The Washington PostDemocracy Dies in Darkness

Opinion The Pentagon is about to go on a weapons-buying spree

A U.S. HIMARS rocket launcher opens fire during drills between the Philippine Marine Corps and U.S. Marine Corps in Capas, northern Philippines, on Oct. 13, 2022. (AP Photo/Aaron Favila, File)
4 min

It is a measure of global instability that the $858 billion Pentagon budget Congress approved last month included a provision that authorized the military, for the next two years, to adopt wartime purchasing practices. If lawmakers follow through with the money, weapons makers are in for a bonanza. Congress should order its next steps carefully.

Normally, the military signs long-term, noncompetitive contracts chiefly with firms which produce big-ticket items that take decades to design, engineer and produce, such as ships, aircraft and satellites. Tucked into the new budget, however, is an “emergency” provision allowing the Pentagon to sign multiyear, noncompetitive agreements to produce more run-of-the-mill items: munitions, missiles, rockets and other existing systems. That’s a departure from current practice.

The unorthodox bulk-buying approach should enable the Pentagon, at least in theory, to buy these weapons at a lower price. That’s important because the United States needs to quickly replace the thousands of weapons sent since last spring to Ukraine. The United States and European nations just announced tank shipments to Ukraine, but the United States is going through all sorts of military hardware, such as artillery shells, and faster than anyone anticipated.

Press Enter to skip to end of carousel
Also on the Editorial Board’s agenda
  • The misery of Belarus’s political prisoners should not be ignored.
  • Biden has a new border plan.
  • The United States should keep the pressure on Nicaragua.
  • America’s fight against inflation isn’t over.
  • The Taliban has doubled down on the repression of women.
  • The world’s ice is melting quickly.
Ihar Losik, one of hundreds of young people unjustly jailed in Belarus for opposing Alexander Lukashenko’s dictatorship, attempted suicide but was saved and sent to a prison medical unit, according to the human rights group Viasna. Losik, 30, a blogger who led a popular Telegram channel, was arrested in 2020 and is serving a 15-year prison term on charges of “organizing riots” and “incitement to hatred.” His wife is also a political prisoner. Read more about their struggle — and those of other political prisoners — in a recent editorial.
The Department of Homeland Security has provided details of a plan to prevent a migrant surge along the southern border. The administration would presumptively deny asylum to migrants who failed to seek it in a third country en route — unless they face “an extreme and imminent threat” of rape, kidnapping, torture or murder. Critics allege that this is akin to an illegal Trump-era policy. In fact, President Biden is acting lawfully in response to what was fast becoming an unmanageable flow at the border. Read our most recent editorial on the U.S. asylum system.
Some 222 Nicaraguan political prisoners left that Central American country for the United States in February. President Daniel Ortega released and sent them into exile in a single motion. Nevertheless, it appears that Mr. Ortega let them go under pressure from economic sanctions the United States imposed on his regime when he launched a wave of repression in 2018. The Biden administration should keep the pressure on. Read recent editorials about the situation in Nicaragua.
Inflation remains stubbornly high at 6.4 percent in January. The Federal Reserve’s job is not done in this fight. More interest rate hikes are needed. Read a recent editorial about inflation and the Fed.
Afghanistan’s rulers had promised that barring women from universities was only temporary. But private universities got a letter on Jan. 28 warning them that women are prohibited from taking university entrance examinations. Afghanistan has 140 private universities across 24 provinces, with around 200,000 students. Out of those, some 60,000 to 70,000 are women, the AP reports. Read a recent editorial on women’s rights in Afghanistan.
A new study finds that half the world’s mountain glaciers and ice caps will melt even if global warming is restrained to 1.5 degrees Celsius — which it won’t be. This would feed sea-level rise and imperil water sources for hundreds of millions. Read a recent editorial on how to cope with rising seas, and another on the policies needed to fight climate change.


End of carousel

Yet the Pentagon’s new budget, backed by a bipartisan group of senators, would do far more than replenish U.S. stockpiles. It lays the foundation for a vastly revitalized defense industrial base — and does so with one eye on the People’s Republic of China.

Follow Editorial Board's opinionsFollow

Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has continued to buy some weapons each year in small quantities, while relying on existing stockpiles for many others. Many of these systems were developed a generation ago, upgraded and improved over the years and, fortunately, rarely used in battle. In some cases, the Pentagon long ago stopped buying many of them. The United States last bought the Stinger, the shoulder-mounted antiaircraft missile system first used in the early 1980s, in 2004. The assembly line that produced the HIMARS rocket system, which has performed so well in Ukraine, shut down in 2014 and 2015 before restarting in 2016. Dusting off other assembly lines also makes sense.

The question is how many weapons are necessary — and how soon? The quantities imagined by the latest budget are far in excess of what is required to replenish those sent to Ukraine. Congress authorized 700 copies of the HIMARS platform at a moment when the Pentagon has so far shipped only 20 launchers to Ukraine. Meanwhile, the budget authorizes the purchase of 2,600 Harpoon anti-ship missiles and nearly 1,000 long-range anti-ship missiles — weapons designed for a naval battle in the South China Sea rather than a fight on the plains of eastern Ukraine.

In all, perhaps as many as 25 different assembly lines could ramp up or restart if this measure is fully funded by appropriators. Contractors insist that they needed a clearer signal from the Pentagon before they took steps to “warm up” old production lines. That claim, in the face of perhaps the richest market for weapons sales since the 1980s, is difficult to credit. Congress gave the military $44.6 billion more this year than the Pentagon requested; even at accelerated rates, most of the weapons Congress wants to purchase on an emergency basis cannot be produced inside of a few years. In some cases, the wait will be much longer.

That highlights the other reason for the accelerated weapons buying: deterrence. The rapid drawdown in munitions by Ukraine could put the United States at a disadvantage in the event of a military emergency. Lawmakers know that Beijing and Moscow monitor Pentagon procurement schedules closely. The bipartisan group of senators who wrote the provision this past fall did so just as Republicans let it be known that Ukraine would not get “a blank check” if they took control of the House. This new authority is designed to send a clear signal to America’s rivals. As William LaPlante, the Pentagon’s acquisition czar put it in late October, “Production is deterrence.”

We support a defense industrial base that is warmed up and ready to go. And there is no reason to think the war in Ukraine will end soon. But there are risks to engaging in a weapons-buying spree. As lawmakers consider committing the money the Pentagon would need, Congress should insist that the military use its new authority to bargain hard for better prices — and find a middle ground between replenishing its depleted stockpiles and giving away the store to contractors already enjoying a new golden age. Lawmakers should approve only the funds that the Pentagon can responsibly manage.

The Post’s View | About the Editorial Board

Editorials represent the views of The Post as an institution, as determined through debate among members of the Editorial Board, based in the Opinions section and separate from the newsroom.

Members of the Editorial Board and areas of focus: Opinion Editor David Shipley; Deputy Opinion Editor Karen Tumulty; Associate Opinion Editor Stephen Stromberg (national politics and policy, legal affairs, energy, the environment, health care); Lee Hockstader (European affairs, based in Paris); David E. Hoffman (global public health); James Hohmann (domestic policy and electoral politics, including the White House, Congress and governors); Charles Lane (foreign affairs, national security, international economics); Heather Long (economics); Associate Editor Ruth Marcus; and Molly Roberts (technology and society).