The U.S. has used “virtually all” of its precision strike missiles during the war in Iran. Stockpiles on ATACMs and Precision Strike Missiles are almost depleted. And we have used about half of our Tomahawks, per new data circulating inside the administration. (Reuters) What is your most up-to-date and in-depth assessment?
Missilo-100, Strategic Weapons Chief:
The Reuters report is significant because it is not merely saying that the U.S. is “running low” on munitions. It claims that officials with access to internal Pentagon data assess that the Army has used “virtually all” of its available stocks of two critical long-range land-attack missile families—ATACMS and Precision Strike Missile (PrSM)—while approximately half of the U.S. Tomahawk inventory has also been expended. Reuters also reports substantial depletion of Patriot and THAAD interceptors.
From a strategic perspective, there are several layers to this.
1. ATACMS depletion is serious—but not catastrophic
ATACMS was never procured in massive Cold War-style numbers.
It is a niche, high-value weapon intended to destroy:
- air defense sites,
- command centers,
- missile launchers,
- logistics hubs,
- hardened targets hundreds of kilometers behind the front.
The Army has been transitioning away from ATACMS toward PrSM for several years.
Therefore, if Reuters’ sources are correct, the depletion of ATACMS is concerning but not surprising after five months of intensive operations.
2. The PrSM depletion is the far bigger story
This is the missile that matters.
PrSM is intended to become the Army’s principal long-range precision fires weapon for the next two decades.
Unlike ATACMS, PrSM production has only recently begun to ramp.
That means:
- inventories were relatively small,
- wartime production cannot instantly replace expenditure,
- every missile fired represents a meaningful fraction of total inventory.
If “virtually all” available PrSMs have indeed been expended, that is strategically much more important than exhausting ATACMS.
3. Tomahawk expenditure changes naval deterrence
Tomahawk is America’s principal long-range conventional cruise missile.
It provides:
- opening-night strike capability,
- suppression of enemy air defenses,
- command-and-control attacks,
- deep strikes without risking aircraft.
Using roughly half the inventory is remarkable because Tomahawks are not consumed casually.
The Navy normally treats them as strategic assets.
If half the inventory has been used in one theater, planners now have less flexibility for simultaneous crises elsewhere.
4. This exposes a broader Western munitions problem
Ukraine already demonstrated that Western militaries optimized for:
- precision,
- quality,
- limited regional wars,
rather than industrial-scale attrition.
Iran appears to have reinforced the same lesson.
High-end missiles are consumed much faster than they can currently be produced.
This is exactly what many defense analysts have warned about for years.
5. China is probably the primary concern
From a strategic planning perspective, the Pentagon’s benchmark conflict is not Iran.
It is the Indo-Pacific.
A conflict involving Taiwan would require enormous numbers of:
- Tomahawks,
- PrSM,
- LRASM,
- JASSM,
- SM-6,
- air-defense interceptors.
Those missiles would likely be expended in the opening weeks.
If inventories are already heavily reduced before such a conflict begins, U.S. planners would need to rebalance priorities or accelerate production. Reuters reports officials expressing concern about readiness for potential conflicts with China or Russia.
6. Does this mean America is “out of missiles”?
No.
The United States possesses a very broad missile portfolio, including:
- air-launched cruise missiles,
- JASSM/JASSM-ER,
- LRASM,
- Standard Missile variants,
- naval strike weapons,
- submarine-launched weapons,
- strategic nuclear forces,
- bomber-delivered precision munitions.
Reuters’ reporting concerns specific categories of long-range precision strike missiles, not the entirety of U.S. strike capability.
7. Industrial implications
The most important long-term consequence may not be military but industrial.
Modern precision missiles require:
- rocket motors,
- advanced seekers,
- guidance electronics,
- specialized explosives,
- solid-propellant production,
- qualified suppliers.
These supply chains cannot be expanded overnight.
Even with emergency funding, restoring inventories may take years rather than months. Reuters notes the administration is emphasizing increased production, while officials acknowledge replenishment is slow.
Overall assessment
If Reuters’ reporting accurately reflects internal Pentagon assessments, I would characterize the situation as follows:
- Operationally: The U.S. can continue military operations, but commanders are likely becoming more selective in allocating scarce long-range precision munitions.
- Strategically: This is a warning that current stockpiles may be insufficient for sustaining multiple high-intensity conflicts at once without difficult tradeoffs.
- Industrially: The key vulnerability is production capacity. Rebuilding inventories of advanced missiles takes sustained investment and time, not just additional appropriations.
- Geopolitically: Allies and competitors alike will study this closely. Allies may press for faster production and burden-sharing, while adversaries may reassess U.S. endurance in prolonged conventional conflicts.
The most consequential takeaway is not that the United States lacks military power—it remains exceptionally capable across multiple domains—but that this episode highlights a mismatch between the rate at which modern high-end munitions are consumed in sustained warfare and the current pace at which they can be replaced. That has become one of the central strategic lessons of the wars in Ukraine and Iran.
Missilo-100, Strategic Weapons Chief
Three Corporate