if Iran gets hit with them soon. As for Ukraine, this has dragged on long enough and is draining our coffers.

[BroJoeK]

EnderWiggin1970: "I think VDH correctly understands the problem with American military strategy."

VDH is on the right track.
100% of the problem dates back to the 1990s "Peace Dividend", when the US cut our Defense Industrial Base by more than half!
Today we are ill-equipped to fight a Cold War 2.0 -- much less a hot war over Taiwan or anywhere else.

Here are details on our current situation (multiple public sources used for the data, none confirmed by the Pentagon -- these are the best numbers I can find):

Estimated U.S. Precision-Guided Missile Inventories and Replenishment Timelines (2026)

Weapon	Primary Mission	Approx. Unit Cost	Estimated Inventory	Historical Production	Planned Production Capacity	Reported Recent Use	Estimated Remaining	Estimated Time to Replace Usage at Planned Rate
Patriot PAC-3 MSE	Theater Air & Missile Defense	$4-6 million	5,000-8,000	~600/year	Up to 2,000/year	Hundreds expended in Ukraine and Middle East operations	Classified	Less than 2 years
THAAD Interceptor	Ballistic Missile Defense	$12-18 million	500-800	~100/year	Production expansion underway	Heavy Middle East usage	Classified	2-4 years
Tomahawk TLAM	Long-Range Land Attack	$2-4 million	3,000-4,000	~60-110/year	1,000+/year goal	~850-1,000 fired during Iran campaign	~2,000-3,000	~1 year
SM-6	Air Defense, Missile Defense, Anti-Ship	$4-5 million	1,000-2,000	125-300/year	500+/year goal	Dozens fired during Red Sea operations	Majority retained	Less than 1 year
SM-3	Exo-Atmospheric Missile Defense	$12-30 million	Several hundred	~50-100/year	Accelerated production planned	Limited combat use	Most retained	1-2 years
JASSM-ER	Air-Launched Precision Strike	$1.5-2.0 million	Several thousand	~500-1,000/year	Production expanding	Moderate operational use	High inventory retained	Months
LRASM	Long-Range Anti-Ship Strike	$3-4 million	Several hundred	~150-300/year	Production expanding	Minimal combat expenditure	Most retained	Less than 1 year
PrSM	Army Long-Range Precision Strike	$1-2 million	Hundreds	Rapidly increasing	Major production ramp underway	Minimal operational use	Most retained	Months
AMRAAM	Air-to-Air Combat	$1-2 million	Many thousands	~1,200/year	~1,900/year goal	Routine global consumption	Large inventory	Months

So, the first point to notice here is the far-right column -- "Time to Replace Usage" -- that's complete bullshite, because weapons which take mere days to consume must be replaced in weeks or months, not years or decades!
I'm not saying the numbers are wrong, I'm saying the mindset which thinks its acceptable to take months & years to replace weapons consumed in a few hours or days, that mindset is completely screwed up and must be changed, NOW.

And that is precisely why Pres. Trump submitted his 2027 $350 billion defense supplemental -- to address all of these issues and more.
Combined with his regular 2027 defense budget ($1.15 billion) the total is ~$300 billion specifically toward

• expanding U.S. defense production capacity,
• shipbuilding capacity,
• ammunition production,
• supply chains,
• critical minerals, and
• industrial infrastructure

This is the largest such mobilization effort since the Pres. Reagan's 1980s Cold War buildup...

IF APPROVED BY CONGRESS

[Colorado Doug]

Sorry Liz, While I am sure that it is expensive, I wouldn’t trust anything that Harvard Professors have to say on the subject. But yes, war is hell and it’s not cheap.

[Liz]

we provide information——what’s being discussed out there.

Nobody has to agree with it.

[reasonisfaith]

When Trump says “We have weapons nobody’s ever heard of, what could he possibly mean?

[BroJoeK]

reasonisfaith: "When Trump says “We have weapons nobody’s ever heard of", what could he possibly mean?"

You mean American wunderwaffen?

I'm certain Pres. Trump is correct about that, but those weapons are not the ones we use & need in current conflicts.

What we need for today's conflicts are missiles, warships, warfighting aircraft, drones & anti-drone equipment, logistics, intelligence, etc., etc.

Yes, the US & allies overwhelming capacity to be the world's "arsenal of democracy" is how we won World War Two, producing up to five times more war materiel than our Axis enemies.
But today our industrial capacities are, relatively, a shadow of their former selves and becoming dwarfed by China.

Will new & unknown wunderwaffen save us from our own stupidities?
I don't think so, certainly not in the wars being fought and threatened today.

Yes, for sure, in a Star War of the future, we'll need tons & tons of wunderwaffen, but first we have to win today's conflicts with the weapons we have, imho.

[reasonisfaith]

Maybe you don’t know what we need in today’s warfare.

Remember—you don’t know anything about the weapons we have.

So why would you presume to think we don’t need them?

[reasonisfaith]

Do you trust President Trump?

[BroJoeK]

50,000 M-4 Shermans vs. 500 Tiger IIs:

reasonisfaith: "Maybe you don’t know what we need in today’s warfare.
Remember—you don’t know anything about the weapons we have.
So why would you presume to think we don’t need them?"

I'm not at all saying we don't need them.

"Wunderwaffen" is how Hitler promised Germans he could win WWII -- and he did have them, and some were pretty amazing, cutting edge, way beyond anything the Allies had then.
And yet, in the end they proved to be too little, and too late, to even slow down the Western & Soviet Allies massive war machine.

Consider the American M-4 Sherman tanks -- not a match for German Panzer Vs & Tigers, and yet Shermans were relatively inexpensive, fast, very reliable, easier to maintain and the US produced 50,000 M-4s, while Germany produced fewer than 10,000 of its best tanks.
Even if you consider WWII tanks of all sizes & shapes -- the Allies produced ~225,000 vs. Axis ~50,000.

So, my first point is: it was production and reliability, not wunderwaffen which won WWII.

Second point: Wunderwaffen have very short shelf-lives -- WWII winderwaffen are all sitting in museums today, objects of curiosity, no longer weapons of war.
That's because, as soon as you use your secret wunderwaffe, you give it away to your enemies (and allies), and they immediately begin to reverse engineer it, and improve on it, so that very soon your previously amazing wunderwaffe is just one more weapon in many arsenals, which you must now develop yet more new weapons to defend against!

Bottom line: you very often don't want to use your new wunderwaffen until they can be decisive in saving your ass and/or winning the war.
Which brings us back to today's conflicts where what matters most is production volumes, reliability, logistics, intelligence, etc. -- all the ordinary factors which go into winning pretty much every war in history.

So, secret wunderwaffen have their roles to play, but in a sense, they are much like nuclear weapons in being most effective when you never have to use them.

[bert]

Would = might

VDH makes assumptions not justified by knowledge

[BroJoeK]

reasonisfaith: "Do you trust President Trump?"

Are you kidding?
More than any president in my lifetime, and that goes back to Harry Truman!

I also think he's taken on some very high-risk projects, not all necessarily destined to turn out well for him.
I wish him the best, regardless.

He's one of a kind, and I doubt if we'll see another like him in my lifetime.