Sure, but they're not going to send all of their Javelins and Stingers to Ukraine, so that's kind of academic. The US could give up a significant portion of its armed forces and still be fine, but they're not going to. They're always going to keep a stock of Javelins/Stingers for themselves in case they need them or need to send them elsewhere.
So far, the US government hasn't shown much willingness to compromise their own forces in any real way or to risk escalation in order to supply Ukraine. Even the $40B military aid package was pretty light in terms of new weapons for Ukraine. It basically breaks down as:
-$6B fund for paying for training, logistics, and supplies for Ukrainian forces.
-$9B to replenish US weapon stocks that have been or will be sent to Ukraine. For context, they've already sent about $3-4B in weapons from their stockpile.
-$4B for countries (including Ukraine) to finance weapons purchases from US manufacturers, but larger weapons have multi-year lead times.
-$4B to fund increased US forces in Europe.
-$0.5B in aid to help pay for weapons that allies have already sent to Ukraine
-$1.5B to improve US munitions stocks, expand production, and improve R&D
-$16B in humanitarian aid
So the vast majority of that spending is going to non-frontline combat things and most is long term. The Congressional Budget Office is estimating that the majority of that spending won't even happen until 2025 and beyond.
|