Follow us on social

Anduril Arsenal-1

The AI weapon army goes to Ohio

A massive Anduril factory planned for Columbus will get nearly a half a billion in state subsidies as it promises jobs for drones

Reporting | Military Industrial Complex

A rising weapons tech industry star, Anduril Industries is now coming to Ohio — with the state’s help.

Last week, the Ohio Controlling Board approved a whopping $70 million from the Ohio Department of Development’s All Ohio Future Fund for a prospective weapons factory called Arsenal-1, a proposed five million-square-foot “hyperscale” production facility that Anduril wants to establish near Rickenbacker airport in Columbus, Ohio.

The funding was approved at the Controlling Board meeting with no objections and to little fanfare, outside State Rep. Tristian Rader’s (D-Lakewood) acknowledgement that “a lot of public money” was “going to a private development.”

Anduril and Ohio leadership depict Arsenal-1’s development as paramount for the economy and U.S. national security interests alike. But behind the rhetoric lies a greater battle over the future of controversial autonomous military technologies — and Americans’ role in producing them.

Ohio goes all in for Anduril

Arsenal-1 proponents tout the project’s economic benefits for Ohio residents. Promising 4,000 jobs, Arsenal-1 has been lauded as the largest job-creating project in Ohio's history. Going all in, the state is approving about $450 million in tax breaks for Anduril, which itself will invest about $1 billion into the project. And the plant, to start operations by mid-2026, will even be able to test and develop products at the nearby Rickenbacker airport.

"We welcome Anduril and celebrate the creation of thousands of new jobs in cutting-edge defense manufacturing,” Ohio Lt. Gov. Jon Husted said in January after Anduril announced intentions to come to Ohio. “This investment reinforces Ohio's position as a leader in advanced technology and national security.”

Going largely unscrutinized is what Anduril actually proposes to make at Arsenal-1. But its plans to mass produce ethically questionable autonomous and semi-autonomous weapons warrant scrutiny.

Broadly, concerns about autonomous weapons systems involve the outsourcing of lethal decisionmaking from humans to perhaps less discerning, and often inaccurate, machines. AI researchers also fear that the militarization of AI technology, by shifting the responsibility of fighting — and dying — from humans onto warfighting autonomous machines, may make countries less conflict averse.

These concerns have not stopped the proliferation of AI-backed weapons in places like Gaza, where Israeli forces have infamously utilized AI military targeting systems in their onslaught against the Palestinian people.

And now, proceeding further with autonomous weapons production, Arsenal-1 is part of a larger defense tech push by military contractors, especially a newer generation of defense tech startups, towards a revamped American defense industrial base able to mass produce orders of magnitude more weapons and military platforms —“hyperscaling,” as Anduril puts it— especially AI-backed ones.

Ramping up mass weapons production through new, U.S.-based facilities like Arsenal-1 and defense-minded, industrial automation startup Hadrian’s “highly automated precision component factories,” defense tech startups are tying key economic opportunities to militarism in the process. Along these lines, Hadrian explicitly described its work as an effort to “transform America's advanced manufacturing industrial base” in a 2022 fundraising announcement.

To proponents, the effort is crucial for U.S. national security amid increasingly tenuous geopolitical conditions. Along these lines, Anduril head Palmer Luckey has been railing against a military industrial complex favorite — the China threat — to sell Arsenal-1 and other weapons production efforts to the public.

“We don’t have time for business as usual…the fact that we are predicted to run out of munitions within the first eight days of a potential conflict in China means that we need to hyperscale manufacturing [with projects like Arsenal-1],” Luckey said in a late January interview about Arsenal-1, pointing to war with China as a distinct possibility.

Some fear these weapons companies’ militarist strides, when strewn together with promises of economic opportunity, can direct public opinion in the same direction. “[Palmer] Luckey’s Cold War convictions are becoming increasingly prevalent in the Midwest,” journalist Taylor Dorrell observed in Columbus-based Matter News. “The construction of the Intel plant in New Albany [Ohio], for example, has been cast as a new Cold War effort to beat China in a chip war.”

Debate over Arsenal-1 brews

But not all Ohioans are happy to see Anduril set up shop. Calling Arsenal-1 “a high stakes gamble in national defense,” the Scioto Valley Guardian’s Jay Salley highlighted local skepticism surrounding the “significant” public subsidies allocated to the project.

In fact, Veterans For Peace Chapter 183 and other Ohio-based advocacy groups will protest Arsenal-1 outside Ohio’s Rickenbacker Airport on Sunday. The groups take issue with the project’s substantive public funding, its possible environmental impact, and aforementioned ethical ramifications surrounding the ongoing militarization of AI perpetuated by companies like Anduril.

As Ohioans wrangle over Arsenal-1’s arrival, critical debate over the mass proliferation and future of autonomous weapons systems, and their prospects to make the future of warfare more dangerous, is sorely needed.


Top Image Credit: Ohio partners with Anduril Industries to build manufacturing facility in Pickaway county -- WBNS 10TV (YouTube/screenshot)
Reporting | Military Industrial Complex
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.