> "We go into the same style of total war now and it will make WW1 look like recess."

Seems improbable. The lead time for the gargantuan supply chain necessary to put together modern high-tech military hardware is so lengthy that the war would probably be over one way or another by the time ramp up is complete and that's without accounting for any efforts by the opponent to interfere with production or embargo raw material supplies.

What happens when both sides run out of their blisteringly expensive and hard to produce cruise missiles, smart air-to-ground missiles, and so forth?

So, my first thought is that I completely agree with you, that the complex supply chain to produce weapons and the interconnected-ness of modern economies is so great that any war would have to be fought and won in a matter of months before both sides collapse. But my second thought is that people said the exact same thing right before WW1. I think we underestimate our ability to adapt to changing circumstances. If I had to guess, we would see the a change in the focus of research on cruise missiles and precision-guided weapons to focus on making them cheap to create with what resources are available.

> "If I had to guess, we would see the a change in the focus of research on cruise missiles and precision-guided weapons to focus on making them cheap to create with what resources are available."

Were that possible, the permanently festering Middle East conflicts would already have produced them. It's not as if they don't have the intelligence and motivation; recent incidents of conversion of consumer drones into weapons being a prime example.

I'd argue the Middle East conflicts don't fit the scenario of total war. By total war, I'm picturing the scenarios of WW1 and 2.

1. Total mobilization of the population: drafting or conscription or calling up all reserves)

2. Switching to a wartime economy, where a large portion of the economy is directed to the war effort, with government regulation and rationing of important strategic resources. This also requires a robust industrialized economy, capable of producing weaponry and performing research.

3. A prolonged conflict (which tends to be a prerequisite for 1 and 2) so that initial stockpiles have been drained.

4. Access to vital resources and equipment is cut off, due to embargoes, blockades, and interdiction of supplies.

I can't think of a Middle Eastern conflict that fits all of those criteria.

They do have domestically produced ballistic missiles in the Middle east, for example Iran made those that blew up the saudi oil plant domestically (though they probably bought the jet engines from a Czech company). And Israel obviously has a bunch to put their nukes on.

I'm guessing the reason many don't build their own is mainly because most of find it easier to buy them from the USA or Russia as part of larger geopolitical deals.

In 10 years, a factory capable of building autonomous small arms will fit into a shipping container or two. High tech war will be within reach of anyone with 500k money units.

> What happens when both sides run out of their blisteringly expensive and hard to produce cruise missiles, smart air-to-ground missiles, and so forth?

Depends on the level collapse of civilization, but some sort repurposed detritus from our consumer culture. Weaponized SodaStreams, Keurigs and DJI drones.