

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Last year global arms revenues reached the highest level ever recorded by SIPRI as producers capitalized on high demand," said researcher behind annual report.
An annual report out Monday that tracks global arms sales shows that weapons makers in 2024 generated more revenue than at any time since the group behind the research began tracking the data over 35 years ago.
The annual report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) shows that the top 100 weapons makers in the world—led by those in the United States—brought in a record-setting $679 billion over the course of the year, fueled mainly by the war in Ukraine, Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza, and spending on nuclear weaponry.
"Last year global arms revenues reached the highest level ever recorded by SIPRI as producers capitalized on high demand," said Lorenzo Scarazzato, a researcher with the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme, which has been tracking global arms sales since 1989.
"In 2024," the report explains, "the growing demand for military equipment around the world, primarily linked to rising geopolitical tensions, accelerated the increase in total Top 100 arms revenues seen in 2023. More than three-quarters of companies in the Top 100 (77 companies) increased their arms revenues in 2024, with 42 reporting at least double-digit percentage growth."
In 2024, SIPRI noted, "all of the five largest arms companies increased their arms revenues," the first time that has happened since 2018. According to the report, those five companies alone—Lockheed Martin, RTX, Northrup Grumman, BAE Systems, and General Dynamics—accounted for an estimated $215 billion of the total arms sales tabulated in the report. Of those five, four are US companies while BAE is based in the United Kingdom.

In the sixth spot overall was Boeing, another US company, which generated nearly $31 billion in revenue.

According to SIPRI's summary of the report:
Although the bulk of the global rise was due to companies based in Europe and the United States, there were year-on-year increases in all of the world regions featured in the Top 100. The only exception was Asia and Oceania, where issues within the Chinese arms industry drove down the regional total.
The surge in revenues and new orders prompted many arms companies to expand production lines, enlarge facilities, establish new subsidiaries or conduct acquisitions.
With the genocide in Gaza, Israel's largest weapons makers also had surging revenue in 2024 as bombs, missiles, and tank shells were fired on the besieged enclave, killing and maiming large numbers of Palestinian civilians, including children. As Al-Jazeera notes:
The three Israeli arms companies in the ranking increased their combined arms revenues by 16 percent to $16.2 billion amid the ongoing genocidal war on Gaza, which has killed nearly 70,000 Palestinians and destroyed most of the besieged enclave.
Elbit Systems pocketed $6.28 billion in profits, followed by Israel Aerospace Industries with $5.19 billion and Rafael Advanced Defense Systems with $4.7 billion.
In the United States, where nearly half of the global revenue for weapons makers was generated, another notable development in 2024 was SpaceX, owned by right-wing libertarian Elon Musk, landing in the Top 100 for the first time.
SpaceX's arms revenue more than doubled compared with figures from 2023, reaching $1.8 billion.
Musk is a close ally of US President Donald Trump and a major GOP donor in 2024. According to OpenSecrets, which tracks campaign spending, the mega-billionaire donated more than $291 million to Republican candidates, including Trump, during the 2024 cycle.
Two new reports detail how the world's nine nuclear-armed countries are spending aggressively to modernize and deploy weapons that pose an existential threat to civilization.
A pair of reports published Monday show that global spending on nuclear arms surged to nearly $3,000 a second last year as nations expanded and modernized their potentially civilization-destroying arsenals of atomic weaponry.
The United States, the first and only country to ever use an atomic weapon in war, spent $51.5 billion on its vast nuclear arsenal in 2023—more than every other nuclear-armed country combined, according to an analysis by the Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). The U.S. also accounted for 80% of the $10.7 billion global increase in spending last year compared to 2022.
ICAN found that total spending on nuclear weapons globally rose to a record $91.4 billion last year—$173,884 per minute—as countries worked to modernize their arsenals and flaunt new nuclear capabilities.
"By comparison, the World Food Program executive director stated in 2021 that to end world hunger, countries could spend $40 billion per year through 2030, which is a total of $360 billion over nine years," ICAN's new report reads. "That is $27 billion less than what these nine countries spent on their nuclear arsenals in just five years."
Growing nuclear weapons spending has been a major boon for military contractors such as Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin. According to ICAN, "nuclear-armed countries have ongoing contracts with companies to produce nuclear weapons worth a total of at least $387 billion, continuing in some cases through 2040."
🚨NEW REPORT ALERT🚨
Can you believe global spending on nuclear weapons surged to $91.4 billion in 2023? That’s $2,898 a second on weapons that should never be used. Learn more in ICAN’s report “Surge: 2023 Global Nuclear Weapons Spending”🔗➡️https://t.co/svIeAKarmF#NuclearBan pic.twitter.com/2MCMJSJapo
— ICAN (@nuclearban) June 17, 2024
A separate report published Monday by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) estimated that 3,904 nuclear warheads were deployed across the globe as of January 2024—60 more than were deployed at the start of last year.
SIPRI said that the world's nine nuclear-armed countries—the U.S., Russia, France, the United Kingdom, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel—"continued to modernize their nuclear arsenals and several deployed new nuclear-armed or nuclear-capable weapon systems in 2023."
"While the global total of nuclear warheads continues to fall as Cold War-era weapons are gradually dismantled, regrettably we continue to see year-on-year increases in the number of operational nuclear warheads," SIPRI director Dan Smith said in a statement. "This trend seems likely to continue and probably accelerate in the coming years and is extremely concerning."
"We are now in one of the most dangerous periods in human history," Smith added. "There are numerous sources of instability—political rivalries, economic inequalities, ecological disruption, an accelerating arms race. The abyss is beckoning and it is time for the great powers to step back and reflect. Preferably together."
The alarming new reports were published hours after NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told The Telegraph that the Western military alliance is considering mobilizing more nuclear weapons in an effort to counter China and Russia, respectively the second- and third-largest nuclear spenders last year behind the U.S., according to ICAN.
"I won't go into operational details about how many nuclear warheads should be operational and which should be stored, but we need to consult on these issues," said Stoltenberg. "That's exactly what we're doing."
The Kremlin, which has faced condemnation from ICAN and other groups over its recent nuclear threats amid the war in Ukraine, swiftly denounced Stoltenberg's comments as "nothing else but an escalation."
ICAN said Monday that while its findings and ongoing nuclear threats "paint a bleak picture," progress toward a world without atomic weapons remains possible and worth fighting for.
"While the nine nuclear-armed governments have steadily increased their investments in nuclear weapons, in 2023, 101 cities and municipalities joined the ICAN cities appeal, including Durham and Leicester from the United Kingdom and Lyon and Montpellier from France, calling on their government to join the U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of nuclear weapons," the group's report notes. "These cities join international capitals like Washington, Paris, and Berlin which have already adopted the appeal."
"While they continue to make massive profits from contracts to produce and maintain weapons of mass destruction, the number of companies that recognize that nuclear weapons are problematic and that their increasing obligations under human rights reviews and investor scrutiny require them to step away from the industry is growing," the report adds. "It is clear that pressure from the public, investors, and governments is having an effect."
"Can we get some healthcare please, or maybe feed some of the 40 million+ Americans who can't get enough food?" asked the watchdog group Public Citizen.
New research published Monday shows that global military spending increased in 2023 for the ninth consecutive year, surging to $2.4 trillion as Russia's assault on Ukraine and Israel's war on the Gaza Strip helped push war-related outlays to an all-time high.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) recorded military spending increases in every geographical region it examined last year, from Europe to Oceania to the Middle East. Last year's global increase of 6.8% was the largest since 2009, SIPRI said.
The United States was by far the largest military spender at $916 billion in 2023, up 2.3% compared to the previous year. The next biggest spender was China, which poured an estimated $296 billion into its military last year—three times less than the U.S.
"Can we get some healthcare please, or maybe feed some of the 40 million+ Americans who can't get enough food?" asked the watchdog group Public Citizen in response to SIPRI's report, which found that the U.S. accounted for 37% of the world's total military spending last year.
A separate analysis of U.S. military spending in 2023 found that 62% of the country's federal discretionary budget went to militarized programs, leaving less than half of the budget for healthcare, housing, nutrition assistance, education, and other domestic priorities.
Together, SIPRI found, the top five biggest military spenders last year—the U.S., China, Russia, India, and Saudi Arabia—accounted for 61% of global military outlays.
"The unprecedented rise in military spending is a direct response to the global deterioration in peace and security," Nan Tian, senior researcher with SIPRI's Military Expenditure and Arms Production Program, said in a statement. "States are prioritizing military strength but they risk an action-reaction spiral in the increasingly volatile geopolitical and security landscape."
In the Middle East, military spending jumped by 9% last year—the highest annual growth rate in the past decade. Israel, which relies heavily on weapons imports from the U.S., spent 24% more on its military last year than in 2022, according to SIPRI, an increase fueled by the country's devastating assault on Gaza.
SIPRI found that NATO's 31 member countries dumped a combined $1.3 trillion into military expenditures in 2023, accounting for 55% of the global total.
U.S. military spending, which is poised to continue surging in the coming years, made up 68% of NATO's 2023 total.
Praising the U.S. arms industry as the “arsenal of democracy” obscures the numerous ways it undermines our security and wastes our tax dollars.
The New York Times headline said it all: “Middle East War Adds to Surge in International Arms Sales.” The conflicts in Gaza, Ukraine, and beyond may be causing immense and unconscionable human suffering, but they are also boosting the bottom lines of the world’s arms manufacturers. There was a time when such weapons sales at least sparked talk of “the merchants of death” or of “war profiteers.” Now, however, is distinctly not that time, given the treatment of the industry by the mainstream media and the Washington establishment, as well as the nature of current conflicts. Mind you, the American arms industry already dominates the international market in a staggering fashion, controlling 45% of all such sales globally, a gap only likely to grow more extreme in the rush to further arm allies in Europe and the Middle East in the context of the ongoing wars in those regions.
In his nationally televised address about the Israel-Hamas and Russia-Ukraine wars, President Biden described the American arms industry in remarkably glowing terms, noting that, “just as in World War II, today patriotic American workers are building the arsenal of democracy and serving the cause of freedom.” From a political and messaging perspective, the president cleverly focused on the workers involved in producing such weaponry rather than the giant corporations that profit from arming Israel, Ukraine, and other nations at war. But profit they do and, even more strikingly, much of the revenues that flow to those firms is pocketed as staggering executive salaries and stock buybacks that only boost shareholder earnings further.
Rather than romanticizing the military-industrial complex, isn’t it time to place it under greater democratic control?
President Biden also used that speech as an opportunity to tout the benefits of military aid and weapons sales to the U.S. economy:
“We send Ukraine equipment sitting in our stockpiles. And when we use the money allocated by Congress, we use it to replenish our own stores, our own stockpiles, with new equipment. Equipment that defends America and is made in America. Patriot missiles for air defense batteries, made in Arizona. Artillery shells manufactured in 12 states across the country, in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas. And so much more.”
In short, the military-industrial complex is riding high, with revenues pouring in and accolades emanating from the top political levels in Washington. But is it, in fact, an arsenal of democracy? Or is it an amoral enterprise, willing to sell to any nation, whether a democracy, an autocracy, or anything in between?
Arming Current Conflicts
The U.S. should certainly provide Ukraine with what it needs to defend itself from Russia’s invasion. Sending arms alone, however, without an accompanying diplomatic strategy is a recipe for an endless, grinding war (and endless profits for those arms makers) that could always escalate into a far more direct and devastating conflict between the U.S., NATO, and Russia. Nevertheless, given the current urgent need to keep supplying Ukraine, the sources of the relevant weapons systems are bound to be corporate giants like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. No surprise there, but keep in mind that they’re not doing any of this out of charity.
Raytheon CEO Gregory Hayes acknowledged as much, however modestly, in an interview with the Harvard Business Review early in the Ukraine War:
“[W]e don’t apologize for making these systems, making these weapons… the fact is eventually we will see some benefit in the business over time. Everything that’s being shipped into Ukraine today, of course, is coming out of stockpiles, either at DoD [the Department of Defense] or from our NATO allies, and that’s all great news. Eventually we’ll have to replenish it and we will see a benefit to the business over the next coming years.”
Hayes made a similar point recently in response to a question from a researcher at Morgan Stanley on a call with Wall Street analysts. The researcher noted that President Biden’s proposed multi-billion-dollar package of military aid for Israel and Ukraine “seems to fit quite nicely with Raytheon’s defense portfolio.” Hayes responded that “across the entire Raytheon portfolio you’re going to see a benefit of this restocking on top of what we think will be an increase in the DoD topline as we continue to replenish these stocks.” Supplying Ukraine alone, he suggested, would yield billions in revenues over the coming few years with profit margins of 10% to 12%.
Beyond such direct profits, there’s a larger issue here: the way this country’s arms lobby is using the war to argue for a variety of favorable actions that go well beyond anything needed to support Ukraine. Those include less restrictive, multi-year contracts; reductions in protections against price gouging; faster approval of foreign sales; and the construction of new weapons plants. And keep in mind that all of this is happening as a soaring Pentagon budget threatens to hit an astonishing $1 trillion within the next few years.
As for arming Israel, including $14 billion in emergency military aid recently proposed by President Biden, the horrific attacks perpetrated by Hamas simply don’t justify the all-out war President Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has launched against more than two million inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, with so many thousands of lives already lost and untold additional casualties to come. That devastating approach to Gaza in no way fits the category of defending democracy, which means that weapons companies profiting from it will be complicit in the unfolding humanitarian catastrophe.
Repression Enabled, Democracy Denied
Over the years, far from being a reliable arsenal of democracy, American arms manufacturers have often helped undermine democracy globally, while enabling ever greater repression and conflict — a fact largely ignored in recent mainstream coverage of the industry. For example, in a 2022 report for the Quincy Institute, I noted that, of the 46 then-active conflicts globally, 34 involved one or more parties armed by the United States. In some cases, American arms supplies were modest, but in many other conflicts such weaponry was central to the military capabilities of one or more of the warring parties
Nor do such weapons sales promote democracy over autocracy, a watchword of the Biden administration’s approach to foreign policy. In 2021, the most recent year for which full statistics are available, the U.S. armed 31 nations that Freedom House, a non-profit that tracks global trends in democracy, political freedom, and human rights, designated as “not free.”
The most egregious recent example in which the American arms industry is distinctly culpable when it comes to staggering numbers of civilian deaths would be the Saudi Arabian/United Arab Emirates (UAE)-led coalition’s intervention in Yemen, which began in March 2015 and has yet to truly end. Although the active military part of the conflict is now in relative abeyance, a partial blockade of that country continues to cause needless suffering for millions of Yemenis. Between bombing, fighting on the ground, and the impact of that blockade, there have been nearly 400,000 casualties. Saudi air strikes, using American-produced planes and weaponry, caused the bulk of civilian deaths from direct military action.
Congress did make unprecedented efforts to block specific arms sales to Saudi Arabia and rein in the American role in the conflict via a War Powers Resolution, only to see legislation vetoed by President Donald Trump. Meanwhile, bombs provided by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin were routinely used to target civilians, destroying residential neighborhoods, factories, hospitals, a wedding, and even a school bus.
When questioned about whether they feel any responsibility for how their weapons have been used, arms companies generally pose as passive bystanders, arguing that all they’re doing is following policies made in Washington. At the height of the Yemen war, Amnesty International asked firms that were supplying military equipment and services to the Saudi/UAE coalition whether they were ensuring that their weaponry wouldn’t be used for egregious human rights abuses. Lockheed Martin typically offered a robotic response, asserting that “defense exports are regulated by the U.S. government and approved by both the Executive Branch and Congress to ensure that they support U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives.” Raytheon simply stated that its sales “of precision-guided munitions to Saudi Arabia have been and remain in compliance with U.S. law.”
How the Arms Industry Shapes Policy
Of course, weapons firms are not merely subject to U.S. laws, but actively seek to shape them, including exerting considerable effort to block legislative efforts to limit arms sales. Raytheon typically put major behind-the-scenes effort into keeping a significant sale of precision-guided bombs to Saudi Arabia on track. In May 2018, then-CEO Thomas Kennedy even personally visited the office of Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Robert Menendez (D-NJ) to (unsuccessfully) press him to drop a hold on that deal. That firm also cultivated close ties with the Trump administration, including presidential trade adviser Peter Navarro, to ensure its support for continuing sales to the Saudi regime even after the murder of prominent Saudi journalist and U.S. resident Jamal Khashoggi.
The list of major human rights abusers that receive U.S.-supplied weaponry is long and includes (but isn’t faintly limited to) Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, Turkey, Nigeria, and the Philippines. Such sales can have devastating human consequences. They also support regimes that all too often destabilize their regions and risk embroiling the United States directly in conflicts.
U.S.-supplied arms also far too regularly fall into the hands of Washington’s adversaries. As an example consider the way the UAE transferred small arms and armored vehicles produced by American weapons makers to extremist militias in Yemen, with no apparent consequences, even though such acts clearly violated American arms export laws. Sometimes, recipients of such weaponry even end up fighting each other, as when Turkey used U.S.-supplied F-16s in 2019 to bomb U.S.-backed Syrian forces involved in the fight against Islamic State terrorists.
Such examples underscore the need to scrutinize U.S. arms exports far more carefully. Instead, the arms industry has promoted an increasingly “streamlined” process of approval of such weapons sales, campaigning for numerous measures that would make it even easier to arm foreign regimes regardless of their human-rights records or support for the interests Washington theoretically promotes. These have included an “Export Control Reform Initiative” heavily promoted by the industry during the Obama and Trump administrations that ended up ensuring a further relaxation of scrutiny over firearms exports. It has, in fact, eased the way for sales that, in the future, could put U.S.-produced weaponry in the hands of tyrants, terrorists, and criminal organizations.
Now, the industry is promoting efforts to get weapons out the door ever more quickly through “reforms” to the Foreign Military Sales program in which the Pentagon essentially serves as an arms broker between those weapons corporations and foreign governments.
Reining in the MIC
The impetus to move ever more quickly on arms exports and so further supersize this country’s already staggering weapons manufacturing base will only lead to yet more price gouging by arms corporations. It should be a government imperative to guard against such a future, rather than fuel it. Alleged security concerns, whether in Ukraine, Israel, or elsewhere, shouldn’t stand in the way of vigorous congressional oversight. Even at the height of World War II, a time of daunting challenges to American security, then-Senator Harry Truman established a committee to root out war profiteering.
Yes, your tax dollars are being squandered in the rush to build and sell ever more weaponry abroad. Worse yet, for every arms transfer that serves a legitimate defensive purpose, there is another — not to say others — that fuels conflict and repression, while only increasing the risk that, as the giant weapons corporations and their executives make fortunes, this country will become embroiled in more costly foreign conflicts.
One possible way to at least slow that rush to sell would be to “flip the script” on how Congress reviews weapons exports. Current law requires a veto-proof majority of both houses of Congress to block a questionable sale. That standard — perhaps you won’t be surprised to learn — has never (yes, never!) been met, thanks to the millions of dollars in annual election financial support that the weapons companies offer our congressional representatives. Flipping the script would mean requiring affirmative congressional approval of any major sales to key nations, greatly increasing the chances of stopping dangerous deals before they reach completion.
Praising the U.S. arms industry as the “arsenal of democracy” obscures the numerous ways it undermines our security and wastes our tax dollars. Rather than romanticizing the military-industrial complex, isn’t it time to place it under greater democratic control? After all, so many lives depend on it.
"Deals done at DSEI will cause misery across the world, causing global instability, and devastate people's lives," one peace activist lamented.
Military-industrial complex players big and small gathered in London this week, hawking everything from long-range missiles to gold-plated pistols to arms fair attendees—including representatives of horrific human rights violators—as weapon-makers and other merchants of the machinery of death reap record profits.
"War is good for business," one defense executive attending the biennial Defense and Security Equipment International (DSEI) conference at ExCel London flat-out told Reuters. "We are extremely busy," Michael Elmore, head of sales at the U.K.-based armored steelmaker MTL Advanced, told the media agency.
Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine and the West's scramble to arm Ukrainian homeland defenders have been a bonanza for arms-makers.
"Ukraine is a very interesting combination of First and Second World War technologies and very modern technology," Kuldar Vaarsi, CEO of the Estonian unmanned ground vehicle firm MILREM, told Reuters.
Saber-rattling and fearmongering by government, media, and business figures amid rising tensions between the U.S. and its allies on one side, and a fast-rising China on the other, have also spurred military spending, including Japan's $320 billion buildup announced last December.
"We think this is a longer-term essentially 'sea change' in national defense strategy for the U.S. and for our Western allies," Jim Taiclet, CEO of U.S. arms giant Lockheed Martin, told investors during a call earlier this summer announcing higher-than-expected sales and profit outlooks.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the United States, Russia, France, China, and Germany were the world's top arms exporters from 2018-22, with the five nations accounting for 76% of all weapons exports during that period. The U.S. accounted for nearly 40% of such exports during those five years, while increasing its dominance in the arms trade. The U.S. also remains by far the world's biggest military spender.
In addition to major corporations, middlemen like Marc Morales have also been profiting handsomely from wars in countries including Ukraine. Morales happened to have a warehouse full of ammunition in Bulgaria that the Pentagon originally intended for Afghanistan when Russia invaded its neighbor, and he has been richly rewarded as the U.S. spends tens of billions of dollars arming Ukrainian forces. He named his new $10 million yacht Trigger Happy.
Outside the sprawling ExCel convention center in London's Docklands, anti-war protesters rallied against the global arms trade and the death and destruction it fuels. The Guardian reported that at least a dozen demonstrators were arrested during the course of the conference, including nine on Thursday for blocking a road outside the venue.
Sam Perlo-Freeman, a researcher at the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), told The Guardian that "a lot of countries that are being talked about as new arms export markets are ones we would be concerned about."
"Egypt is a repressive regime and Vietnam an absolute dictatorship," Perlo-Freeman added. "Indonesia is involved in brutality in West Papua."
Emily Apple, also of CAAT, told People's World that "the companies exhibiting read as a who's-who of the world's worst arms dealers."
"Israel is an apartheid state, and it is disgusting that the U.K. is not only selling weapons to Israel but encouraging Israeli arms companies to sell their weapons in London," she continued. "Representatives from regimes such as Saudi Arabia, who have used U.K.-made weapons to commit war crimes in Yemen, will be wined and dined and encouraged to buy yet more arms."
"Deals done at DSEI will cause misery across the world, causing global instability, and devastate people's lives," Apple added.
Inside ExCel, it was business as usual. Pressed by Declassified U.K. chief reporter Phil Miller on why Britain's right-wing government supports "selling arms to the Saudi dictatorship that sentences someone to death for tweeting," Minister of State for the Armed Forces James Heappey deflected.
Private sector leaders, however, have been more forthcoming. As Raytheon CEO Greg Hayes opined during a 2021 investor call touting the company's "solid" growth: "Peace is not going to break out in the Middle East anytime soon."
Are we truly getting what we pay so dearly for—the bestest, finest, most exceptional military ever? And even if we are, should a self-proclaimed democracy really want such a thing?
In his message to the troops prior to the July 4 weekend, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin offered high praise indeed. “We have the greatest fighting force in human history,” he tweeted, connecting that claim to the U.S. having patriots of all colors, creeds, and backgrounds “who bravely volunteer to defend our country and our values.”
As a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel from a working-class background who volunteered to serve more than four decades ago, who am I to argue with Austin? Shouldn’t I just bask in the glow of his praise for today’s troops, reflecting on my own honorable service near the end of what now must be thought of as the First Cold War?
Yet I confess to having doubts. I’ve heard it all before. The hype. The hyperbole. I still remember how, soon after the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush boasted that this country had “the greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known.” I also remember how, in a pep talk given to U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2010, President Barack Obama declared them “the finest fighting force that the world has ever known.” And yet, 15 years ago at TomDispatch, I was already wondering when Americans had first become so proud of, and insistent upon, declaring our military the world’s absolute best, a force beyond compare, and what that meant for a republic that once had viewed large standing armies and constant warfare as anathemas to freedom.
Leaving that boast aside, Americans could certainly brag about one thing this country has beyond compare: the most expensive military around and possibly ever.
In retrospect, the answer is all too straightforward: We need something to boast about, don’t we? In the once-upon-a-time “exceptional nation,” what else is there to praise to the skies or consider our pride and joy these days except our heroes? After all, this country can no longer boast of having anything like the world’s best educational outcomes, or healthcare system, or the most advanced and safest infrastructure, or the best democratic politics, so we better damn well be able to boast about having “the greatest fighting force” ever.
Leaving that boast aside, Americans could certainly brag about one thing this country has beyond compare: the most expensive military around and possibly ever. No country even comes close to our commitment of funds to wars, weapons (including nuclear ones at the Department of Energy), and global dominance. Indeed, the Pentagon’s budget for “defense” in 2023 exceeds that of the next 10 countries (mostly allies!) combined.
And from all of this, it seems to me, two questions arise: Are we truly getting what we pay so dearly for—the bestest, finest, most exceptional military ever? And even if we are, should a self-proclaimed democracy really want such a thing?
The answer to both those questions is, of course, no. After all, America hasn’t won a war in a convincing fashion since 1945. If this country keeps losing wars routinely and often enough catastrophically, as it has in places like Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, how can we honestly say that we possess the world’s greatest fighting force? And if we nevertheless persist in such a boast, doesn’t that echo the rhetoric of militaristic empires of the past? (Remember when we used to think that only unhinged dictators like Adolf Hitler boasted of having peerless warriors in a megalomaniacal pursuit of global domination?)
Actually, I do believe the United States has the most exceptional military, just not in the way its boosters and cheerleaders like Austin, Bush, and Obama claimed. How is the U.S. military truly “exceptional”? Let me count the ways.
In so many ways, the U.S. military is indeed exceptional. Let’s begin with its budget. At this very moment, Congress is debating a colossal “defense” budget of $886 billion for FY2024 (and all the debate is about issues that have little to do with the military). That defense spending bill, you may recall, was “only” $740 billion when President Joe Biden took office three years ago. In 2021, Biden withdrew U.S. forces from the disastrous war in Afghanistan, theoretically saving the taxpayer nearly $50 billion a year. Yet, in place of any sort of peace dividend, American taxpayers simply got an even higher bill as the Pentagon budget continued to soar.
Recall that, in his four years in office, Donald Trump increased military spending by 20%. Biden is now poised to achieve a similar 20% increase in just three years in office. And that increase largely doesn’t even include the cost of supporting Ukraine in its war with Russia—so far, somewhere between $120 billion and $200 billion and still rising.
Colossal budgets for weapons and war enjoy broad bipartisan support in Washington. It’s almost as if there were a military-industrial-congressional complex at work here! Where, in fact, did I ever hear a president warning us about that? Oh, perhaps I’m thinking of a certain farewell address by Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1961.
There’s now a huge pentagonal-shaped black hole on the Potomac that’s devouring more than half of the federal discretionary budget annually.
In all seriousness, there’s now a huge pentagonal-shaped black hole on the Potomac that’s devouring more than half of the federal discretionary budget annually. Even when Congress and the Pentagon allegedly try to enforce fiscal discipline, if not austerity elsewhere, the crushing gravitational pull of that hole just continues to suck in more money. Bet on that continuing as the Pentagon issues ever more warnings about a new cold war with China and Russia.
Given its money-sucking nature, perhaps you won’t be surprised to learn that the Pentagon is remarkably exceptional when it comes to failing fiscal audits—five of them in a row (the fifth failure being a “teachable moment,” according to its chief financial officer)—as its budget only continued to soar. Whether you’re talking about lost wars or failed audits, the Pentagon is eternally rewarded for its failures. Try running a “Mom and Pop” store on that basis and see how long you last.
Speaking of all those failed wars, perhaps you won’t be surprised to learn that they haven’t come cheaply. According to the Costs of War Project at Brown University, roughly 937,000 people have died since 9/11/2001 thanks to direct violence in this country’s “Global War on Terror” in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere. (And the deaths of another 3.6 to 3.7 million people may be indirectly attributable to those same post-9/11 conflicts.) The financial cost to the American taxpayer has been roughly $8 trillion and rising even as the U.S. military continues its counterterror preparations and activities in 85 countries.
No other nation in the world sees its military as (to borrow from a short-lived Navy slogan) “a global force for good.” No other nation divides the whole world into military commands like AFRICOM for Africa and CENTCOM for the Middle East and parts of Central and South Asia, headed up by four-star generals and admirals. No other nation has a network of 750 foreign bases scattered across the globe. No other nation strives for full-spectrum dominance through “all-domain operations,” meaning not only the control of traditional “domains” of combat—the land, sea, and air—but also of space and cyberspace. While other countries are focused mainly on national defense (or regional aggressions of one sort or another), the U.S. military strives for total global and spatial dominance. Truly exceptional!
Strangely, in this never-ending, unbounded pursuit of dominance, results simply don’t matter. The Afghan War? Bungled, botched, and lost. The Iraq War? Built on lies and lost. Libya? We came, we saw, Libya’s leader (and so many innocents) died. Yet no one at the Pentagon was punished for any of those failures. In fact, to this day, it remains an accountability-free zone, exempt from meaningful oversight. If you’re a “modern major general,” why not pursue wars when you know you’ll never be punished for losing them?
Indeed, the few “exceptions” within the military-industrial-congressional complex who stood up for accountability, people of principle like Daniel Hale, Chelsea Manning, and Edward Snowden, were imprisoned or exiled. In fact, the U.S. government has even conspired to imprison a foreign publisher and transparency activist, Julian Assange, who published the truth about the American war on terror, by using a World War I-era espionage clause that only applies to American citizens.
And the record is even grimmer than that. In our post-9/11 years at war, as President Barack Obama admitted, “We tortured some folks”—and the only person punished for that was another whistleblower, John Kiriakou, who did his best to bring those war crimes to our attention.
And speaking of war crimes, isn’t it “exceptional” that the U.S. military plans to spend upwards of $2 trillion in the coming decades on a new generation of genocidal nuclear weapons? Those include new stealth bombers and new intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) for the Air Force, as well as new nuclear-missile-firing submarines for the Navy. Worse yet, the U.S. continues to reserve the right to use nuclear weapons first, presumably in the name of protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And of course, despite the countries—nine!—that now possess nukes, the U.S. remains the only one to have used them in wartime, in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Finally, it turns out that the military is even immune from Supreme Court decisions! When SCOTUS recently overturned affirmative action for college admission, it carved out an exception for the military academies. Schools like West Point and Annapolis can still consider the race of their applicants, presumably to promote unit cohesion through proportional representation of minorities within the officer ranks, but our society at large apparently does not require racial equity for its cohesion.
Here’s one of my favorite lines from the movie The Usual Suspects: “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist.” The greatest trick the U.S. military ever pulled was essentially convincing us that its wars never existed. As Norman Solomon notes in his revealing book, War Made Invisible, the military-industrial-congressional complex has excelled at camouflaging the atrocious realities of war, rendering them almost entirely invisible to the American people. Call it the new American isolationism, only this time we’re isolated from the harrowing and horrific costs of war itself.
America is a nation perpetually at war, yet most of us live our lives with little or no perception of this. There is no longer a military draft. There are no war bond drives. You aren’t asked to make direct and personal sacrifices. You aren’t even asked to pay attention, let alone pay (except for those nearly trillion-dollar-a-year budgets and interest payments on a ballooning national debt, of course). You certainly aren’t asked for your permission for this country to fight its wars, as the Constitution demands. As President George W. Bush suggested after the 9/11 attacks, go visit Disneyworld! Enjoy life! Let America’s “best and brightest” handle the brutality, the degradation, and the ugliness of war, bright minds like former Vice President Dick (“So?”) Cheney and former Secretary of Defense Donald (“I don’t do quagmires”) Rumsfeld.
Did you hear something about the U.S. military being in Syria? In Somalia? Did you hear about the U.S. military supporting the Saudis in a brutal war of repression in Yemen? Did you notice how this country’s military interventions around the world kill, wound, and displace so many people of color, so much so that observers speak of the systemic racism of America’s wars? Is it truly progress that a more diverse military in terms of “color, creed, and background,” to use Secretary of Defense Austin’s words, has killed and is killing so many non-white peoples around the globe?
Even when government actions kill children, lots of children, it’s for the greater good. If this troubles you, go to Disney and take your kids with you.
Praising the all-female-crewed flyover at the last Super Bowl or painting rainbow flags of inclusivity (or even blue and yellow flags for Ukraine) on cluster munitions won’t soften the blows or quiet the screams. As one reader of my blog Bracing Views so aptly put it: “The diversity the war parties [Democrats and Republicans] will not tolerate is diversity of thought.”
Of course, the U.S. military isn’t solely to blame here. Senior officers will claim their duty is not to make policy at all but to salute smartly as the president and Congress order them about. The reality, however, is different. The military is, in fact, at the core of America’s shadow government with enormous influence over policymaking. It’s not merely an instrument of power; it is power—and exceptionally powerful at that. And that form of power simply isn’t conducive to liberty and freedom, whether inside America’s borders or beyond them.
Wait! What am I saying? Stop thinking about all that! America is, after all, the exceptional nation and its military, a band of freedom fighters. In Iraq, where war and sanctions killed untold numbers of Iraqi children in the 1990s, the sacrifice was “worth it,” as former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright once reassured Americans on 60 Minutes.
Even when government actions kill children, lots of children, it’s for the greater good. If this troubles you, go to Disney and take your kids with you. You don’t like Disney? Then, hark back to that old marching song of World War I and “pack up your troubles in your old kit-bag, and smile, smile, smile.” Remember, America’s troops are freedom-delivering heroes and your job is to smile and support them without question.
Have I made my point? I hope so. And yes, the U.S. military is indeed exceptional and being so, being #1 (or claiming you are anyway) means never having to say you’re sorry, no matter how many innocents you kill or maim, how many lives you disrupt and destroy, how many lies you tell.
I must admit, though, that, despite the endless celebration of our military’s exceptionalism and “greatness,” a fragment of scripture from my Catholic upbringing haunts me still: Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.
The increase in nuclear weapons does not make our world safer and cannot address today’s challenges.
Bombing a home to pieces is not the path to a peaceful or green world. Yet right now, there are 3,844 nuclear warheads deployed worldwide with missiles and aircraft. That’s 10 nuclear warheads for every day of the year. Two thousand of these are ready for immediate launch, and, if that weren’t enough, an additional 10,000 are stacked high in military stockpiles waiting to be used. Most of today’s modern warheads are at least five times more powerful than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. My home town of Copenhagen is well within range of many of these missiles, like most other places. Casualties would be staggering.
Missiles of particular note and concern stem from Russia, which has started deploying tactical nuclear warheads a step closer to Europe and into Belarus, its close military ally ruled by “Europe’s last dictator.” This is especially alarming as it is the first time since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 for such weapons to be moved outside of Russia. This has led to the U.N. Disarmament chief warning that the threat of nuclear weapons use is higher than at any time since the Cold War.
Echoing this dismay is the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). Releasing its annual assessment of the state of international security a few days ago, the independent institute stated, “We are drifting into one of the most dangerous periods in human history.” Their research shows that the world’s nine nuclear armed states—the U.S., Russia, the U.K., France, China, India, Pakistan, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), and Israel—are continuing to grow and modernize their arsenals.
According to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), the nuclear nine spent $157,664 per minute on nuclear weapons in 2022. That’s a total of $82.9 billion. Overall, all military expenditure saw a big increase worldwide, reaching a new high of $2240 billion. This is more than 20 times the annual financial goal agreed at the 2009 Copenhagen U.N. climate talks for adaptation and mitigation, which has never been met. What drove this boost in military spending? Largely, Russia’s full scale invasion of Ukraine.
While the impacts of Russia’s war in Ukraine are deep, tragic, and far-reaching, it is not the only major crisis taking place. 2022 saw the sharpest rise in the number of people forcibly displaced due to social and climate crises worldwide. As of mid-2022, an estimated one in every 77 people—108.4 million—had to flee their homes, more than twice as many as a decade ago. The United Nations’ refugee agency says this is the greatest number of forcibly displaced people ever recorded. Many of those people are in or from Ukraine, Syria, Afghanistan, and Sudan. Yet conflict is not the only cause, as climate disasters led to 32.6 million internal displacements last year.
Global solutions to borderless problems abound, but too many political and business leaders are pushing for dirty profits and hateful division over peace, prosperity, and, frankly, the planet’s future.
In the face of so much suffering and injustice, as usual there are those who stand to profit at any cost. Arms sales have gone up by 50% leaving manufacturers with blossoming balance sheets. But they are not the only vultures. Big Oil continues to make record war profits, the latest figures being to the tune of more than $200 billion. Added to this brutal bounty, and despite their promises and pledges to transition to renewable energy, governments are doubling spending on fossil fuel subsidies and approving new oil and gas projects. And, as exposed by Greenpeace’s Unearthed and Lighthouse Reports, on the back of a global food crisis that’s pushing millions more people into hunger, the world’s top 10 hedge funds made an estimated $1.9-billion profit from the food price spike triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Global solutions to borderless problems abound, but too many political and business leaders are pushing for dirty profits and hateful division over peace, prosperity, and, frankly, the planet’s future. We are at a critical junction where the focus should be on strengthening multilateralism for peace and climate, rather than promoting false solutions and profit mongering. The increase in nuclear weapons does not make our world safer and cannot address today’s challenges, quite the contrary. The Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons made history by declaring nuclear weapons illegal under international law, but nuclear armed states have not only failed to ratify it, they are deterring other countries from doing so.
Instead of this race to spend big on destruction, more time and resources could and should go to addressing the root causes of our interconnected environmental and social crises. Climate change is transforming our understanding of security, and beefing up arsenals is a folly against the reality of increasing economic disruption; flooding; disease; famine; drought and crop-failure; migration; and intensified competition for food, water, and energy in regions where resources are already hugely stretched. The smarter approach would be for the current system’s power brokers to focus on the root causes of today’s discontent alongside diplomacy and sustainable development, instead of cozying up to warmongers and disaster capitalists.
Take action and support the Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons here.
"There is an urgent need to restore nuclear diplomacy and strengthen international controls on nuclear arms."
A leading international think tank said Monday that the world is "drifting into one of the most dangerous periods in human history" as nuclear-armed countries continue adding to their stockpiles, with the total number of operational weapons of mass destruction growing last year.
The latest research from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) estimates that the nine countries currently known to be in possession of nuclear weapons had 9,576 working nukes at the beginning of 2023, up slightly from the 9,490 total in January 2022.
Just two countries—the United States and Russia—control 90% of the world's nuclear arsenal, respectively possessing 3,708 and 4,489 working nukes, SIPRI found. Both nations have thousands of warheads deployed on military bases with operational forces.
While "the sizes of their respective nuclear arsenals (i.e. useable warheads) seem to have remained relatively stable in 2022," the think tank noted, "transparency regarding nuclear forces declined in both countries in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022."
China has the third-largest arsenal of operational nuclear warheads with 410—up from 350 last year—followed by France (290) and the United Kingdom (225).
Nuclear-armed nations also collectively possess thousands of retired warheads that are awaiting dismantlement. The total worldwide inventory of nuclear weapons, including retired and operational arms, was 12,512 at the beginning of this year.
But SIPRI found that "the number of operational nuclear weapons started to rise as countries' long-term force modernization and expansion plans progressed."
"Global reductions of operational warheads appear to have stalled," the think tank observed, "and their numbers are rising again."
Dan Smith, SIPRI's director, said the new research underscores the "urgent need to restore nuclear diplomacy and strengthen international controls on nuclear arms."
"In this period of high geopolitical tension and mistrust, with communication channels between nuclear-armed rivals closed or barely functioning, the risks of miscalculation, misunderstanding, or accident are unacceptably high," said Smith. "There is an urgent need to restore nuclear diplomacy and strengthen international controls on nuclear arms."
The new research comes in the wake of several developments that alarmed nonproliferation campaigners, including Russia's decision to suspend its participation in the New START nuclear treaty with the U.S. amid elevated tensions over Ukraine.
Additionally, the Biden administration released a Nuclear Posture Review that left open the possibility of a nuclear first strike, violating the president's pledge to ensure that the U.S. nuclear arsenal is only used for deterring and, if necessary, retaliating against a nuclear attack."
Both the U.S. and Russia have opposed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons—which bars signatories from using, threatening to use, developing, or stockpiling nukes—and have been accused of flouting their obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
"Most of the nuclear-armed states are hardening their rhetoric about the importance of nuclear weapons, and some are even issuing explicit or implicit threats about potentially using them," said Matt Korda, associate researcher with SIPRI's weapons of mass destruction program. "This elevated nuclear competition has dramatically increased the risk that nuclear weapons might be used in anger for the first time since World War II."
An annual analysis published Monday revealed that global military spending rose to an all-time high of over $2.2 trillion last year, driven largely by Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the Western response, as well as the steadily increasing Pentagon budget in the United States.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's (SIPRI) annual report showed a 3.7% overall increase in worldwide military expenditures to $2.24 trillion in 2022, including a 13% rise in Europe—the continent's sharpest increase in three decades—amid Russia's war on Ukraine.
Ukrainian defense spending skyrocketed 640% last year to $44 billion, the biggest single-year increase ever recorded by SIPRI. Meanwhile, Russian military spending surged 9.2% to $86.4 billion.
Among European nations, significant increases in military spending were observed in Finland (36%), Lithuania (27%), Sweden (12%), and Poland (11%).
"The invasion of Ukraine had an immediate impact on military spending decisions in Central and Western Europe," SIPRI senior researcher Diego Lopes da Silva said in a statement. "This included multiyear plans to boost spending from several governments."
"As a result, we can reasonably expect military expenditure in Central and Western Europe to keep rising in the years ahead," he added.
The United States remained by far the world's biggest military spender, with its $877 in expenditures accounting for 39% of the global total in 2022. The U.S.—which is also the world's biggest arms exporter—China, and Russia together accounted for 56% of the global total.
"The increase in the USA's military spending in 2022 was largely accounted for by the unprecedented level of financial military aid it provided to Ukraine," said Nan Tian, another SIPRI senior researcher. "Given the scale of U.S. spending, even a minor increase in percentage terms has a significant impact on the level of global military expenditure."
In Asia, China—with its $292 billion military budget—remained the world's second-biggest spender, while Japanese defense expenditures rose 5.9% to $46 billion, and Indian military spending increased 6% to $81.4 billion.
Other countries with notable increases in 2022 military expenditures include Ethiopia (88%), Turkey (26%), and Saudi Arabia (16%).
"The continuous rise in global military expenditure in recent years is a sign that we are living in an increasingly insecure world," said Tian. "States are bolstering military strength in response to a deteriorating security environment, which they do not foresee improving in the near future."
"The impacts of the global arms trade aren't just about the volume of weapons delivered," said one expert, citing "a few examples of how U.S. arms deliveries can make the world a more dangerous place."
A Sweden-based research institute published a report Monday showing that the United States accounted for 40% of the world's weapons exports in the years 2018-22, selling armaments to more than 100 countries while increasing its dominance of the global arms trade.
The report—entitled Trends in International Arms Transfers, 2022—was published by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and listed the United States, Russia, France, China, and Germany as the world's top five arms exporters from 2018-22. The five nations accounted for 76% of worldwide weapons exports during that period.
The five biggest arms importers over those five years were India, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Australia, and China.
"The United States has much room for improvement."
The United States saw a 14% increase in arms exports over the previous five-year period analyzed by SIPRI. U.S. arms were delivered to 103 nations from 2018-22, with 41% going to the Middle East.
"Even as arms transfers have declined globally, those to Europe have risen sharply due to the tensions between Russia and most other European states," Pieter Wezeman, senior researcher at the SIPRI Arms Transfers Program, said in a statement. "Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, European states want to import more arms, faster. Strategic competition also continues elsewhere: Arms imports to East Asia have increased and those to the Middle East remain at a high level."
According to the report, Russia's invasion of Ukraine early last year "had only a limited impact on the total volume of arms transfers in 2018–22, but Ukraine did become a major importer of arms in 2022."
Ukraine was the 14th-largest arms importer from 2018-22 and the third-biggest last year.
Wiliam Hartung, a senior research fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote Monday that "the impacts of the global arms trade aren't just about the volume of weapons delivered. The question is how those weapons are likely to be used, and the extent to which they promote stability versus fueling conflict or propping up repressive regimes with abysmal human rights records."
"On this score the United States has much room for improvement," he continued. "Transfers to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for use at the peak of their brutal war in Yemen, and sales to major human rights violators from the Philippines, Egypt, and Nigeria are a few examples of how U.S. arms deliveries can make the world a more dangerous place."
"There are a number of promising steps that Congress can take—as articulated by a new coalition, the Arms Sales Accountability Project—that would mandate closer scrutiny of U.S. sales," Hartung asserted.
"There is also some useful language in the Biden administration's new arms transfer policy directive, that, if implemented, would significantly rein in the most egregious sales," he added. "Only time will tell if U.S. policy can be moved towards one based on arms sales restraint rather than arms sales promotion."