| One of the issues that came up when Russia invaded Ukraine was that Russia just didn't have the weapons they thought they did, particularly tanks. There's been a bunch of corruption where generals have pocketed funds and just kicked the can down the street. The US now spends $1T+ a year on war and is asking for $1.5T next year. At least half of that is weapon systems. A lot of these are probably way too expensive and because of multiple suppliers, incredibly hard to scale up. For the missile interceptors, it may take 3-5 years. Logistically, imagine if there was way more standardization of parts so this was easier to scale? A bit like the missing Russian tanks, US military procurement is corrupt. We have the weapon systems we bought but we pay way too much. So we're basically paying $1T+ for a military that can't do anything about the Iranian military. The disparity is so large that one day of sustaining the war is a good part of what the Iranian military costs for a year. Last year it was widely rumored that the 12 day war ended because the US and Israel were running out of missile interceptors. That's kind of why many didn't expect this war to happen because that shortage was never solved [1]. It's evidence that the US expected this to be a decapitation strike like Venezuela and for it to be over in a matter of days. This problem is reportedly dire [2]. But that was never going to happen and now the US has mired itself in a war it cannot end without a humiliating defeat and withdrawal. We don't have exact figures because of censorship but it was estimated at the start of this that ~90% of missiles were being intercepted over Israel and now that figure was ~50% before the ceasefire. Ballistic missiles and drones in particular are cheaper to produce than their respective interceptors and can be produced in much higher volume. Launchers are cheap and easy to produce. Another telling factor in all of this is the US military's continued use of so-called "standoff" weapons. This includes Tomahawk missiles as well as precision-guided muntiions from planes. You generally don't want to use these if you can because you sacrifice ordinance for fuel. So why do you do it? Because you don't have the air superiority you need. Those weapons too are more expensive and slow to scale up production. It's incredibly damaging to US interests too that they've been unable and/or unwilling to defend allies and their own bases in the Gulf. What I hope comes out of this is some pushback on why exactly we're spending $1T (or $1.5T) a year and what exactly we're getting for that. It's an unimaginable amount of money that could otherwise do so much good. Yet instead we're acting like a belligerent yet still failing empire. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/world/middleeast/israel-s... [2]: https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/israeli-missile-interceptors-... |
The fact that the Gulf turned to Ukraine for protection is one of these strange turnouts one would never expect a few years ago.