Odd Lots

War in Iran is Chewing Through American Missile Stockpiles

March 16, 2026

Key Takeaways Copied to clipboard!

  • The current conflict in Iran highlights a brutal missile math where cheap offensive munitions (like drones) are rapidly depleting expensive defensive interceptor stockpiles, raising concerns about running 'Winchester' (out of ammunition). 
  • The size of U.S. missile arsenals is tracked primarily through Congressional budget books, but recent conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East have substantially cut into total inventory, potentially tempting adversaries like China. 
  • Ramping up missile production faces significant physical constraints, including sole-source component bottlenecks, workforce limitations, and the need for reliable, multi-year government appropriations to incentivize private defense contractors to invest heavily. 

Segments

Introduction and Missile Math
Copied to clipboard!
(00:02:20)
  • Key Takeaway: The war in Iran is immediately revealing a brutal missile math where cheap offensive weapons strain expensive defensive stockpiles.
  • Summary: The conflict is characterized by the use of offensive missiles and anti-missile defense systems, with the economic impact already significant on commodity markets. The core issue revolves around the size and replenishment speed of arsenals in the context of asymmetric warfare tactics. The hosts frame the discussion around the supply chain for these armaments.
Guest Introduction and Think Tank Role
Copied to clipboard!
(00:05:29)
  • Key Takeaway: Defense think tanks like CSIS provide essential, contracted idea generation because government bureaucracies lack the time for deep, novel strategic thinking.
  • Summary: Tom Karako directs the Missile Defense Project at CSIS, focusing on everything from UAVs to ballistic missiles, both offensive and defensive. Think tanks exist because the Department of Defense is too large a bureaucracy to dedicate time to new idea generation. Many policy experts cycle between government service and think tank work for reflection and idea development.
Stockpile Transparency and Missile Types
Copied to clipboard!
(00:08:04)
  • Key Takeaway: While exact numbers are sensitive, the size of U.S. missile stockpiles can be largely inferred by tracking Congressional budget appropriations and spending requests.
  • Summary: Missiles are broadly categorized as ballistic (flying gravity’s rainbow) or cruise missiles (aerodynamic with jet engines), with new classes like hypersonic gliders blending characteristics. Precision guidance and standoff capability have made missiles the ‘weapons of choice’ in modern conflict, as seen by the high expenditure in the current Iran conflict and previous actions in Syria. The ability to hit a bullet with a bullet has been proven, making missile defense a global necessity.
Defensive Necessity and Inventory Depletion
Copied to clipboard!
(00:18:19)
  • Key Takeaway: Missile defense cannot win a war but its absence can quickly lose one, yet current expenditures are substantially cutting into the total inventory needed for other global deterrent tasks, like China.
  • Summary: Missile defense buys time to end threats by other means, as demonstrated by its role in keeping Ukraine sovereign and thwarting attacks against Israel. The current rate of expenditure is ‘scary’ because defensive interceptors take a long time to produce, creating a specter of going ‘Winchester’ (running out of ammunition). Moving systems like THAAD and Patriot from the Pacific to the Middle East compromises deterrence against Chinese adventurism.
Offensive Expenditure and Procurement Planning
Copied to clipboard!
(00:22:16)
  • Key Takeaway: Offensive strike capabilities are also being consumed at a high rate, and procurement decisions rely on hypothesized order-of-battle planning that proved dramatically too low based on recent conflict usage.
  • Summary: The U.S. is chewing through hundreds, possibly thousands, of long-range offensive missiles like Tomahawks, which is also part of the ‘scary part.’ Military planners estimate needs based on conflict hypotheses, but the Ukraine war forced the U.S. Army to quadruple its acquisition objective for Patriot PAC-3 missiles. The Pentagon is now pushing defense primes to maximize production, even asking them to lean in on their own capital before full appropriations are secured.
Physical Constraints on Production Ramp
Copied to clipboard!
(00:29:19)
  • Key Takeaway: Physical constraints on ramping up production include reliance on sole-source suppliers for key widgets, limited specialized facilities (like the single Tomahawk plant in Tucson), and the need for private capital investment certainty.
  • Summary: The supply chain for munitions has numerous bottlenecks and sole-source components that are not fully understood by the Pentagon. Initiatives like the Office of Strategic Capital aim to leverage private wealth to support defense supply chains, including investments in new solid rocket motor producers. Defense contractors are hesitant to invest billions on spec because the Department of Defense’s munitions buying history has been cyclical and unreliable, necessitating multi-year procurement contracts.
Allied Support and Delivery Delays
Copied to clipboard!
(00:37:02)
  • Key Takeaway: The U.S. is struggling to fulfill existing orders for allies, such as Patriot missiles for Ukraine’s partners, forcing some nations like Denmark to choose alternative systems based on delivery schedules rather than superiority.
  • Summary: The U.S. suspended Patriot missile deliveries to many allies to prioritize Ukraine, illustrating the strain on global stockpiles. Interoperability requires allies to buy American systems, but delivery queues are now so long that schedule dictates procurement choices. Allies are leaning in to help Ukraine, as it is their immediate security concern, but this creates global delivery entanglements.
Drone Cost vs. Capability
Copied to clipboard!
(00:40:32)
  • Key Takeaway: Focusing solely on the cost disparity between cheap drones and expensive interceptors is misleading because capability, operational cost, and the cost of mission failure must be factored into the equation.
  • Summary: While Iranian Shahed drones may cost around $50,000 to $80,000, they lack the 1,200-kilometer range and 500-pound warhead of a Tomahawk missile, meaning a thousand drones may not achieve the same effect. Ship captains prioritize mission success over calculating the cost of an interceptor versus an incoming drone. The true operational cost includes massive expenses like steaming naval assets and jet fuel, which eclipse the cost of the munitions themselves.
Ending the Conflict
Copied to clipboard!
(00:45:03)
  • Key Takeaway: Ending a missile-centric conflict is difficult without ground forces to verify destruction, but a positive sign is the flattening curve of Iranian fire rate, allowing a transition from standoff missiles to cheaper gravity bombs.
  • Summary: It is hard to confirm destruction of ground targets using only air power, suggesting a need for some forces on the ground to assess success against hardened targets. The flattening rate of fire indicates that U.S. strikes are successfully hitting launchers or command and control, enabling a ‘munitions transition’ away from expensive, long-range standoff weapons. Ultimately, a political change is likely required to definitively end the conflict.