I'm sure in some instances you are correct about it being a way to use up older stockpiles before they pass their expiration date. In the case of Ukraine though I think it's more about what is best for getting the weapons to the Ukranians as quickly as possible. Most of the weapons we've sent have been of the type used for a ground assault. If the US were to get directly involved in a conflict we would most likely first show up in the air since that is where our greatest strength is. So what we have been sending would have little to no impact on our ability to have those weapons ready for our own use. Plus it's not as if we are sending all of our stockpiles but rather just a small fraction and our replacing them is just a matter of returning our stockpile to their normal levels..That is my understanding of it.
Most bombs have a "best before date" on them and it costs governments millions to dispose of them before the new ones already on order arrive.
Cheaper to send them to warzones to dispose of them and then puff out their chests saying look at all the billions of pounds/dollars we're sending to help fight the good fight.
War, huh, good god ya'll... What is it good for?
Making weapons manufacturers owned by shareholding politicians BILLIONS it would seem.
Just an interesting little tidbit of information, the US Air Force has the largest fleet of warplanes in the world. The second largest fleet of warplanes in the world is owned by the US Navy. China comes in 3rd on the list of most warplanes. The US Army has the 4th largest fleet of warplanes in the world and the 5th largest fleet of warplanes in the world is owned by the US Marines.
Last edited: