Strategic autonomy ultimately rests not just on acquiring advanced weapons, but on having the industrial capacity and diversified supply chains to keep them operational when a war lasts longer than expected.

History offers a sobering reminder that even the world’s most powerful militaries are not immune to depleted arsenals. The United States has repeatedly confronted the consequences of munitions shortages - from the opening months of the Korean War, when inadequate stockpiles and strained logistics forced commanders to ration artillery fire, to the prolonged campaigns in Vietnam and Afghanistan, where years of sustained operations exposed weaknesses in procurement, production capacity, and supply chains.

Each time, Washington recovered by mobilising its industrial base, expanding defence production, strengthening logistics, and rebuilding strategic reserves. Yet history appears to be echoing once again. Years of military assistance to Ukraine, combined with the demands of a prolonged conflict with Iran that has lasted far beyond initial expectations, have renewed concerns over the resilience of U.S. munitions inventories. The issue is not whether America possesses the world’s most advanced weapons. That it does. But whether it can manufacture, replenish, and sustain them at the pace demanded by modern high-intensity warfare.

The first visible indication of mounting pressure came with the administration’s request for emergency funding from Congress (reportedly around $87 billion) to support military operations and ‘rapidly replenish equipment and munitions’. Such a request is more than a budgetary measure; it reflects a strategic reality: even the United........

© The Pioneer