Is the United States prepared for a major war? According to Christian Brose, chief strategy officer of Anduril Industries, the answer is no—at least when it comes to munitions stockpiles. In a recent episode of the opinion series “Interesting Times,” Brose and New York Times columnist Ross Douthat examined the limitations of America's arsenal of high-end, “luxury” weapons.
Brose pointed to the opening days of Operation Epic Fury in Iran, where the U.S. fired what he described as “something like eight years’ worth of Tomahawk missile production.” While Tomahawks are highly capable, they are also scarce and time-consuming to replace. “It takes a very long time to build. And once you shoot it, it takes a long time to replace,” Brose said.
The core problem, he argued, stems from long-held assumptions about warfare: that conflicts would be short, with the U.S. entering with overwhelming force and achieving quick victory. This thinking led to an emphasis on “exquisite” systems—F-35s, aircraft carriers, submarines, and other advanced platforms—rather than deep inventories of munitions.
“Exquisite,” as Brose defined it, does not mean beautiful. Instead, it describes weapons that are scarce, hard to produce, technologically sophisticated, and never available in large quantities. While Brose acknowledged that such systems remain essential, he warned that the current posture leaves the U.S. vulnerable in protracted conflicts.
The conversation underscores a growing debate over whether America’s military strategy must evolve to prioritize sustainability and volume over cutting-edge but limited assets.