First off, let me make it clear that I think that Mike Johnson should bring the bill to a vote in the House. I think he needs to grow a spine. Or grow a conscience. Or both.
That said, there is still about $4 billion of PDA left. Not 4 million, 4 billion. That figure isn’t up for debate despite what some individuals on this site claim: kyivindependent.com/…
Biden could use up all $4 billion tomorrow if he wanted to, but he couldn’t replenish the donated equipment/weapons since the replenishment funding has run out.
But what if the equipment/weapons aren’t replenished?
The classic argument is that this would have a seriously negatively effect on America’s military readiness, but is that true?
I don’t think so for the following reasons…
There are three different versions of the ATACMS missile that could be given to Ukraine:
1) The 165km cluster munition variant
2) The 300km cluster munition variant
3) The 300km unitary warhead variant
To date Biden has given Ukraine a small number of the 165km cluster munition ATACMS (between 10 and 20 depending on what source you read). That was a paltry number, but Ukraine used them to take out Russian attack helicopters on the ground, which was a very sensible use of them.
breakingdefense.com/…
“The Biden administration should deliver the Pentagon’s remaining APAM missiles to Ukraine without delay and send as many ATACMS with unitary warheads as possible without jeopardizing US military readiness; that would likely include at least several dozen.” [APAM = Anti-Personnel/Anti-Materiel, i.e. APAM bomblets, aka cluster munitions]. [I disagree with the ‘several dozen’ figure btw; I fail to see why the US couldn’t give Ukraine hundreds of 300km unitary warhead ATACMS].
Neither the 165km nor the 300km cluster munition variants of ATACMS are manufactured any more, so the lack of replenishment funding when it comes to those two weapons is neither here nor there. Plus the Pentagon has no plans to use cluster munitions in future wars because of the percentage dud rate. Therefore all those weapons could be given to Ukraine tomorrow without affecting American military readiness in any way whatsoever.
And when it comes to the 300km unitary warhead variant of ATACMS, (a) it’s still being manufactured and (b) it’s being replaced with the better and longer ranged Precision Strike Missile (PrSM). Both of these weapons are paid for out of the massive US annual defence budget of about $800 billion a year, so nothing to do with PDA and nothing to do with replenishment funds either. So in this case, replenishment isn’t even an issue.
Therefore I fail to see why Ukraine couldn’t be given a few hundred 300km unitary warhead ATACMS in addition to all the 165km/300km cluster munition ATACMS variants. This would have no impact on US military readiness at all.
And something else that is no longer manufactured AIUI is DPICM artillery shells (i.e. cluster munition shells). So give all of those to Ukraine too if the US never plans to use them again.
And for good measure I’d throw in the A and B models of the Fire Scout drone that have been retired by the US military [image above]. I’m sure Ukraine could find good uses for them, especially with APKWS rockets, which could presumably shoot down Shahed drones.
In fact, I’d give Ukraine everything that the US no longer manufactures or doesn’t plan to use in future wars.
And for those of you wondering why I’m so focused on ATACMS, I’ll tell you why. Because Ukraine could use ATACMS to hit a wide range of targets, both in southern mainland Ukraine and in Crimea. Targets such as:
- The Kerch bridge & other logistics bridges
- The larger fuel & ammo dumps
- The larger concentrations of troops & equipment
- Train marshalling yards
- Railheads
- Command & Control bunkers (C&C bunkers)
- Subs & ships in port
- Jets and helicopters on the ground
All ATACMS variants would be incredibly useful to Ukraine, especially in large numbers.