Military Review

Expert: in the case of "real" war with a major power, the US Army will be without ammunition

60
Spending not so rich military resources on a failed operation against Daesh in the Middle East poses a serious risk to US security in the event of a full-scale war with a major power, national security expert Daniel Davies expresses his opinion in an article for National Interest magazine. Article leads RIA News.




In his discourse, Davis refers to data from USA Today, according to which “the US Air Force used more than 20 thousands of missiles against the IG and requested urgent replenishment of ammunition and the allocation of budget funds for these purposes.” The analyst at the same time notes that a whole year of struggle with the DAISH did not bring results - the group only got stronger and expanded its positions.

“The excessive use of ammunition indicates that the United States will not be ready for resistance in the event of a sudden conventional war,” Davis said and wonders, “how much ammunition the American army would need against the modern army of any world power, such as Russia or China if against a group of terrorists with neither the Air Force nor fleet, neither by modern technology, 20 thousand shells and bombs were spent to no avail. ”

“The Pentagon, the congress and the White House will have to explain to the people that the armed forces could not repel the enemy because they ran out of ammunition,” the author writes.

According to the military, budget cuts "kill" the combat readiness of the army, he notes, "and to spend these already cut back funds on the purchase of shells means leaving even less money for training the armed forces."

“But if the staggering expenses did not lead to the victory over the terrorists, then why should Congress allocate funds to replenish the stockpiles of missiles?” Be that as it may, the situation demonstrates the growing risk facing US national security, ”the expert concludes.
Photos used:
Reuters
60 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Penetrator
    Penetrator 8 December 2015 10: 35 New
    44
    The whole point of the expert’s remarks is to give more money to arms corporations. The lobbyist of the American military-industrial complex is detected.
    1. Lukich
      Lukich 8 December 2015 10: 38 New
      21
      Quote: Penetrator
      The whole point of the expert’s remarks is to give more money to arms corporations. The lobbyist of the American military-industrial complex is detected.

      it looks like pilots in proportion. do not throw bombs there
      1. Axis
        Axis 8 December 2015 10: 54 New
        +9
        ...и "водопроводчики" в доле, т.к эти самые бомбы они швыряют на водонапорные станции и водопроводы...
        1. Lukich
          Lukich 8 December 2015 11: 00 New
          +7
          Quote: Axis
          ..и "водопроводчики" в доле, т.к эти самые бомбы они швыряют на водонапорные станции и водопроводы...

          then machine builders. 2 bulldozers destroyed
          1. severniy
            severniy 8 December 2015 11: 53 New
            +4
            for example Russia

            Гыыы, тут нужно помнить, что при таком раскладе у "партнёров" пойдут в расход не только боеприпасы, но и то из чего их вапускают .. Так Шо мож и заряжать ими будет нечего, чё зря деньги вкладывать...
        2. Gunxnumx
          Gunxnumx 8 December 2015 13: 49 New
          0
          может немножко не в тему, но вспомнил фразу из мультика "Приключения Васи Куролесова": "Ну где же вы, ...водопроводчики?"
      2. The black
        The black 8 December 2015 11: 04 New
        +6
        Yeah .... jerboas are tired of burying their laughing
      3. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt 8 December 2015 11: 18 New
        +8
        Quote: Lukich
        if the expert’s remarks are worth it - give more money to arms corporations
        А вот и нет,"Национальный интерес" мало связан с американским оружейным лобби,а есть рупор мёртвого Р.Никсона и его политического института.Им от партии капают реальные зелёные,к тому же их кредо быть явными антидемократами,поэтому копают под демократа Обаму как кабан---активно и постоянно.И то что "Военное Обозрение" избрало "Нац. интерст" как зеркало отображающее процессы внутренние в США,зеркало их внутренней жизни---это всё равно что составлять своё мнение о жизни в России по передачам "Эха Москвы".Может создаться такая иллюзия,что враг хил и совсем лишён инициативы .А это совсем не так---Обама пока он у власти обладает неограниченным по сравнению с другими странами финансовыми и военно-промышленными ресурсами.
        1. cniza
          cniza 8 December 2015 11: 39 New
          +3
          “The overrun of ammunition suggests that the United States will not be ready to resist if a sudden conventional war begins,” says Davis and asks the question “how much ammunition the American army against a modern army of some world power, for example Russia or China if against a group of terrorists who did not possess either an air force, a fleet, or modern equipment, 20 thousands of shells and bombs were to no avail. ”



          They want to euthanize roofing felts, roofing felts really forgot how to fight, roofing felts still ask for ??? ... the truth, as always somewhere between.
          1. Vladimirets
            Vladimirets 8 December 2015 12: 47 New
            +2
            Quote: cniza
            “How much ammunition the American army might need against the modern army of some world power, for example Russia or China

            If the enemy does not destroy the US industry, the states will be able to quickly increase the production of ammunition, IMHO, it is enough to recall their production rates in WWII. Another thing, if the arsenals run out, and even the factories will be attacked, it is already more complicated.
            1. Weyland
              Weyland 9 December 2015 01: 37 New
              0
              Quote: Vladimirets
              If the enemy does not destroy the US industry, the states will be able to quickly increase the production of ammunition


              The question is in raw materials. And in the one with whom they will fight. If suppliers of raw materials are confident in the victory of the USA, they will receive raw materials for their candy wrappers. But if Russia or China will be their adversary, I suspect that suppliers of raw materials will demand a piece of gold ... laughing
        2. your1970
          your1970 8 December 2015 13: 01 New
          +1
          "неограниченным по сравнению с другими странами финансовыми и военно-промышленными ресурсами."
          In the case of a non-nuclear war with serious guys - the dollar in these countries will disappear as a monetary unit, there will be a massive discharge of cash dollars to third countries, then taking into account the fact that, according to the Americans, about 40% of the cash goes to Russia - what will happen?
          Correctly-complete paragraph to the US economy ..
          No country in the world can withstand such a quantity of money suddenly coming from the side-inflation as in Germany in 1920's ...
          It will also be bad for us - but not to that extent.
          Further, where will they go to fight? We are famous for the road: Berlin, Paris and more ...
          IM ??? well, the carrier fleets came to the shores of Europe, well, they landed an 100 000 landing and what? Supply from overseas is a serious thing in a war .. Given that we have occupied all of Europe (we can do that !!! !) the problem will stand ribbed on the neck of the landing ..
          However, it’s possible not even to occupy all, slightly clean up, and let them rule (like France in 1940-44), they will be corrected.
          Crazy idea, if they is free to supply oil and gas, then the local oligarchs themselves will be objectionable, and there will be complete splendor in Europe ...
          And if China is just stupidly, 50 000 000-100 000 000 will move to Europe (it’s easy enough shooting lol ) ..........

          So the United States can only hope for nuclear weapons
      4. YARUSSIAN39
        YARUSSIAN39 8 December 2015 12: 05 New
        +2
        Rather, the General Staff, as pilots fly out for targets, they just tell them where to throw them
      5. aleks 62 next
        aleks 62 next 8 December 2015 13: 55 New
        +1
        ..... and the pilots seem to be in proportion. not throwing bombs there ...

        ... And to them on the drum - where to throw it .... Everything is paid .... I won’t be surprised if for each dropped bomb or missile they receive a prize from the manufacturer .... A similar situation was in the 2nd world when their submariners grumbled for one target of 4-6 torpedoes and from the ultimate distance ... Then the boat commander received a prize from the manufacturers of these devices .... hi
    2. Maxom75
      Maxom75 8 December 2015 11: 17 New
      10
      There was a plot with Kurds. those showed that the Americans dropped four days of a bomb in the desert, not even reaching the high-rise on which the Daesh militants were sitting, because those began to shoot at flying planes and pilots got rid of bombs in the neutral strip. For four days it turned into a lunar landscape.))) In short, very brave pilots of the US Air Force.))))
      1. Diana Ilyina
        Diana Ilyina 8 December 2015 11: 51 New
        15
        Quote: Maxom75
        in short, very brave pilots of the US Air Force.))))


        Вот умеете Вы расстроить даму, я то глупая думала, что в Америке самые "крутые" пилоты (фильм "Топ Ган"), самые крутые спецназовцы ("Солдат Джейн"), самые крутые полицейские ("Крепкий орешек") и т.д. и т.п., и вообще Америка самая "крутая" страна в мире, тфу ты, да что там в мире - во Вселенной!!! soldier And then such a bummer! crying

        P.S. In general, there is no soldier in the world who can compete on a par with the RUSSIAN SOLDIER!
      2. vlad_m
        vlad_m 8 December 2015 11: 53 New
        +5
        Uh ... NO! Not in this case. In Yugoslavia and Iraq, they were not afraid to drop bombs. Not afraid of ground operations.
        Here the explanation lies in a completely different aspect.
        Arsenals must be vacated to purchase new ammunition.
        And it is desirable that the flow and replenishment are constant and long-term.
        It is necessary to somehow load the military-industrial complex with orders.

        And it turns out so beautifully. Some flew - bombed the desert. Others are popular in the air. Parted. Everyone is healthy. They bought the first bombs ... And for sure, through third parties the ammunition was driven by the second.
        Everyone is happy. Money was capitalized. MIC works. And the threat remained. You can continue to twist the carousel.
    3. Tor5
      Tor5 8 December 2015 11: 17 New
      +2
      Of money! Of money!! And again Money !!!
    4. The comment was deleted.
  2. avvg
    avvg 8 December 2015 10: 35 New
    +7
    Simply, the Pentagon asks for money alone.
    1. Al_oriso
      Al_oriso 8 December 2015 12: 09 New
      +3
      It seems to me that the Pentagon specifically spread such rumors about the allegedly small amount of ammunition.

      Recently, Americans have thoroughly provoked a war. And all kinds of means are chosen for this. In this case, the calculation is made to weaken the vigilance of the enemy.

      They didn’t spend their ammunition anywhere, except in small quantities. They wait, do not wait for the outbreak of military conflict. They have weapons full, nowhere to put it. They just have to start fighting to justify the rising costs of themselves.
  3. axel320
    axel320 8 December 2015 10: 35 New
    +4
    And then how much do we spend?
    1. Semen Semyonitch
      Semen Semyonitch 8 December 2015 10: 47 New
      +7
      Quote: axel320
      And then how much do we spend?

      Better for business than just recycling.
    2. Maxom75
      Maxom75 8 December 2015 18: 31 New
      +1
      but we need to dispose of old ammunition at ISIS facilities, for one we will save on disposal. Out In Iraq, in general, a war with Turkey is planned.
  4. Taranchello
    Taranchello 8 December 2015 10: 36 New
    +4
    Снова попахивает "дайте денег Пентагону на снаряды"
    1. kil 31
      kil 31 8 December 2015 10: 59 New
      +4
      Quote: Taranchello
      “How much ammunition the American army might need against the modern army of some world power, for example Russia or China

      I agree.
      “How much ammunition the American army might need against the modern army of some world power, for example Russia or China
      Why did he compare us and China? With such things, on ... you need simple ammunition. Exchange of nuclear weapons and nothing more, but if we finish off to the last nits, then we need to worry about this. We and China do not have bases around the world.
  5. Decathlon
    Decathlon 8 December 2015 10: 37 New
    14
    "...применили более 20 тысяч ракет против ИГ..."
    Даже,если 1 ракета=1 "борода",то откуда их там столько осталось?! Делением размножились?!
  6. I am Groot
    I am Groot 8 December 2015 10: 37 New
    +8
    Serdyukov must be sent to America, he will restore order there !!!
    1. Semen Semyonitch
      Semen Semyonitch 8 December 2015 10: 48 New
      +9
      There he will be just a baby hi
      1. I am Groot
        I am Groot 8 December 2015 10: 55 New
        +4
        The main thing to send! and let the female battalion of Vasilieva grab, there will be operational space.
  7. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 8 December 2015 10: 37 New
    +4
    Megillah. Give money, more money, even more money. Amerovsky military-industrial complex in his repertoire.
  8. Black Colonel
    Black Colonel 8 December 2015 10: 39 New
    +2
    Again copper helmets beg for money.
  9. Stinger
    Stinger 8 December 2015 10: 39 New
    +3
    No matter how much money you ask, brains for ammunition cannot be replaced.
  10. volot-voin
    volot-voin 8 December 2015 10: 39 New
    +4
    Our ammunition is also far from Soviet. The last time we are trying to catch up, but too much has been destroyed in bad years, and many enterprises of the military-industrial complex remain abroad.
  11. drunkram
    drunkram 8 December 2015 10: 40 New
    +3
    Too much ammunition was spent on sickness and excavators, you see,
  12. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 8 December 2015 10: 41 New
    +4
    Остап Бендэр в своем репертуаре на Военно-грузинской дороге:" Дэнг дай,давай дэнги..."!Эдак они скоро уподобятся Кисе Воробьянинову с его знаменитой фразой:"...мсье, мадам я не ел шесть дней...",вот только у какого фонтана они это будут делать?
  13. JonnyT
    JonnyT 8 December 2015 10: 42 New
    +2
    strange feeling the other day I read an article that the Russian army will also not have enough ammunition in case of a serious war.

    Maybe well him - these wars? We’ll better conquer space.
    1. cergey51046
      cergey51046 8 December 2015 10: 55 New
      0
      This is propaganda. Just enough. If you explode a nuclear stockpile without moving it anywhere, there will be a nuclear winter on Earth for 300 years. Why more?
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 8 December 2015 18: 20 New
        0
        Not a nuclear winter with the current reserves and capacities of nuclear charges does not wake up.
    2. cergey51046
      cergey51046 8 December 2015 10: 55 New
      0
      This is propaganda. Just enough. If you explode a nuclear stockpile without moving it anywhere, there will be a nuclear winter on Earth for 300 years. Why more?
  14. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 8 December 2015 10: 43 New
    +1
    20 thousand shells and bombs were spent to no avail

    Shy expert. For more than a year, they have been bombing something and, according to them, intensively, besides this they are shooting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and only 20000? Cartridge carrier scratches turnips.
  15. Zomanus
    Zomanus 8 December 2015 10: 47 New
    +2
    Yes, much more used ammunition.
    And if you don’t have enough money, stop the gimmick with F-35 in three versions.
    Well, or a couple of bases around the world cover.
    Or stop bombing with or without cause.
  16. cergey51046
    cergey51046 8 December 2015 10: 51 New
    +1
    Gather from their satellites. They contain ammunition at the expense of others.
  17. Andrew
    Andrew 8 December 2015 10: 51 New
    +3
    “The Pentagon, Congress and the White House will have to explain to the people that the armed forces could not repulse the enemy because they ran out of ammunition”

    It will not have to, the occupation administration will not be interested, and then historians will then consider this issue from all sides and draw conclusions for you. And, as you know, the winners write the story. :)
  18. starwars
    starwars 8 December 2015 10: 54 New
    +5
    What does this Hassan Abdullah carry?
    The United States was not going to fight ISIS, they need these terrorists - this is a very useful tool in the right hands.
    Without the USA, ISIS will be destroyed in a matter of months.
    All supplies from drugs to weapons give ISIS Americans for almost gratuitous oil.
  19. ILIA
    ILIA 8 December 2015 11: 04 New
    0
    ah ah ah .... no ammunition .... trouble ...
  20. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 8 December 2015 11: 06 New
    +2
    Ammunition has a limited shelf life.
    If you haven’t used it, you have to dispose of it, which, by the way,
    - a difficult task and expensive pleasure.
    1. HAM
      HAM 8 December 2015 11: 30 New
      +1
      Вы,намекаете,что поэтому то они и "утилизируют "по всему миру, более дешёвым способом!??
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 8 December 2015 14: 42 New
        0
        I mean, what not to apply if necessary now is also stupid.
        All the same, soon they themselves will go bad.
  21. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 8 December 2015 11: 20 New
    +1
    The Pentagon, as usual, asks for money. He doesn't give a damn about efficiency, the main thing is the budget.
  22. konstant_n
    konstant_n 8 December 2015 11: 32 New
    +2
    For some reason I remembered: Fat came! Hello mother! (from)
  23. CONTROL
    CONTROL 8 December 2015 11: 36 New
    +1
    ... yeah ... little article!
    From somewhere I remembered (about a nuclear suitcase):
    Night. Silence. Substation.
    Suddenly, a briefcase disappeared at once.
    Although there is no one around.

    (this is haiku - or haiku, if cho ...)
  24. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 8 December 2015 11: 40 New
    0
    Again, beg money from Congress will be, well, how ..... national security is at stake
  25. Former battalion commander
    Former battalion commander 8 December 2015 11: 43 New
    +5
    C'mon, you have to figure out about problems with shells in the USA ... Look at shells and bombs in Russia ... forgot how to mass produce them ... Machine tools for their production were DESTROYED back in the 90s, institutes developing shells and bombs were LOST. Now LAST bombs are being thrown from Syria in Syria, and there is no industrial base to rebuild ... Let's finally see the log in our eyes, and let the ENEMY with the specks in his eye and figure it out ...
  26. pts-m
    pts-m 8 December 2015 11: 46 New
    0
    Yankistan should call on its population to a lathe with the slogans ... all the best of the army! give the norm of a working week in three days! ... and also organize an alley of honor and glory with its advanced workers and reward the best with the star of the hero sshyshya and the order named after the mess of obamych .
  27. Shark Lover
    Shark Lover 8 December 2015 11: 56 New
    +1
    Suspend and throw off State Department employees on their heads. You can even with a parachute, change the platform to a rock surrounded by a crowd. The crowd is isolated for half a year, then half a year they will still realize what it was? Without a parachute it’s too cruel, many, in principle, quite good people slap shit.
  28. Nitarius
    Nitarius 8 December 2015 11: 59 New
    +1
    KILL YOURSELF AND YOURSELF ... BUG))))))) that's where to lie ... MONEY ASK AGAIN!
  29. press officer
    press officer 8 December 2015 12: 37 New
    +1
    Quote: cergey51046
    This is propaganda. Just enough. If you explode a nuclear stockpile without moving it anywhere, there will be a nuclear winter on Earth for 300 years. Why more?



    Well, the mattresses will survive! You did not know about this? belay They really think (ordinary residents of the country of mattress) that if they throw a nuclear at the Russians, everyone will die, and they will remain, because they are on the other side of the planet .... repeat wassat
    Here they will remain and Ukrainians (they also know how to dig \ bury the sea \ big sea) good and the rest will all die .. and they will be friends forever and prosper .. yes in nuclear dust .. until they die. am
  30. iouris
    iouris 8 December 2015 12: 49 New
    +1
    You can buy in Ukraine. Expensive.
  31. dchegrinec
    dchegrinec 8 December 2015 13: 35 New
    0
    Yes, they have everything, they simply take care, there are no problems above the roof, there is not enough money, there is no production. They have been stagnant for a long time, so they are trying to gut the Middle East ... maybe they will profit from what ... this is called the US crisis is in full swing.
  32. Ze Kot
    Ze Kot 8 December 2015 14: 57 New
    0
    "«сколько боеприпасов могло бы понадобиться американской армии против современной армии какой-нибудь мировой державы, например России или Китая,"

    NO MUCH !!!

    Last drink, smoke and pray.
  33. v.yegorov
    v.yegorov 8 December 2015 16: 05 New
    0
    Whore is some, not an expert. American industry is very resourceful, it will instantly arrange production in any quantities. There were many
    examples.
  34. Kibl
    Kibl 8 December 2015 17: 47 New
    0
    So do not get into trouble! Live peacefully with other nations and there will be no problems with ammunition. And you decided to fight with the whole world, and then you are surprised at the lack of weapons. One of the two, either moderate the ardor, or think over logistics (just kidding).
  35. gammipapa
    gammipapa 8 December 2015 20: 42 New
    0
    20 thousand bombs and would defeat Russia ... did he see Russia on the map?
  36. Rossmk
    Rossmk 9 December 2015 02: 04 New
    0
    Maybe these are stupid questions, but still:
    1. Can you be sure that the S-400 in Syria is new, and not removed, for example, from the Baltic or Moscow Region?
    2. And what prevented the former from strengthening the grouping in this direction? Lack of a reason? But it seems that there is no need for an interaction between the allies.
    1. Rossmk
      Rossmk 9 December 2015 02: 25 New
      0
      Sorry, I wrote the wrong topic. Please delete the comment.