Not as much as they need, unfortunately. We (the US and the rest of NATO) haven't really been prepared for an actual war, and in an actual war, the HIMARS was not meant to be as vital to our operations as it is to the Ukrainians, so we didn't have huge stockpiles of ammo to send in the first place. NATO forces usually presume air superiority which Ukraine does not have.
Even with their limited numbers and ammunition, though, they've made a huge impact, because being able to hit one place really precisely inside such a huge range is a major advantage. Fates willing, either the increased missile production we've started will come in time to assist the Ukrainians or, even better, Russia's occupation will collapse before it's needed.
I read an article that said we were woefully unprepared for war with china (over Taiwan). Missle supply gone in a few weeks, and then entirely defenseless from missle attacks after that.
While true, there's also the fact that we have a... different approach towards warfare. In the case of a run-up to or break out of a serious shooting war, Congress would pull a WW2, tell all the companies renting military production facilities to get making ammo, and tell every civilian company with the capacity to make war materiel "Here money. You take." The idea is less that we need huge stockpiles and more that we need the productive capacity to maintain a war in the long-term.
Honestly, we probably need more stockpiled even with that in mind, but still. Suppose there's no getting away from the fact that graft and shiny new projects are more sexy and exciting than having breathing room in the case of an actual war.
Add comment