MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:
The United States military is running low on weapons, at least the weapons it has relied on for the war with Iran, now in its sixth month. This week, Reuters reported the U.S. is nearly out of certain long-range missiles, though the U.S. has other offensive weapons available. Perhaps more critically, the Center for Strategic and International Studies reported last month that the military has used up about two-thirds of its Patriot interceptors' defensive weapons against incoming fire.
NPR corroborated both reports with U.S. officials not authorized to discuss them. President Trump denies these reports. He posted online yesterday that the U.S. has, quote, "massive amounts of munitions, especially of certain types."
Well, our next guest disagrees. Phillips O'Brien argues shortages may already be affecting the current war with Iran, any future wars and wars fought by U.S. allies around the world. O'Brien is a professor of strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, and he recently wrote about this for the Atlantic. Professor O'Brien, welcome.
PHILLIPS O'BRIEN: Thank you for having me.
KELLY: Why is the U.S. running low? - because you argue the Trump administration is only partially responsible. So who or what else?
O'BRIEN: Well, I mean, in the longer term, the United States didn't stockpile enough of these weapons. I think it went back to the fact that the United States has felt entirely secure. It fought the war on terror for 20 years, which was mostly a low-tech war. They didn't fight an enemy that would make them use these kinds of weapons in a sort of high amount. So they coasted, and then, you know, the Trump administration came in and spent nothing to build up stockpiles, nothing to improve it. So the fact that they start a war that they did not understand - they thought it would be a short war - and before they know it, they're in a longer war that's going on for months, and they're using up weapons in a way they never conceived of, and that's where we are.
KELLY: So in a nutshell, this is bipartisan neglect, you would argue, allowing...
O'BRIEN: Yes.
KELLY: ...U.S. military industrial base to wither.
O'BRIEN: It's a bipartisan one that has been greatly exacerbated by the last year and a half.
KELLY: Yeah. Look beyond the war with Iran - for example, to China, Taiwan, a potential Chinese attack on Taiwan. What is the impact of this dwindling supply there?
O'BRIEN: The U.S. is out of the game. It can't make up this deficit for years. So the United States cannot fight China. It simply can't do it.
KELLY: You don't think that's...
O'BRIEN: It would be...
KELLY: ...Overstating it, to say the U.S. is...
O'BRIEN: No.
KELLY: ...Out of the game?
O'BRIEN: Well, how could it - if it has already eaten up more than half of its stockpiles of the Patriots, which you confirmed, how are they going to shoot down Chinese drones that can come in flocks of thousands and thousands? China is the biggest manufacturer in the world. The United States would eat up these stocks fighting China in a day or two. So I think the United States is absolutely out of the game as a military power in the Asia Pacific for a while until they get the ability to manufacture at scale.
KELLY: What are the implications for U.S. allies? You write in your piece for the Atlantic, the weapons shortfall - and I'm quoting - "sends a worrisome message to allies around the world." Just spell out the message.
O'BRIEN: Well, the No. 1 message that's come out of this is, if you don't make something and you base your military on buying it from someone else, you're actually making yourself vulnerable, not strong. Say you're an - U.S. ally in the Gulf, and you've based your military as you have by buying it from the United States - most of your weapons - on the assumption the U.S. will fight for you. You're discovering both sides of that bargain don't work.
So what the United States has done in two ways has undermined the country's standing in terms of selling weapons. And I believe every U.S. ally - and it's not quite sure the United States actually looks at other countries as allies anymore - but these countries now need to look to their own resources to say, OK, we need to have systems that we can make.
KELLY: I'm listening to you, and you sound awfully pessimistic about the state of the U.S. military, and I'm also hearing you say that what's needed to fix it is a bipartisan, long-term push.
O'BRIEN: Yes.
KELLY: Is there anything that gives you hope that that is coming?
O'BRIEN: No. I mean, the - and I'm sorry to sound pessimistic, but the United States went to war with Iran and lost it in a few months. And that should be the loudest of all wake-up calls.
KELLY: You don't think it's salvageable at this point?
O'BRIEN: Well, it's not salvageable right now, because it would take many years of production at the present level to even get back to where the United States was. And it's very hard to say, you know, how the country is going to come together behind any kind of coherent defense plan. So no, I mean, my own view is the United States should probably look inward for a while, and the rest of the world should stop relying on the United States, and America should learn to take care of its own problems.
KELLY: A sobering view there from Phillips O'Brien, of the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. Professor O'Brien, thank you.
O'BRIEN: Thank you. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
