Washington’s Missile Shortage, With Michael Horowitz | The President’s Inbox

1. Horowitz: U.S. Munitions Stocks Critically Depleted

Timestamp: 00:01:31 to 00:04:22 - watch this moment on skim

The United States has experienced a substantial drawdown of its advanced weapons inventory, both offensive and defensive. This depletion is attributed to a decades-long strategy prioritizing exquisite, expensive, and hard-to-produce weapons over quantity, leading to current stocks of systems like Patriot and THAAD interceptors, and Tomahawk cruise missiles being significantly reduced. This reliance on high-cost systems, often used against cheaper adversary munitions, creates an unfavorable cost exchange ratio and strains U.S. capabilities.

Significance (High): This critical depletion of U.S. munitions raises serious concerns about the nation's ability to deter adversaries and sustain prolonged conflicts. The unfavorable cost exchange ratio in current engagements further exacerbates the problem, potentially leaving the U.S. vulnerable.

Sources in support: Michael C. Horowitz (Senior Fellow for Technology and Innovation and Director of the Defense and National Security Program, CFR)

Neutral sources: James M. Lindsay (Host, Senior Fellow, CFR)

2. Horowitz: Offensive Standoff Weapons Also Depleted

Timestamp: 00:06:01 to 00:08:19 - watch this moment on skim

Michael Horowitz explains that offensive standoff weapons like ATACMS and the newer Precision Strike Missile have also seen significant drawdowns. These ground-launched systems allow for long-range engagement, crucial for avoiding direct exposure of aircraft and pilots. The U.S. military relies on such systems, including Tomahawks, JASSMs, and LRASMs, to fight effectively while minimizing risk, leading to the depletion of their initially modest inventories.

Significance (High): The depletion of long-range offensive munitions forces the U.S. military to reconsider its operational tactics, potentially increasing risks to personnel and aircraft if these standoff capabilities cannot be rapidly replenished.

Sources in support: Michael C. Horowitz (Senior Fellow for Technology and Innovation and Director of the Defense and National Security Program, CFR)

Neutral sources: James M. Lindsay (Host, Senior Fellow, CFR)

3. Lindsay Challenges Trump's Argument on Ukraine's Role

Timestamp: 00:09:12 to 00:11:36 - watch this moment on skim

James Lindsay questions former President Trump's assertion that the current munition shortage is solely due to the Biden administration's transfers to Ukraine. Michael Horowitz counters that the roots of the problem extend much further back, to decisions made in the early 1990s under the Clinton administration to consolidate the defense industry and prioritize quality over quantity. He argues that while weapons were indeed sent to Ukraine, this is not the primary cause of the systemic issue, which has been exacerbated by every administration since.

Significance (Medium): By tracing the munitions crisis back decades, Horowitz refutes the simplistic explanation that Ukraine aid is the sole culprit, highlighting deeper structural issues in U.S. defense policy and industrial capacity that require long-term solutions.

Sources in support: James M. Lindsay (Host, Senior Fellow, CFR)

Neutral sources: Michael C. Horowitz (Senior Fellow for Technology and Innovation and Director of the Defense and National Security Program, CFR)

4. Horowitz: Defense Industry Consolidation Creates Choke Points

Timestamp: 00:13:08 to 00:15:03 - watch this moment on skim

Michael Horowitz explains that the consolidation of the defense industry, beginning in the 1990s, has created critical choke points with tier-two and tier-three suppliers. This means that even if a major contractor like Lockheed or Boeing could increase production, they are dependent on a limited number of specialized suppliers for components like rocket motors or gyroscopes. This industrial structure makes it inherently difficult to rapidly scale production of complex weapons systems, as capacity is constrained by these upstream dependencies.

Significance (High): The consolidation of the defense industrial base has created significant bottlenecks, severely limiting the U.S.'s ability to quickly ramp up production of essential munitions and weapons systems, a vulnerability exposed by current global demands.

Sources in support: Michael C. Horowitz (Senior Fellow for Technology and Innovation and Director of the Defense and National Security Program, CFR)

Neutral sources: James M. Lindsay (Host, Senior Fellow, CFR)

5. Lindsay: Pentagon's Strategy Slow to Adapt to Great Power Competition

Timestamp: 00:16:18 to 00:18:43 - watch this moment on skim

James Lindsay questions why the Pentagon's strategy hasn't significantly shifted towards addressing great power competition, despite warnings for nearly a decade. Michael Horowitz attributes this inertia to several factors: the inherent difficulty in changing large organizations ('aircraft carriers can't turn on a dime'), the continued excellence of U.S. weapon systems making radical change seem less urgent, and budget constraints that force trade-offs between munitions, platforms, and personnel. The focus has remained on improving existing platforms rather than maximizing inventories, a model ill-suited for prolonged conflicts.

Significance (High): The Pentagon's slow adaptation to the reality of great power competition, coupled with budget pressures, has resulted in a strategic mismatch where the U.S. military is not adequately postured with the necessary inventories for sustained high-intensity conflict.

Sources in support: James M. Lindsay (Host, Senior Fellow, CFR)

Neutral sources: Michael C. Horowitz (Senior Fellow for Technology and Innovation and Director of the Defense and National Security Program, CFR)

6. Horowitz: 'Precise Mass' as a Solution for Scalable Defense

Timestamp: 00:19:42 to 00:21:46 - watch this moment on skim

Michael Horowitz proposes 'precise mass'—lower-cost, scalable systems leveraging commercial manufacturing and AI—as a key strategy to rebuild U.S. defense capabilities within a two-year window. This approach draws lessons from systems like Iran's Shahed drones and Ukraine's adaptation to warfare. He notes that while the Trump administration has supported such initiatives, bureaucratic hurdles have slowed their implementation. The proposed large defense budgets aim to both backfill existing stocks and scale these more efficient, mass-producible capabilities.

Significance (High): The 'precise mass' strategy offers a potential pathway to rapidly scale U.S. defense production by focusing on cost-effective, AI-enabled systems, addressing the current inventory crisis and preparing for future conflicts.

Sources in support: Michael C. Horowitz (Senior Fellow for Technology and Innovation and Director of the Defense and National Security Program, CFR)

Neutral sources: James M. Lindsay (Host, Senior Fellow, CFR)

7. Lindsay Questions Pentagon's Innovation Adoption

Timestamp: 00:22:07 to 00:25:08 - watch this moment on skim

James Lindsay raises concerns about the U.S. government's acquisition system hindering innovation and a potential 'not invented here' attitude within the Pentagon, citing Ukraine's experience with drone warfare advice being initially rebuffed. Michael Horowitz acknowledges that the U.S. excels at innovation but struggles with adoption, partly due to acquisition processes and a bias towards perfection and long-lasting systems. He credits the Trump administration with implementing bolder acquisition reforms, but emphasizes that overcoming institutional biases against speed and risk-taking is crucial for integrating emerging technologies.

Significance (High): The Pentagon's deep-seated institutional biases and cumbersome acquisition processes impede the rapid adoption of innovative technologies, potentially leaving the U.S. at a disadvantage against adversaries who are more agile in integrating new capabilities.

Sources in support: James M. Lindsay (Host, Senior Fellow, CFR)

Neutral sources: Michael C. Horowitz (Senior Fellow for Technology and Innovation and Director of the Defense and National Security Program, CFR)

8. Horowitz: Austerity's Double-Edged Sword for Innovation

Timestamp: 00:26:09 to 00:27:44 - watch this moment on skim

Michael Horowitz discusses the theoretical link between austerity and innovation, suggesting that scarcity should drive efficiency. However, he argues that for the U.S. military, which operates globally, austerity can paradoxically choke innovation by forcing a bias towards readiness and proven legacy capabilities. While the interwar period saw innovation driven by budget cuts, the current operational tempo means austerity could lead to neglecting future capabilities in favor of maintaining current readiness, hindering the development of new systems.

Significance (Medium): While austerity can theoretically spur innovation, the U.S. military's constant global operations mean budget cuts could prioritize immediate readiness over developing next-generation capabilities, potentially stifling crucial long-term innovation.

Sources in support: Michael C. Horowitz (Senior Fellow for Technology and Innovation and Director of the Defense and National Security Program, CFR)

Neutral sources: James M. Lindsay (Host, Senior Fellow, CFR)

9. Lindsay: The Innovation-Readiness Trade-off

Timestamp: 00:27:50 to 00:28:10 - watch this moment on skim

The current fiscal environment presents a difficult trade-off for the U.S. military: balancing the need to fund future innovation with the immediate requirement to build and maintain current operational capabilities. Defense budget cuts can inadvertently lead to the wrong form of prioritization, risking innovation for short-term readiness. However, the fiscal environment may change, potentially altering this dynamic.

Significance (High): This dilemma directly impacts the U.S.'s ability to adapt to evolving threats. Prioritizing current needs over future capabilities could leave the military technologically outmatched, while over-investing in innovation without sufficient readiness could leave it vulnerable in the interim.

Sources in support: Michael C. Horowitz (Senior Fellow for Technology and Innovation and Director of the Defense and National Security Program, CFR)

Neutral sources: James M. Lindsay (Host, Senior Fellow, CFR)

10. Horowitz: The Unyielding Operational Tempo

Timestamp: 00:28:38 to 00:30:02 - watch this moment on skim

Reducing the U.S. military's operational tempo to create space for innovation is incredibly difficult due to extensive treaty ally relationships and extended deterrence requirements. Even if conflicts like the one in Iran draw down, steady-state operations, particularly the Navy's commitment to command of the seas, maintain a high tempo. This complexity, compounded by the interaction between Congress and the executive branch in the appropriations process, makes prioritizing future capabilities a significant challenge.

Significance (High): The persistent high operational tempo means the U.S. military is constantly engaged, limiting its capacity to strategically shift focus towards long-term technological advancement. This inertia, influenced by both external commitments and internal political dynamics, risks a strategic lag in adapting to great power competition.

Sources in support: James M. Lindsay (Host, Senior Fellow, CFR)

Neutral sources: Michael C. Horowitz (Senior Fellow for Technology and Innovation and Director of the Defense and National Security Program, CFR)

11. Lindsay & Horowitz: The Peril of Depleted Stocks

Timestamp: 00:30:10 to 00:32:04 - watch this moment on skim

The current drawdown in U.S. weapons stocks raises significant concerns about the nation's ability to deter geopolitical rivals. As former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta noted, adversaries might perceive this as an opportune moment to engage in aggressive actions. This risk is amplified by the U.S. temporarily lacking an aircraft carrier in the Western Pacific, a region of critical strategic importance. The lights are flashing red, indicating a high risk for the U.S. military in an era of rapid technological transformation and great power competition.

Significance (High): This situation directly threatens U.S. credibility and global stability. An adversary waking up to believe 'today's the day' they can act with impunity is the ultimate failure of deterrence, potentially leading to costly conflicts or strategic concessions.

Sources in support: Michael C. Horowitz (Senior Fellow for Technology and Innovation and Director of the Defense and National Security Program, CFR), James M. Lindsay (Host, Senior Fellow, CFR)

12. Horowitz: 'Precise Mass' as a Two-Year Fix

Timestamp: 00:32:20 to 00:33:08 - watch this moment on skim

While there are no easy choices, scaling 'precise mass' capabilities offers a potential solution to revitalize U.S. defense capabilities within a two-year timeframe. This approach provides a strong 'bang for the buck,' allowing for advancements in more exquisite systems to 'cook in the background' while simultaneously addressing immediate needs. This strategy could help rebuild conventional stockpiles and sustain the credibility needed for deterrence, particularly in the Pacific.

Significance (High): This strategy presents a pragmatic path forward, aiming to bridge the gap between current limitations and future technological superiority. By focusing on 'precise mass,' the U.S. could potentially regain a strategic edge and deter adversaries more effectively within a compressed timeline, mitigating immediate risks.

Sources in support: James M. Lindsay (Host, Senior Fellow, CFR)

Neutral sources: Michael C. Horowitz (Senior Fellow for Technology and Innovation and Director of the Defense and National Security Program, CFR)