Opinion | Now, the United States needs more guns and soldiers. It cannot handle war.

The United States has the world's most advanced military equipment, and quality is crucial in combat. But quantity also has a say. From ships to shells to soldiers, the U.S. military lacks the personnel and supplies needed to fight major wars.

The U.S. armed forces were about half the naval fleet in 1987, and the increasingly smaller and older fighter fleets were equipped with only brief, sharp, and high-intensity conflicts. What happens when war is longer and more violent? Ukraine’s battle with Russia, Israel in the Middle East and more recently in the operation of Hotis in Yemen provide a preview of the demands of modern warfare and demonstrates why the United States needs more than we need to win a huge conflict now.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s mission to refocus the Pentagon from President Trump should ensure that the U.S. military has the resources to endure and win large-scale wars. Progressives and the Finance Hawks take their knife out for military spending, but the secretary should avoid cutting resources to directly enhance American combat effectiveness, including active service personnel, ammunition, new ships and new aircraft.

The amount of magic the United States should spend on defense, but we have not yet enough resources to deal with the simultaneous challenges brought by China, Russia, Russia, Iran, North Korea and global terrorist organizations. Our defenses are far behind the risks we face, and the higher the cost of catching up.

How did this happen? Over the past few decades, Washington has replaced its larger, more durable army with a high-tech but fragile army. Defense planners made a small number of expensive cutting-edge weapons, giving priority to producing enough firepower for long battles. This transformation relies on advanced weapons with the ability to end the battle decisively and quickly. However, modern warfare has developed to require advanced systems and staple food ammunition from the 20th century, such as shells and missiles.

Ukraine uses up to 15,000 shells a day in its fight against Russian invasion. The United States produces only 40,000 shells per month.

The United States also lacks advanced ammunition, such as precision-guided missiles. When the United States defended Israel from Iran late last year, our warships used a year of production of SM-3 Interceptor missiles for one night. The offensive strike against Houthi targets in Yemen is also depleting the inventory of cruise missiles, which is crucial in the Pacific conflict. The war game simulates the conflict with China estimates that the United States will use up certain important weapons, such as long-range anti-fleets, in just one week.

Our plants cannot increase production overnight. The U.S. Army has greatly expanded shell production since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but only after years of investment and a consistent effort. Even with similar investments, the Pentagon is working to increase production of more advanced precision ammunition, which may take years to increase.

One important reason behind the shallow ammunition stocks in the United States is the lack of demand from major buyers: the U.S. government. Like any other company, defense contractors will only be as much as they think they can sell. While recent investments in Russian aggression are a step in the right direction, they need to be amplified. Unless the government shows that it wants to buy more, defense companies will never generate more.

In addition to having enough firepower in war, the military also needs people to fire weapons. The recruitment of the challenge to the U.S. armed forces remained a consistent challenge, with the U.S. armed forces extending around the world. Since the end of the Cold War, we have asked the military to take more responsibility in more places with fewer people. This has resulted in an extended deployment of combat areas, taxing our service members, vessels and aircraft.

Budget restrictions have forced the Department of Defense to delay maintenance of its facilities by nearly $140 billion. This cost cut allows problems to worsen, such as mold in military camps, flooding at medical centers, and overall degradation of bases – harming recruitment and our military power. Not surprisingly, only one-third of military families recommend others join.

Despite the Pentagon’s budget, only 17% of people spend on buying new equipment and weapons. Most of our defense funds are used to maintain the power we already have – most of the defense budget is allocated to the operation and maintenance of existing forces and the growing personnel costs, including pensions and most military health systems. As a result, the Pentagon retires old equipment faster than buying new hardware. The construction of new equipment is plagued by delays. Semi-built submarines and vessels lag behind in shipyards across the country for many years.

Throughout the Pacific, China is estimated to have more than 200 times the capacity of the United States, and we estimate Beijing’s military budget to be three times as publicly claimed. Similarly, Moscow is making substantial investments in new drone, tank and missile production, allowing Russia to surpass the United States and Europe.

If the United States wants to retain its position as a global force, it needs a strong enough military to avoid any challengers. As Russia threatens the security of Europe and China doing so in Asia, our resources are crucial now.

The Pentagon's budget is dedicated to investment in missiles and ammunition. Policymakers should increase the efficiency and scope of Pentagon ammunition purchases while making it clear to the defense industry that it will sustain demand. A multi-year purchase contract that allows the Pentagon to enter into a long-term deal instead of an annual negotiation will do that.

This also applies to ships and aircraft. The United States should inspire its industry building by opening up new yards, using allies to maintain U.S. Navy ships, and ending the early retirement of Young Ships. This means making larger purchases and potentially working with allies, thus having a strong shipbuilding industry.

Without the strength to train, all enhancements to produce ammunition, ships and aircraft will be useless. In order to improve the number of recruits in the military, we should improve our lives for our service providers. No service members should face delayed medical services or be placed under unsafe conditions.

Over the past few decades, the responsibility of the U.S. military has evolved with the challenges to our security. However, our national security spending has failed to meet our needs. It's time to change.

Mackenzie Eaglen is a senior fellow and Brady Africk is associate director of media relations and data design at the American Enterprise Institute.

Times are committed to publishing Variety of letters To the editor. We want to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. These are some Tip. Here is our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow the New York Times' opinion section Facebook,,,,, Instagram,,,,, Tiktok,,,,, Bruceky,,,,, WhatsApp and Thread.