The United States may be facing a quiet but consequential strategic vulnerability: a shrinking arsenal of advanced missiles after an intense seven-week military campaign against Iran. According to a recent analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the scale of munitions expended during the conflict has created what experts describe as a “near-term risk” to America’s ability to respond to another major war.
The report, released Tuesday, paints a stark picture of depletion across some of the Pentagon’s most sophisticated weapons systems. It estimates that nearly half of the US inventory of Precision Strike Missiles has been used, alongside approximately 50% of Patriot air defense interceptors and more than half of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missiles. These systems form the backbone of US missile defense and long-range strike capabilities, and their reduced availability raises pressing questions about deterrence and readiness.
Beyond air defense, the report highlights significant drawdowns in other critical munitions. Roughly 30% of Tomahawk cruise missiles have reportedly been expended, along with more than 20% of long-range Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles. The US has also used about one-fifth of its SM-3 and SM-6 interceptors, both key components in countering ballistic and cruise missile threats. Analysts say these figures closely mirror classified internal assessments within the Pentagon.
While US officials maintain that current operations remain fully supported, the broader implications are harder to dismiss. The CSIS analysis argues that the depletion has not merely reduced stockpiles but has fundamentally weakened the country’s ability to wage a large-scale conflict elsewhere, particularly against a technologically advanced rival. China is frequently cited in defense planning scenarios as a potential near-peer adversary, and the report warns that diminished missile reserves could limit US options in such a confrontation.
Replenishing these arsenals is unlikely to be quick or simple. Defense manufacturing operates on long timelines, with complex supply chains and limited production capacity for high-end munitions. One expert involved in the study told media outlets that rebuilding existing stockpiles could take between one and four years, with additional years required to reach levels considered adequate for sustained global readiness. This lag presents a strategic window during which US military flexibility could be constrained.
Despite these concerns, officials have sought to reassure both domestic and international audiences. A spokesperson for the Pentagon emphasized that the US military retains sufficient capabilities to act “at the time and place of the president’s choosing.” The statement reflects a longstanding position that operational readiness is determined not only by raw stockpile numbers but also by deployment strategies, alliances, and technological advantages.
Political leadership has echoed this confidence, though with a more dismissive tone. Donald Trump has publicly downplayed the issue, asserting that the United States possesses a “virtually unlimited” supply of missiles. At the same time, his administration has proposed a record-setting military budget for fiscal year 2027, totaling approximately $1.5 trillion. A significant portion of this funding is expected to be directed toward replenishing and expanding munitions inventories, suggesting that concerns about shortages are being taken seriously behind the scenes.
The tension between public messaging and internal assessments underscores a broader challenge for US defense policy. On one hand, projecting strength and readiness is essential for deterrence. On the other, acknowledging vulnerabilities is necessary for addressing them effectively. Analysts warn that overstating capabilities could lead to strategic miscalculations, particularly in a rapidly evolving global security environment.
Adding to the urgency is the question of industrial capacity. Reports indicate that the Pentagon has explored unconventional measures to boost production, including outreach to major civilian manufacturers such as General Motors and Ford. The idea of repurposing automotive factories for munitions production reflects both the scale of the challenge and the limited surge capacity within the existing defense industrial base.
Such measures recall historical precedents, particularly during World War II, when civilian industries were rapidly converted to support wartime production. However, modern weapons systems are far more complex, requiring specialized components and expertise that cannot be easily replicated in non-defense facilities. This raises questions about how quickly and effectively such a transition could occur if needed.
The implications extend beyond US borders. Allies in Europe and Asia rely heavily on American military support, including access to advanced weapons systems. A depleted US arsenal could delay arms deliveries and weaken collective defense arrangements, particularly at a time of heightened geopolitical tensions. Reports have already suggested potential delays in shipments to European partners, highlighting the ripple effects of the current situation.
For now, the United States retains significant military advantages, including technological superiority, global logistics networks, and a vast defense budget. Yet the CSIS report serves as a reminder that even the world’s most powerful military is not immune to the constraints of supply and production. In an era of prolonged and high-intensity conflicts, the ability to sustain operations may prove just as important as the ability to initiate them.
