Iran and Ukraine depleted 'virtually all' US long-range missiles: Report ⁠72%

By Stavroula Pabst⁠93%

8/4/2026, 6:57:13 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Hasty Generalization, and Negativity Bias, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 28.1% saturation with 88 hits. Analysis detected 661 faulty-reasoning hits from 313 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 57.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠72% (7,991 of 28,102 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 71.60% of the article peer group.

Iran and Ukraine depleted 'virtually all' US long-range missiles: Report 
Reuters reported this morning that the U.S. has used “virtually all” its long-range precision strike missiles during its war on Iran. 
Reuters’ sources would not say exactly how many of these surface to surface weapons, known as Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) and Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM), the U.S. military has left. 
This comes amid news that the U.S. has burned through other key weapons systems since war with Iran began. 
Last week, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) estimated the U.S. has fewer than 827 Patriot missiles, and fewer than 278 THAAD ballistic missile interceptors, in its stockpiles. 
But the depletion began long ago with the Ukraine war. 
Since 2022, the U.S. gave weapons to Kyiv at rates faster than it could replace them, including Patriot missile interceptors and an unspecified number of ATACMS. 
Despite the growing body of evidence, President Donald Trump , Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and UN Ambassador Mike Waltz have repeatedly denied the U.S. is running low on critical munitions. 
Not surprisingly, the U.S. has taken great strides to procure munitions in recent months, including repeatedly floating major spending packages to replenish depleted stockpiles. 
The latest: a $18.2 billion request for more money for the Pentagon budget. 
Earlier this spring, the Pentagon awarded RTX a $441 million contract for PAC-2 missiles — older Patriot missiles, which the U.S. has not ordered in decades . 
The Pentagon has also asked civilian companies, such as Ford, GM, and Oshkosh, to consider making weapons. 
Last month, a U.S. official told the Washington Post that there weren't enough munitions to sustain military operations in the Middle East. 
"I don't think the White House is aware of that,” the official said . 
Munitions are expensive and often take years to build. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.6%Stavroula Pabst: 14.2%Responsible Statecraft: 6.4%Confirmation Bias9.6%This article: 4.2%Stavroula Pabst: 1.3%Responsible Statecraft: 0.5%Anchoring Bias4.2%This article: 10.9%Stavroula Pabst: 5.1%Responsible Statecraft: 1.8%Availability Heuristic10.9%This article: 12.5%Stavroula Pabst: 1.1%Responsible Statecraft: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic12.5%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 3.0%Responsible Statecraft: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 6.2%Responsible Statecraft: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 6.0%Responsible Statecraft: 5.9%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.5%Responsible Statecraft: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.9%Stavroula Pabst: 0.8%Responsible Statecraft: 0.3%Status Quo Bias2.9%This article: 8.3%Stavroula Pabst: 3.3%Responsible Statecraft: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect8.3%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 5.0%Responsible Statecraft: 1.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 3.6%Responsible Statecraft: 2.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 16.6%Stavroula Pabst: 12.8%Responsible Statecraft: 6.8%Negativity Bias16.6%This article: 7.7%Stavroula Pabst: 0.6%Responsible Statecraft: 0.4%Self-Serving Bias7.7%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.7%Responsible Statecraft: 1.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 4.5%Stavroula Pabst: 0.2%Responsible Statecraft: 0.4%Actor-Observer Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.4%Responsible Statecraft: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.2%Responsible Statecraft: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.5%Responsible Statecraft: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.0%Stavroula Pabst: 2.7%Responsible Statecraft: 1.1%Recency Bias7.0%This article: 8.6%Stavroula Pabst: 0.4%Responsible Statecraft: 0.1%Primacy Effect8.6%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 9.6%Stavroula Pabst: 1.5%Responsible Statecraft: 1.2%Ad Hominem9.6%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.4%Responsible Statecraft: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.5%Stavroula Pabst: 5.0%Responsible Statecraft: 2.2%Appeal to Authority4.5%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 3.7%Responsible Statecraft: 2.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.3%Responsible Statecraft: 2.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 18.2%Stavroula Pabst: 10.9%Responsible Statecraft: 5.7%Hasty Generalization18.2%This article: 6.1%Stavroula Pabst: 0.3%Responsible Statecraft: 0.1%Red Herring6.1%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.5%Responsible Statecraft: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 1.6%Responsible Statecraft: 3.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 1.3%Responsible Statecraft: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 10.9%Stavroula Pabst: 3.1%Responsible Statecraft: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.9%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.4%Responsible Statecraft: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.5%Responsible Statecraft: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 7.0%Stavroula Pabst: 2.5%Responsible Statecraft: 0.8%Anecdotal7.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.7%Stavroula Pabst: 1.5%Responsible Statecraft: 0.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.7%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 28.1%Stavroula Pabst: 2.3%Responsible Statecraft: 1.4%Unattributed Quote28.1%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 3.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 18.8%Stavroula Pabst: 5.4%Responsible Statecraft: 9.1%Biased Writer Voice18.8%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 2.0%Responsible Statecraft: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.5%Responsible Statecraft: 2.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stavroula Pabst: 0.0%Responsible Statecraft: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%Stavroula Pabst: 0.9%Responsible Statecraft: 0.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…8.6%

313 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers19%attributed speech252writer words
100%flagged-word coverage
30 attributed words49% of attributed speech89% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-23.4 ptsWriter: 23.4%Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS): 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-22.6 ptsWriter: 22.6%Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS): 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -10.7 ptsWriter: 10.7%Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS): 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.