As the wars in Ukraine and Gaza rage on, the arms industry thrives. For weapons manufacturers, conflict has become the engine of profitability. This dependence on warfare raises a critical question: What happens to the arms trade once these conflicts come to an end? Can these industries maintain their production levels in peacetime, or must governments and manufacturers continue finding ways to justify high levels of military spending to ensure their survival? In essence, has war been transformed into a capitalist enterprise where profit margins outweigh the pursuit of peace?
Post-9/11 Expansion of the Arms Trade
The post-9/11 era witnessed an unprecedented growth in military spending across the globe, particularly in the United States. By 2020, global military expenditure had reached a staggering $1.9 trillion, with the U.S. leading the charge. The increase in defense budgets reflected the demands of new security policies and the so-called “war on terror” that justified massive investments in military infrastructure and arms production (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute [SIPRI], 2021; Hartung, 2021). The U.S. alone accounted for 40% of global arms exports during this period, feeding a booming military-industrial complex (SIPRI, 2021). This growth, however, was not limited to the U.S.; Europe also saw significant expansions in arms production and exports, particularly to conflict zones in the Middle East and North Africa (Greenpeace International, 2020).
This expansion was propelled by both governments and private enterprises, who formed symbiotic relationships to justify increasing military expenditures. In the U.S., arms manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman benefited from contracts that guaranteed sustained production for years (Military.com, 2023). Similarly, European firms like Rheinmetall and BAE Systems secured lucrative deals from the European Union’s growing military budgets, particularly in response to the war in Ukraine (Analyst News, 2023).
Lobbying and the Military-Industrial Complex
A significant factor driving the arms industry’s growth is its lobbying power. Defense contractors have become some of the most influential lobbyists in Washington, with nearly 663 lobbyists working for defense firms in 2022, of which 75% had previously held government positions (Losey, 2023). This “revolving door” between government and the arms industry ensures that weapons manufacturers maintain access to key decision-makers, allowing them to shape defense policy and secure long-term contracts (Hartung, 2021). This influence has been instrumental in sustaining defense budgets even in times of relative peace, as these firms argue that military readiness requires constant investment, regardless of active conflict (SIPRI, 2021).
A glaring example of this dynamic is the U.S. defense budget for fiscal year 2023, which reached nearly $1 trillion, the highest in history. Much of this budget was allocated to new weapons systems and ongoing support for Ukraine, ensuring that companies like Lockheed Martin continue to operate “full steam” (Analyst News, 2023). Similar trends can be observed in Europe, where arms manufacturers lobbied for increased military spending in response to the war in Ukraine, framing it as a necessary precaution against future conflicts (Greenpeace International, 2020).
The Role of Arms Exports in Sustaining Conflict
One of the most controversial aspects of the arms trade is its role in sustaining conflict. While arms manufacturers argue that they are merely fulfilling government contracts, the reality is that many of their weapons end up in the hands of actors involved in prolonged and often devastating conflicts. In Yemen, for example, American and European weapons have fueled a war that has caused nearly 400,000 civilian casualties (The Nation, 2021). Despite international laws aimed at controlling arms exports to conflict zones, weapons continue to be sold to countries involved in human rights abuses, such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel (Greenpeace International, 2020).
This raises ethical concerns about the arms trade’s complicity in perpetuating violence. The profits made from selling weapons to conflict zones create a perverse incentive for arms manufacturers and their government allies to maintain a state of perpetual war. As long as there are buyers for their products, these companies have little reason to advocate for peace (Longreads, 2023). In fact, the continued sale of arms to countries engaged in conflict often escalates violence, making peaceful resolutions more difficult to achieve (Greenpeace International, 2020).
The Paradox of Peace: Can the Arms Industry Survive Without War?
The arms industry’s reliance on conflict creates a paradox: peace threatens the very foundation of its business model. If conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza were to end tomorrow, weapons manufacturers would face a sharp decline in demand, jeopardizing their profitability. To mitigate this risk, arms manufacturers have increasingly lobbied for high defense budgets during peacetime, arguing that constant military readiness is essential for national security (SIPRI, 2021). This strategy ensures that even in the absence of active conflict, governments continue to invest in weapons systems, guaranteeing the arms industry’s survival.
However, this approach raises critical questions about the role of the arms industry in shaping foreign policy. Are governments incentivized to pursue military engagements to sustain their domestic arms industries? The evidence suggests that this may be the case. In the U.S., defense contractors have successfully lobbied for ongoing military aid to Ukraine, even as diplomatic efforts to end the war have stalled (Analyst News, 2023). Similarly, European arms manufacturers have pushed for increased military spending in response to the war, framing it as a necessary investment in future security (Greenpeace International, 2020).
War as a Capitalist Enterprise
At its core, the arms industry operates as a capitalist enterprise, driven by profit margins and shareholder interests. The commodification of war has transformed conflict into a business opportunity, where arms manufacturers rely on sustained demand to maintain their production levels. This has led to a situation where peace becomes a threat to profitability, forcing governments and arms companies to find new justifications for military spending even in times of relative stability (Hartung, 2021).
This capitalist approach to war is perhaps most evident in the relationship between the U.S. government and its arms manufacturers. Defense contractors like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin have become so entrenched in the U.S. economy that their continued success is seen as vital to national interests. This has created a situation where military engagements, even those with dubious strategic value, are justified to sustain the arms industry (The Nation, 2021). In this sense, war has become not just a tool of statecraft but a means of economic production, where governments and corporations work together to maintain a state of perpetual conflict (Greenpeace International, 2020).
Conclusion: Toward a More Ethical Arms Industry
To break the cycle of war-for-profit, governments must rethink their relationships with the arms industry. One solution could be to impose stricter regulations on arms exports, particularly to conflict zones where human rights abuses are rampant. Additionally, arms manufacturers should be encouraged to diversify their production capabilities, shifting toward non-military technologies that can sustain their businesses in peacetime (Greenpeace International, 2020). Finally, international treaties aimed at controlling the arms trade must be strengthened to ensure that weapons are not sold to actors involved in human rights violations.
The paradox of peace presents a significant challenge to the arms industry, but it is one that must be addressed if the world is to move toward a more stable and secure future. As long as the arms trade remains tied to conflict, the prospects for peace will always be secondary to the demands of capitalism.
References
Analyst News. (2023). As the war in Ukraine drags on, America’s arms industry reaps the profits. Retrieved from https://www.analystnews.org
Greenpeace International. (2020). The business of war: How weapons manufactured in Europe help inflict harm in the rest of the world. Retrieved from https://www.greenpeace.org
Hartung, W. D. (2021). The military-industrial complex: Why America’s endless wars endure. The Nation. Retrieved from https://www.thenation.com
Longreads. (2023). No business without enemies: War and the arms trade. Retrieved from https://longreads.tni.org
Losey, S. (2023). This is how the biggest arms manufacturers steer millions to influence U.S. policy. Military.com. Retrieved from https://www.military.com
SIPRI. (2021). Global arms transfers. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Retrieved from https://www.sipri.org
The Nation. (2021). The devastating wars abroad are windfalls for weapons manufacturers. Retrieved from https://www.thenation.com