PAYNE INSTITUTE COMMENTARY SERIES: COMMENTARY

By Gregory Wischer and Morgan Bazilian

July 7, 2025

“[I]t is not by means of speeches and majority resolutions
that the great issues of the day will be decided
…but by blood and iron.”
—Otto von Bismarck, Minister President of Prussia,
September 30, 1862

Introduction

In recent years, American strategists and policymakers have increasingly sounded the alarm about US dependence on cobalt, rare earth elements, tungsten, and other critical minerals obtained from China-centric supply chains. But another material is far more fundamental to national defense: steel. A hard, strong alloy of iron, carbon, and other elements, it is used in platforms like attack submarines, long-range bombers, mobile missile launchers, as well as munitions like torpedoes, standoff missiles, and long-range missiles and rockets.

Along with energy production, steel production is generally a necessary condition for waging industrial warfare. John D. Morgan, Jr., wrote in 1949, “The steel industry is perhaps the best single barometer of a nation’s potential for warfare.” He noted, “In wars fought on the pattern of World War I and World War II a steel industry is required before any country can make even an effort to wage war.” Notably, a potential US-China conflict would likely feature high-intensity combat and significant losses, bearing similarities to the World Wars and requiring significant volumes of steel for manufacturing defense platforms and munitions.

For example, in the base scenario for US-China war games conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the US Navy lost two aircraft carriers and between seven and twenty major surface warships like destroyers and cruisers in fourteen days. If the US military seeks to expand its fleet to handle such losses or replace those vessels following their attrition, it will require significant volumes of steel: aircraft carriers contain 60,000–70,000 tons of steel, and guided missile destroyers contain 3,500 tons of steel.

Table 1: Defense articles and their corresponding steel content.

The US military also expended thousands of missiles containing steel in these war games. In the first three weeks of combat alone, the US military expended 4,000 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSMs), 450 Long-Range Anti-Ship Missiles (LRASMs), 400 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, and 400 Tomahawk Land-Attack Missiles (TLAMs).  Tomahawk cruise missiles contain steel in their rocket motors, and Harpoons have warhead penetrators with steel alloy casings. JASSMs and LRASMs—which share 70 percent hardware commonality and the same production assembly lines—likely use steel alloy casings with their warhead penetrators, too. Therefore, the production of military steel for both defense platforms and munitions would be critical in a potential US-China conflict.

            In this paper, military steel refers to the different types of steel used in military applications. Examples include steel plate, cold-finished steel bars, hot-rolled carbon bars, hot-rolled round bars, and steel wire.  These types of steel may fall into the categories of specialty steel and military-grade steel, which must meet certain specifications including hardness levels, ballistic limits, and chemical composition. For instance, given the extreme operating environments of defense platforms like submarines, military steel generally has greater yield strength, impact toughness, and abrasion resistance than steel for non-military applications like automobiles and commercial ships. See Figure 1 for an example of specialty steel and military-grade steel used in defense munitions.

Figure 1: Examples of steel components in military munitions.

Manufacturing military steel requires specialized processes, such as heat treatment, and materials, such as alloys. As the US Department of Commerce notes, “Our military often needs specialty steel alloys that require unusual production skills.” Both major US steel companies (e.g., Cleveland-Cliffs, Nucor) and midsize US steel companies (e.g., ATI, Timken Steel) produce military steel. Steel mills that produce military steel generally produce steel for non-military applications too, due to the relatively narrow demand for military steel. For example, steel plate is used for military shipbuilding, as well as commercial shipbuilding and windmills, but it comprised just 7 percent of both Cleveland-Cliffs’ and Nucor’s revenue mix in 2023. Thus, military steel has lower production volumes than other types of steel, with mills relying on steel demand for non-military applications to remain operational.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 explores the role of US production of military steel in World War I, World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam War, and post–Vietnam War military buildup. It also discusses Ukraine’s steel production amid the Russia-Ukraine War. Section 3 investigates the use of military steel in modern US defense platforms and munitions, including capabilities important in a potential US-China conflict. Section 4 assesses the state of US production of military steel today. Section 5 proposes US government policies for increasing the US production capacity of military steel. Section 6 analyzes counterarguments to the importance of military steel and the proposed government policies, and Section 7 concludes.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Greg Wischer
Gregory Wischer received his MA in Security Studies from Georgetown University.

Morgan Bazilian
Director, Payne Institute and Professor of Public Policy
Morgan Bazilian is the Director of the Payne Institute and a Professor of public policy at the Colorado School of Mines. Previously, he wD.as lead energy specialist at the World Bank. He has over two decades of experience in the energy sector and is regarded as a leading expert in international affairs, policy and investment. He is a Member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

ABOUT THE PAYNE INSTITUTE

The mission of the Payne Institute at Colorado School of Mines is to provide world-class scientific insights, helping to inform and shape public policy on earth resources, energy, and environment. The Institute was established with an endowment from Jim and Arlene Payne and seeks to link the strong scientific and engineering research and expertise at Mines with issues related to public policy and national security.

The Payne Institute Commentary Series offers independent insights and research on a wide range of topics related to energy, natural resources, and environmental policy. The series accommodates three categories namely: Viewpoints, Essays, and Working Papers.

Visit us at www.payneinstitute.mines.edu

FOLLOW US

DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the opinions, beliefs, viewpoints, or official policies of the Payne Institute or the Colorado School of Mines.