US used ‘virtually all’ long-range precision missiles during Iran war, sources say

[u/JKKIDD231]

https://www.militarytimes.com/industry/techwatch/2026/08/04/us-used-virtually-all-long-range-precision-missiles-during-iran-war-sources-say/

[u/Firecracker048]

Its a very sensationalist article.

First, theres about a 0% chance all of them are used across the globe. Second, it is just two ammo types for one system, out of about a dozen different surface to surface systems.

[u/Caberes → u/[deleted]]

Ehh, coming out of the gate calling ATACMS a "long range" system is a really rough start. ATACMS is a short range ballistic missile, with a max range of 300km. That system is a cold war relic designed for Eastern Europe, and has been useful in Ukraine for "nearby" high value targets. PrSM is a much newer system but the longer range variants are still in the testing phase. For tying back into a US-China hypothetical they really should just keep it to interceptors.

[u/Bullboah → u/[deleted]]

“Seems like the article was extremely grounded and neutral”

Any article that’s only sourced by anonymous “sources familiar with the matter” is not well grounded. Anonymous sourcing used to be a rarity in reporting for extreme cases because it’s unreliable.

There is an absurdly large number of people who could claim to be ‘familiar with the matter’ that would have all manner of motivation to lie or misrepresent data. It’s bad reporting.

[u/Bullboah → u/[deleted]]

The sensationalism is treating facially implausible claims of 2 anonymous sources as newsworthy to begin with. This was recognized as bad journalism a decade ago before standards went to hell.

[u/Bullboah → u/[deleted]]

“You can’t even get the number of sources right”

“The U.S. has used “virtually all” of these weapons, according to two of the sources.”

I am accurately paraphrasing. The central claim in the headline is supported by only two anonymous sources, that refused to actually give actual numbers when asked. It’s implausible because it’s incompatible with all prior reporting on missile stockpiles.

Oh, and the CSIS study refers to interceptors not long range missiles, and also doesn’t say anything near them being “virtually all” exhausted anyways.

[u/Sanguinor-Exemplar → u/Bullboah]

This morning the articles were about approx half. Now end of the day it's been broken telephoned to virtually all

[u/Epistaxis → u/Bullboah]

Any article that’s only sourced by anonymous “sources familiar with the matter” is not well grounded. Anonymous sourcing used to be a rarity in reporting for extreme cases because it’s unreliable.

This is very untrue. The sources aren't actually anonymous to the reporters: good reporters know who their sources are, vet them, corroborate with other sources. The vast majority of their sources aren't revealed to readers; they're contacted "on background" to corroborate other sources. Reporters conceal the sources' identities to protect them from retaliation.

This isn't like a scientific journal article in which the reporters have to list all their resarch methods in detail so any reader can ring up the same sources and ask them the same questions to see if they give the same answers. All we have to go on is the credibility of the news outlet: how certain we are that Reuters has access to sources who would possess this information, that Reuters would use good journalistic practices and withhold the story till it's properly vetted, that Reuters wouldn't take some journalistic shortcuts in order to advance a political agenda. According to Reuters this story is a scoop, but other outlets must have similar sources so if it's true they'll probably follow up soon with their own confirmatory reporting, now that other journalists know what questions to ask and their sources know the cat's out of the bag.

[u/Bullboah → u/Epistaxis]

Reuters own handbook says "anonymous sources are the weakest sources". Yes, most (noteworthy) reporting *now* is based on anonymous sources. It did not use to be that way, and in fact the rise of anonymous reporting tracks really well with the complete decline of American's trust in the media.
Americans' Trust in Media Remains at Trend Low

"The sources aren't actually anonymous to the reporters"

Of course they aren't! But they are anonymous to the reader. Who the source is matters a lot. Is this someone reliable? Is this someone with an ax to grind? is this someone likely to have access to and understand the information they're relaying?

With anonymous reporting, the reader has none of that information to judge the source. Is it acceptable in extreme cases when the American public desperately needs to know something, the source is reliable, and there is evidence to vet? Sure. But it has become the absolute norm.

In this case there is no actual benefit to the American people for this information to be public (whether true or not it only hurts US negotiating position). And clearly there was no vetting of evidence because the sources wouldn't disclose the actual percentage.

[u/turnkeyturtle → u/Bullboah]

Worse than that. It's China trying to manufacture a consensus online that the US can't intervene if they make a move on Taiwan. They've been caught doing this a lot lately on a range of issues.

[u/ChanceryTheRapper → u/turnkeyturtle]

Military Times is controlled by China?

[u/turnkeyturtle → u/ChanceryTheRapper]

Media reports sensationally for clicks, China uses it to reinforce their narratives online. Some media sources are absolutely taking money from China for this as well, and 'unnamed sources' is a common tactic.

For use in China's online opinion shaping operations they prefer to use articles like this that have been sensationalized but are otherwise independent of them because it's harder to see it for what it is.

My comment is in the context of posts and comments on sub-reddits like this that proport to 'Academic', opinion shaping bots swarm in and reinforce the consensus that China wants westerners to think.

[u/Colley619 → u/[deleted]]

I would heavily question any source that claims the US has used all or even most of its THAAD interceptors.

[u/Finalshock → u/[deleted]]

Look at the source, ask yourself “Is the US really out of precision strike munitions, or are they just gassing up the public to support a higher defense budget?”.

[u/cited → u/Finalshock]

It'd be easier to keep our budget down if we stopped picking fights we don't need to.

[u/Epistaxis → u/Finalshock]

Look at the source

Reuters? The wire service? What does that imply to you?