Public sentiment regarding US military readiness is polarized, characterized by a blend of pride in advanced military technology and profound concern about overall military effectiveness, supply shortages, and leadership issues. Many commenters express skepticism towards the current stockpile of weapons, advocating for a reevaluation of military spending in light of domestic needs.

US Military

Government

Defense Contractors

I think you’re basing your assumptions on movies. Most of us who have more powerful weapons, have no intentions of walking around and broadcasting such a thing. 

High powered rifles are for hunting. Military weapons aren’t for what the owner plans to do with them, but more to defend against others. If things get so desperate that I want to defend myself against a threat, I’d rather stop the threat while it’s over there and not wait til it’s over here.  Stockpiling weapons aren’t for acting like Rambo. It’s to defend my family and to make sure anyone I know and trust can assist me in the same. If that makes sense.

SpacemanPete

I can't speak for myself but a co worker I work with has approx 45k in guns. He seriously thinks that he will be a leader when "Red Dawn" happens. And yes, the last time he ran was a decade ago.

CauseForApplause

Roof top Koreans though

Realistically in many cases, sure, maybe a concealed pistol is superior, but why limit yourself?

AdditionalAd9794

Brass facts did a great video covering exactly this and I pretty much follow it building step by step. [13 sec in for the pyramid](https://youtu.be/i95RvBjp_Hw?si=XX2WNEsek09RLCTt)

Something similar to Katrina or the hurricane down pour in NC would be the closest to "regional disruption" or a concealment PDW.

HRslammR

Better to have them and not use them than to need them and not have them. Always be prepared for the unexpected.

No-Use7119

The hard truth is that for most "preppers" it's a LOT more appealing to buy another gun and make holes in paper than it is to go for a hike and shit in the woods/practice wilderness survival etc.


And that's ok - it's a free country. It's usually pretty easy to work out if someone is just LARPING.

xlvi_et_ii

you said "stockpile" but then gave an example of having 1 AR15? so which one is it?

I would think that having hundreds of AKs as in "stockpile" is indeed unreasonable. But that has nothing to do with having few select tools that have specific advantages in certain situations

for example, the handgun just doesn't compare to the versatility of AR15 in a multiple armed attackers home invasion, which can happen as part of natural disaster or civil unrest or just on Tuesday. Why would I want a concealed Glock, when what I need is overwhelming firepower and show of force as deterrence?

SomeAd8993

mikedp1234

[deleted]

Going by history, being involved in an armed conflict is 100% more likely than a complete economic collapse anywhere. Do I think it's likely to happen here, not really, but still 100% more likely than a complete socioeconomic collapse that sends everything instantly back to the stone age without years of bloody war proceeding. 

Also, a gun shoots a bullet. Grandpa's Remington 742 from the 1960s is functionally equivalent to any modern sporting rifle. So if you see the need for any hunting rifle why not have the most modern most commonly produced cheapest rifle with piles of readily available repair parts? Are you scared of how they look? If you put a wood stock on it, would it make you feel better? 

If you can't tell, everyone is taking issue with the term "weapons of war." There are firearms, and there are people. The person determines what the firearm is called. If it's a soldier or a hunter, a remington 700 is a: military sniper rifle or a hunting rifle. It's that simple, "weapons of war" is a completely fabricated term designed to control by fear. People using terms like that often seek to get an emotional response and cause fear in the population of people who do not know any better.

Successful_Error9176

https://youtu.be/8JbIt11fdf4?si=wxug0s_UCoXdVpwZ

You're not fighting these bastards off by firing two blasts in the air... Gotta have a 9mm to blow their lungs out. The kind that has the shoulder thing that goes up and weighs as much as 10 boxes.

WildlyWeasel

There are multiple schools of thought on this one.  Basically in complete SHTF scenario, like of apocalyptic proportions, there are going to be two types of survivors: Those with weapons, and those without weapons.  You don’t have to use your imagination to figure out who has the best odds of long term survival in that scenario; additionally as society rebuilds itself, there will be multiple “factions” or groups of people based on collective ideology.  Over time those groups will grow and eventually clash, War/conflict is as old as humanity, so it’s going to continue to happen.  Stockpiling of weapons ensures that you and/or your immediate “prepper group” has the proper arsenal or “tools” available to fight and defend when that conflict happens.  The more you have stockpiled, the more you can arm your survivor group, allowing you to gain potential diplomatic strength in negotiations with an opposing group.  The TV show “The Walking Dead” actually does a really good job of portraying this if you remove the “walkers” from the story.  

Now, in a non apocalyptic SHTF scenario wich is the mostly likely outcome that any prepper should prepare for, there will be chaos and “bad actors” (Looters, Organized Criminal activity, corruption amongst authorities, desperate individuals and groups, etc).  Those bad actors pose a threat and typically will use violence to achieve their goals.  If a prepper stockpiles an arsenal, that prepper can arm trustworthy “honest allies” (friends, family, neighbors, etc) , trade weapons for goods and services, and restore order through peacefully intended force.  

To answer your plate carrier or “combat load out” question, it’s 1) show of force/standoff intimidation, basically don’t fuck with me and I won’t fuck with you.  2) Crime happens fast when people are desperate, you better be ready to protect yourself and your property 3) In the USA, those that own firearms are the  defacto militia, we would 100% fight back in a military sense should it be a “war type” Red Dawn SHTF scenario, (heck, as terrible as that would be it would be the coolest scenario to have happen if you are an armed and ready prepper.) and you better have the best gear possible if you are going to fight an enemy… Additionally if it’s a minor, relatively isolated event, then yeah you really only need to have the “just in case” self defense loadout, concealed firearms and maybe an under clothing body protection kit if the situation calls for it.  Armed looters/gangs/semi-organized criminals and the stress induced random crazy people are the biggest threat in a local/ regional event, protect yourself accordingly. 

At the end of the day, in any SHTF scenario, people need water, food, and shelter, and they will be willing to do anything to get those needs, it’s a matter of who is stronger vs weaker and who has it vs who doesn’t.  A stockpiled arsenal increases your odds no matter how you look at it.  A key thing to remember in all types of SHTF scenarios is groups of like minded individuals will form communities in some way shape or form, and there will always be “wolves” and “sheep”.  

Now, if you legit are prepping in the middle of nowhere to live like a hermit without ever making contact with another human outside of your initial survivor group, then you simply need to stockpile firearms based upon their use case as a tool for hunting and fending off wildlife, basically a few rifles and a few shotguns, so that you have backups in case one breaks or is forgotten in the woods/ dropped in the lake while hunting and different calibers for different types of game.

SenselessSensors

One simple answer really: for 4 years straight, a MASSIVE invasion happened. Statistically, over 2.4 million military age men from all over the world have entered our country. That’s one of the largest armies in the planet (with the assumption they all are waving the same banner). It’s inevitable that we see a war on our Homeland.

Single_Bandicoot_408

Katrina and Covid are very minor in the grand scheme of things. What about an event where millions die and tens of millions are homeless? Major nuclear war, an EMP, asteroid, major solar flare, etc. Things that will disrupt a huge population over a large area. Just think about an EMP. People are going to have mass migrations from the cities once the food and water run out. That could be in less than 72 hours. I would not want to be defenseless even as far as 50 miles outside LA. People have gone to war over resources before and certainly will again. I want to have a robust way to defend what I have.

davidm2232

not stockpiling guns so much as having ammo for the ones i have. generally my thinking is this scenario is a rifle for hunting and defense plus a pistol. Beyond that there is only so much i can carry. now if i am hunkered down and waiting it out then i have enough to arm everyone in my home (and neighbors too if necessary)

analogliving71

Assuming you have a compound you need to be able to defend it - at minimum a hunting (or sniper) rife for long range defense, something with high capacity for multiple threats (AR platform for example), sidearm. Anti-materiel rife might be considered as well depending on your defense planning.

G00dSh0tJans0n

I live in the mountain west with very long sight lines. Most deer / elk are shot from 300+ yards, as an example.

BallsOutKrunked

Some people prep because they want to be able to eat and survive when hard times come. Some people "prep" because it’s TEOTWAWKI fantasy porn.

CVS1401

A Pistols biggest upside is its portability. Unfortunately it has a lot of downsides such as:

-less stable making aiming more difficult 

-Generally less powerful and/or range limited

-Generally lacks the ability to penetrate even ubiquitous soft armor 

-Not legal for hunting in many areas

That being the case, most prepardness minded people generally want some sort of long arm available to cover all their bases. 

The AR-15 is common because of all the things that made it a good choice for the military. It’s inexpensive, light weight, offers an adjustable length of pull for all shooters, is accurate, fairly flat shooting, low recoil, and mechanically simple enough for most to understand. We think of the 5.56 cartridge as anemic, but muzzle energy puts it in the same class as some of the bigger bore magnum pistol rounds, but with better penetration. 

Beyond that, there becomes more specialized choices. Are you trying to defend your Ranch with miles of open land around? You may need something that can reach out further and/or hits hard enough to stop a vehicle. 

Generally the point of prepardness is to give yourself options. Be it gear or knowledge beyond what the average person may have at their disposal. Having a variety of weapons at your disposal are but one piece of that very large pie.

LastEntertainment684

It might be from America's general gun culture. I read somewhere that one of the reasons that Americans (I am one) are gun-savvy is the colonies were founded and settled mostly by veterans of the English civil war and their children. That, combined with the fact that most Americans until recently lived in rural, hunt-able areas, makes for a serious gun culture.

HaiHaiNayaka

It's a collecting hobby.

Lots of people have things they have mutliples of - the flashlight subreddit will make you quickly realize that.

You may start with a gun of a certain caliber and size, and then start thinking, "maybe I DO was a bolt action rifle," or a different caliber, or want to "upgrade" to a better quality, or type of ammunition, or maybe you just like the look of a certain one you don't have yet.

I don't know anyone that has stockpiled 100 identical guns because they're prepping for war. I'm sure it happens, though. Every country has crazies.

I don't know, but when random people on the internet ask how many guns ("weapons of war") I have, what kind, why, and what I plan to do with them, it makes me want to wonder who they are to ask, and why they want to know.  I'm not impugning your expression of "no judgment" necessarily, but for sure it's not a line of enquiry (or inquiry?) I'd want to participate in.

Sorry Bud.  It looks like you have a random sampling of people answering anyway though.

PaxPacifica2025

The reason I keep some serious hardware is in case I need to protect my family and what we have spent our life lives working for. In case of an shtf/wrol situation, I have enough rifles, pistols, and shotguns plus ammunition for each member of my family and those people I invited to the retreat and extras for backup. 



If something serious were to go down (wrol), everyone in my MAG on patrol would be carrying an AR10/AR15 and a pistol while on the property (670 acre farm with cattle and crops), as well as 8 to 10 pmags, combat IFAK kits, and three guards would be in a fixed fighting positions at strategic locations. The most experienced shooters will be running bolt guns for extra range and accuracy and are floaters to respond quickly to contact, while others watch the back access points. I have a shooting range on the property and we regularly shoot steel out to 400 yards with the ladies and the guys will shoot out to 700 yards.



My fear is the loss of law and order to the point where you have to be willing to protect what is yours or roving groups will take your land, your food, your women, and your life. 

Many-Health-1673

Mexican cartel have invaded, you just didn't see it as its not on your doorstep.

WxxTX

If wolves or bears get too near the town near me then a hunting party go out to take care of it.

TV show Earth Abides (ep 3), 16 years on and they don't carry or have a fence after saying the is 3 different animals that will get you!

  
.

.

https://preview.redd.it/yzhj0w6usc7e1.jpeg?width=996&amp;format=pjpg&amp;auto=webp&amp;s=030a03fbb1c46fad2154fc49c6b2253e147d8ee9

The collapse of the weimar republic, the breakup of yugoslavia, and the rwandan genocide are my historical touch points for maintaining some light infantry gear. I'll readily admit this is more philosophical than practical. If these kinds of events arrive, survival is a slim possibility. I see it more as a duty to retain the option to wage war on those who wish to exterminate you. To be clear, my "stockpile" is simply a primary weapon for each adult. The vast majority of my preparedness work is spent on growing food and raising livestock.

Less_Subtle_Approach

There are several aspects to this.  


 I will first note that what is called a "weapon of war" is very editorialized, and also that social norms vary by region and reasonable postures vary by situation. Something that makes sense on 20 acres (with neighbors also having between 5 and 100 acres) in Idaho isn't going to be the same as what makes sense in an apartment in a city back east.  


 The second thing that must be addressed is... Blatant rule 4 violations. Some people who call themselves preppers are specifically prepping to fight a guerilla war, and not always in the sense of a broadly justified resistance against foreign invasion or tyrannical government. 


The third thing: being completely hunkered down can make you more vulnerable. When rule of law is operating, criminals act by stealth, surprise, or social intimidation (Mafia style). Without it, it's potentially more possible for a gang to either attack in force or surround a target, observe, and find a way to crack the nut. So in some scenarios, it may make sense for people to patrol a neighborhood, stop threats to security before they're on your doorstep, or (in particular) patrol a large rural retreat. 


(Ways to detect threats at a distance or without exposing yourself to them are also good as far as security goes.)


Obviously one must act in accordance with ethics and established law. 

I think part of it may be for the extended outages/ grid down scenario. Think North Carolina or Katrina but more widespread. People who prep or have supplies will become targets for those without or by those who are just bad people. I would not bring a pistol to a rifle fight, especially if it could be multiple people. I want to have equal or superior firepower of those who wish me harm. Plus, weapons of war now is quite a vague term. Drones are used, IED’s and VBIEDs are used. Every major war is now mostly unconventional other than air strikes and heavy artillery. 
Just my opinion.

If you prep for everything except defense then everything you prepped is going to be given to the first armed group that shows up at your door. Say you purchase a handgun, Shotgun and a rifle for hunting and think that's enough?  Then you and your family and your best friend and his family are all hunkered down and a group of 20 dudes show up demanding your food and your women. Sure maybe you can defend against that with your 3 guns. But wouldn't you rather have a gun in the hands of all your family members who are old enough?

HursHH

Im under no illusions that if the SHTF, there will be looting.  There will be breakdown of society and an overwhelmed police department struggling to keep order.  It happened during many natural disasters.

If it does devolve to every man for himself, then I am going to protect my food stash and everything else Ive labored to amass under this umbrella of prepping.  What good is building up a basement full of preserved food when its vulnerable to be being handed over under duress?  Now the guy who didnt bother to prep is going to eat from my stash and I go hungry.

That being said, Im sensible about my firearms.  I only have 2 hands to shoot with and dont invest in a frickin arsenal along with plate armor, night vision and other tactical gear/toys

BeeYehWoo

Others already pointed out that factories already operate close to 100%. The whole point of stockpiles is recognizing that you know consumption will exceed capacity.
It’s also important to note that Ukraine is fighting with one arm behind its back according to the NATO model. When generals think about how many shells they would use, they also assume that they would use airplanes and all those related weapons. 

Of course Ukraine doesn’t have that option yet. But NATO never planned on fighting a conventional war that would take years to resolve.

landodk

\&gt;What are the reasons behind the US's inability to replenish its ammunition stocks?

It's not an inability, the US simply had a budget for ammunition and the private sector consequently had set up production capacity to meet that spending. Now that there's more demand it takes time to ramp up production.

The land and buildings need to be available, safety laws respected, equipment purchased, installed and tested, the supplies made, and tolerances increased as the production lines come on line.

Also, you're talking about several firms. The mining, the metalworking firms and the  chemical companies who make the propellant and explosives are all different companies.

Mr_Gaslight

It's a question of manufacturing capacity. Historically "we" be it government og private industry is not willing to have spare capacity. In most management litterature that's "slack" or "waste" that should be eliminated for profit and efficiency.

So sure, you can ramp it up, if you have capacity left over, which you normally do not.

So you'd have to build capacity. That takes time, it takes machine tools, educated workers, foundries, production halls and so on and so forth. That can be built but it takes time, years sometimes. If you're not going to have steady orders, do you as a private company want to do this?

 This has been the issue in Europe for instance, as you say artillery ammo is not complex, but companies won't build out capacity if they can't see how they'll make their investment back.

sp668

No one is providing any reading about this so here ya go.

[This](https://asc.army.mil/web/news-chain-reaction/) one is about the Army ramping up 155mm production. They are planning on more than doubling production, but it just takes a long time; entire factories need to be retooled and reorganized. That's no easy task since these ammo plants are from WW2 era production, and have not seen significant investment in decades. The last major overhaul of ammo production was in the mid 80s. Also, because GWOT did not require a lot of 155mm ammo, the government stopped buying ammo at large rates. It is incredibly difficult for companies to stay profitable when the government is so fickle with ammo procurement.

To illustrate this, take a look at [this article](https://acquisitiontalk.com/2023/02/analysis-of-ammunition-procurement-fy-1999-fy-2023/) and t[his one too](https://acquisitiontalk.com/2023/02/data-on-dod-munitions-and-missile-procurement-fy-2001-to-fy-2023/). The graphs show ammo budgets by type, and you can easily see how difficult it is for ammo producers. Due to the fluctuating budgets, ammo plants must run as efficiently as possible with as few workers as possible. To expand capacity, the workforce also needs to grow; this is no easy task either. 

So to answer your question, ammo production is increasing in a way that we have not seen in 50+ years, it just takes time. Also, the US likely has millions of 155mm ammo squirreled away somewhere in case of WW3 breaking out, but the bean counters are not comfortable dipping into that stock just to fuel a war in Ukraine. There needs to be enough ammo on hand to fuel the opening salvos of a war, and last until wartime production ramps up. Ammo stocks are difficult to find data on or understand, but the US would not put itself in a spot where ammo is in short supply.

DollarTreeButthole

Industrial capacity is built on having people and machines that can make machines that make things.  The US for a lot of reasons decided it was better to be able to have cheap finished good than industrial capacity.  So our corporations moved all of that knowledge and capacity to make things to China.   The only reason we are able to make anything at all is because US corporations haven't completed the transfer yet.

How many tool and die makers do you know personally?  Manufacturing engineers?  I grew up in an extended family mostly of those kinds of people in Western Massachusetts when there was a lit of industry.   Not so much now.   Political decisions matter.

sunshinebread52

NATO, specifically the United States has been able to give financial aid, training and weapons to Ukraine and have them fight the Russian federation without a single US/EU life loss. The weapons where designed for NATO military to engage Russians in future conflict. Basically the US and the EU have been able to provide Ukraine with military and financial aid to without any lives lost on their behalf. It sucks for Ukrainian lives, but they befit protecting their freedom and independence.

DarkMatter00111

The 155mm artillery rounds are usually costing $200-300 million annually in US. Given cost of round is $14,000 each, it is 14,000-21,000 rounds.

In 2019, there is an exception that US army purchased 150,000 rounds. With the 10 fold increase, this is likely what US can make in a year.

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/army-budget-artillery-shells/

Russia is firing 60,000 artillery rounds per day, of them some 20,000 152mm rounds.

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/russia-artillery-rocket-strikes-east-ukraine/

There is no way the US even the West can match Russia's supply in current form of war.

da-da_da

Primary wester striking arm is air power. Especially precision guided munitions. Things like Stingers and Javelin are close in support for when everything else has failed. You have gotten threw the air power, the artillery the actual tanks and mounted ATGMs etc. If the bad guy is getting that close that often that we need Javelins for more than to keep out the occasional bad situation then the problem is not the weapons we gave to Ukraine but our whole force structure.

Munitions production is extremely cyclical. During high intensity warfare a military will burn through rounds rapidly, but during times of peace you need only a tiny portion for training and maintenance. It's far to expensive to keep your factory running at full capacity non-stop. Instead, you scale down production to a minimum necessary to maintain procedures (you need to keep your supply chain intact, need to keep training people on production methodology, etc), but make only a minimal amount of product.

The idea, then, is to stockpile enough munitions to fill short term needs in case of a sudden conflict, during which you ramp capacity back up.

That's what has happened here - we've been drawing down stockpiles of munitions, and have been taking our time ramping up production. There could be good reasons for the delay, such as wanting to take the opportunity to update supply chains, diversify suppliers, or the like.

For a sense of scale, reports in the press say that Ukraine needs 1.5 million artillery shells annually for its war with Russia. During the Vietnam war, the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant was manufacturing in excess of 5 million artillery rounds annually. We've been making only a tiny fraction of that in recent years, but can certainly ramp back up to that level if necessary.

CxEnsign

I assume you’re talking specifically about 155mm rounds. Missiles are also low too, but missiles are just. Lot harder to build at scale. 

But for the 155s, Ukraine is at a weird crossroads of warfare. They still follow a lot of Soviet doctrine, and had a lot of Soviet equipment. Now they have a lot of western equipment but still follow a lot of Soviet doctrine. 

The basic concept of western large scale warfare is to fix and degrade the enemy with precision fires (artillery, rockets, etc), and then engage with maneuver forces (infantry, tanks). The Soviets and now Russians have the opposite concept. They fix the enemy in place with ground forces and then destroy them with overwhelming fires. Like, obliterate grid squares on maps kind of fires. 

The Ukrainians are firing far, far more 155mm rounds than we anticipated, and we’re not at a wartime production footing. They’re simply outshooting steady-state production levels.

SweatyTax4669

**NOTE: Top-level comments by non-approved users must be manually approved by a mod before they appear.**

This is part of our policy to maintain a high quality of content and minimize misinformation. Approval can take 24-48 hours depending on the time zone and the availability of the moderators. If your comment does not appear after this time, it is possible that it did not meet our quality standards. Please refer to the subreddit rules in the sidebar and our [answer guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/comments/rf5ycx/guidelines_for_answers/) if you are in doubt. 

Please do not message us about missing comments in general. If you have a concern about a specific comment that is still not approved after 48 hours, then feel free to message the moderators for clarification.

### Consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&amp;subject=Reminder&amp;message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/comments/18cboww/are_there_economic_reasons_why_america_is_running/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for quality answers to be written.

Want to read answers while you wait?  Consider our [weekly roundup](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/search?sort=new&amp;restrict_sr=on&amp;q=flair%3AWeekly%2BRoundup) or look for the [approved answer flair.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/search?sort=new&amp;restrict_sr=on&amp;q=flair%3AApproved%2BAnswers)

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskEconomics) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

We aren't low on munitions because of the war in Ukraine...  this is the same as saying "I'm low on money because I gave my friend 100 bucks last week and now I only have 50million in the bank but the wife said I can't take any more cash out to give my friend until I take out the trash"

&amp;#x200B;

The US is running low on extra reserved stockpiles, in other words, if we got in a war TOMORROW and we went all out and used ALL of the shit we have, we might run out in 6 months or more, but its better to never run out.

&amp;#x200B;

the US is asking permission to build up more stock piles so they can continue giving them to Ukraine without risking ever touching the accounts that we actually care about.

Dredly

Running "low" on ammunition is relative. The US has the needs of its own military and its own strategic interests to consider and the minimum stockpiles of ammunition necessary to safeguard those. Traditionally, this has been an unofficial requirement to be capable of fighting two major wars at the same time. Even that "requirement" is a subjective one though.

In other words, the US is not running low but it may have a shortfall in what its military leaders believe is necessary to fight a major long term war of attrition should one break out. However, this is offset somewhat by the fact that A) Russia was previously one of the most likely opponents in such a potential war, and B) the US is only running "short" of the certain types of ammunition which Ukraine is making heavy use of. HIMARS rockets, 155mm artillery shells, that sort of thing. Stockpiles of other weapons like air to air missiles, cruise missiles or precision bombs are virtually untouched by comparison.

HolyGig

Concerns are rising about the United States' military readiness as former Pentagon adviser Douglas Macgregor claims the US could exhaust its missile supply in just eight days.

US Military Readiness and Weapons Stockpile

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want