“We’ve not been in a position where we’ve got only a few days of some critical munition left,” Pentagon comptroller Michael McCord told reporters this month. “But we are now supporting a partner who is.”
Note. Ukraine is not a "partner". Ukraine is an unwanted dependent that provides nothing in return. More from the article.
That’s putting pressure on U.S. reserves and has officials asking whether U.S. weapons stockpiles are big enough. Would the U.S. be ready to respond to a major conflict today, for example if China invaded Taiwan?
“What would happen if something blew up in Indo-Pacom? Not five years from now, not 10 years from now, what if it happened next week?” Bill LaPlante, the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer, said, referring to the military’s Indo-Pacific Command. He spoke at a defense acquisitions conference this month at George Mason University in Virginia.
“What do we have in any degree of quantity? That will actually be effective? Those are the questions we’re asking right this minute,” he said.
Last bit I'm highlighting. Read it all for yourself.
The infusion of weapons is raising questions on Capitol Hill.
This month, the administration asked Congress to provide $37 billion more in military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine in the post-election legislative session, and to approve it before Republicans take control of the House in January. House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy of California, who is seeking to become speaker, has warned that Republicans would not support writing a “blank check” for Ukraine.
Even with fresh money, stockpiles cannot be quickly replenished. Several of the systems proving most vital in Ukraine had their production lines shut down years ago. Keeping a production line open is expensive, and the Army had other spending priorities.
Make no mistake about this thing. The President of the United States, Congress and the Pentagon has decided to accept RISK for the homeland (and other allies that are TRUE allies) for the benefit of Ukraine.