Revenues at the world’s top 100 global arms and military services producing companies totaled $632 billion in 2023, a 4.2% increase over the prior year, according to new data released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
The largest increases were tied to ongoing conflicts, including a 40% increase in revenues for Russian companies involved in supplying Moscow’s war on Ukraine and record sales for Israeli firms producing weapons used in that nation’s brutal war on Gaza. Revenues for Turkey’s top arms producing companies also rose sharply — by 24% — on the strength of increased domestic defense spending plus exports tied to the war in Ukraine.
The United States remains the world’s dominant arms producing nation, with $318 billion in revenues flowing to American firms in the world’s top 100 for 2023, more than half of the global total. And the five highest revenue earners globally were all based in the United States — Lockheed Martin, Raytheon (now RTX), Northrop Grumman, Boeing, and General Dynamics.
China ranked second to the United States in arms industry revenues, with nine firms accounting for 16% of the revenue received by companies in the global top 100. Two of the fastest growing countries in terms of revenue growth for top companies were also in Asia, South Korea (plus 39%) and Japan (plus 35%). South Korea’s increase was tied to major export deals with Poland and Australia, while Japan’s was driven by its largest military buildup since World War II.
SIPRI’s analysis takes a “just the facts” approach, tracking sales numbers and correlating them with increases in domestic and export spending tied to specific events. It does not address the dire humanitarian circumstances that underlie the growing revenues of top arms companies, most notably Israel’s unconscionable attacks on Gaza, which have killed over 40,000 people directly and many more through indirect causes, including over 62,000 who have died from starvation. The companies and countries fueling this mass slaughter — including U.S. firms that have supplied a substantial share of the bombs, missiles, and aircraft used in Gaza — should be held to account for their actions, even as they halt the supply of weapons and services that the Israeli government is using to commit ongoing war crimes.
Another major impact of the revenue surge for top arms makers is the diversion of funding and talent from addressing urgent global problems, from climate change to poverty to outbreaks of disease. And the more companies and countries become dependent on the profits of war, the harder it will be to shift funding towards other urgent priorities. The continuing militarization of the global economy has a double cost — lives lost in conflict and devastating problems left unsolved. The situation needs to be treated as far more than a grim parade of statistics about who benefits from a world at war. It should be treated as an urgent call to action for a change in global priorities.
William D. Hartung is a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. His work focuses on the arms industry and U.S. military budget.
Top image credit: Andrew Angelov via shutterstock.com
A group of Democratic lawmakers led by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) on Tuesday slammed a Republican proposal to pour $150 billion into the military, beyond the increases already planned for 2025.
“Republicans are putting the Pentagon before the people,” Markey said during a press conference on Capitol Hill highlighting wasteful Pentagon spending.
The senator stood next to a large list of alternative projects that could be funded by a $150 billion allocation including new hospitals, student loan forgiveness, affordable housing units, and free school lunches.
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) took aim at Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, highlighting the hypocrisy of a military budget increase amid massive cuts to much smaller federal agencies like the U.S. Agency for International Development, the National Institute of Health, and the Department of Education.
“Let’s not be fooled by the hollow claims that Elon is going to go after waste in Pentagon spending,” she said.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) said the $150 billion spending increase proposal was driven by her colleagues’ investments in the military industrial complex, echoing an opinion piece she published in the Detroit Free Press late last month.
Rounding out the slate of speakers were Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, Gabe Murphy, and Thomas Countryman. Murphy, a policy analyst at the nonpartisan organization Taxpayers for Common Sense, lamented the bloating influence of private companies, noting that “half of our budget goes to defense contractors.”
Meanwhile, Countryman, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Affairs and current Board Chairman at the Arms Control Association, criticized the proposal’s emphasis on nuclear weapons spending as a defense strategy. “What concerns me about this particular agenda request by Republicans is that it will contribute to a nuclear arms race,” he said.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: Ran Zisovitch / Shutterstock.com
In his 1971 classic “Every War Must End,” Fred Charles Iklé painfully reminded every would-be commander and statesman of the wrenching tragedies that result from confusing military means with political ends.
Thus, from Vietnam to Afghanistan, any U.S. veteran counterinsurgent listening to President Trump’s press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday evening had to measure clearly the spoken words against such warnings and shudder.
"The U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will do a job with it, too. We'll own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site. Level the site and get rid of the destroyed buildings. Level it out," the president said. "Create an economic development that will supply unlimited numbers of jobs and housing for the people of the area," he added. "Do a real job. Do something different."
These are the terms of a successful real estate developer and epoch-changing politician. They are filled with similar emotions raised by others who have also sat in the same office, especially next to a needful friend and flush with an electoral victory from which he believes he has a powerful mandate to bend the arc of history.
Yet these presidents are also not reflective of the American experience overseas. They instead represent the kind of nightmare that has awakened every American administration since Israel was recognized by President Truman in 1948.
For all its dynamism, America has long proven its structural inadequacies at this kind of security and development mission. It’s just not in its DNA, regardless of the clarity of the orders or willingness of its troops. No matter how well meaning at the outset, the United States has often failed its friends, not due to any perfidy but to lack of clear-eyed statesmanship towards Iklé’s famous ends and a repeated misreading of the unique relationship between America’s transient democracy and the sustained application of force necessary to compel an often invisible foe to submit to its will.
English philosopher John Gray recently noted that one of the positives from Trump’s election is that he was “not a war candidate” and was without “a universal mission” trying “to reshape” the world, but rather led with “a transactional realism.” Gray remarked that this realism is potentially more “morally clean” than the “negative soft power” results of both the neoconservative and liberal exercise of power (often intertwined) for 40 years since the end of the Cold War. Much of this exercise, if we haven’t yet forgotten, occurred in the killing fields of the Middle East.
Trump clearly wants to succeed where President Biden and his inept advisers clearly failed. Yet instinct must always be met by the rational, and both have practical, political, and global power ramifications that go well beyond one term of office.
On Wednesday his surrogates worked to dial his Tuesday remarks back, saying, he “doesn’t want to put any U.S. troops on the ground, and he doesn’t want to spend any U.S. dollars at all.” That would be smart, because otherwise the U.S. would be immediately involved in fighting a war that has not come to its natural political end, and likely never will. If American servicemembers touch the Gaza Strip, they are immediately in a state of war, surrounded not only by Hamas and other militant fighters and gangs, operating in a place where governing institutions now barely exist.
Strenuous rules of engagement for self-defense, which Trump bolstered during his first tenure, would mean more civilian harm and likely loss of life for our own soldiers. A carefully considered endgame here is not a choice, but a political and moral imperative.
Next, the mission has very little chance of immediate clarity or resolution. Lack of active-duty troop strength, exhaustion of weaponry in other overseas commitments like those in Ukraine, ship readiness and construction all mean that time would not be on America’s side in maintaining effective armed presence necessary to “clear, hold, and build.” Any presence in Gaza would immediately be opposed not just on all three sides facing land but also the one at the Mediterranean's edge requiring absolute naval command of the seas. The U.S. military’s history is filled with impossible odds when attempting to contain irregular adversaries with easy access to a porous border.
Much like in Iraq and Afghanistan, today’s readiness woes mean that the reserve component will be asked to do much of this work, if sustained. Although successful in many ways, America’s reserve force is still constructed from the same “total force policy” of General Creighton Abrams at the end of the Vietnam War, designed to prevent long-term commitment of overseas troops by dividing the necessary capabilities of such campaigns throughout the national guard and reserve. Consistently late and insufficient congressional budgets for defense has only increased uncertainty and added to strategic myopia.
Finally, the interplay of economic, diplomatic, and military statesmanship would require a deft coherence — and strategic honesty — that no American administration has successfully wielded since World War II. As the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction noted, “Yet over two decades — and even as Afghan provinces fell like dominoes in the summer of 2021 — I do not recall any senior official telling Congress or the American people that failure was a real possibility. … Self-serving delusion was America’s most formidable foe.”
Although the Army’s Counterinsurgency Field Manual 3-24, famously written by the generals of the Iraq War clearly states that “counterinsurgency is not a substitute for strategy,” for American leaders desperately looking for any success in a strategic vacuum, it became one. And no one was ready to say it wasn’t — or to offer any viable alternative. There is no reason to believe anything is different today in terms of opportunistic careerism or strategic hubris.
What then could work to accomplish the president’s vision? This would be the first real test of President Trump’s Joint Chiefs whom he inherited from former President Biden. What will they recommend to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, someone with “dust on his boots” from two failed counterinsurgencies himself? What have they learned from America’s ignominious departure from Afghanistan, or past efforts to resupply civilians in Gaza, and how are those lessons reflected in the plans they will present?
To truly “do something different,” as the president proclaimed, the United States might start by reviewing its own past playbooks on attracting allies to accomplish well-defined political objectives instead. That is why General Colin Powell regularly referred to Ikle’s book and urged his staff to study it, especially when determining recommended courses of action to then President George H.W. Bush about the desirable ends of ejecting Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.
But these are not the early unipolar salad days of 1991, but rather a much more competitive and unpredictable world. This is a solemn test of a new administration, and for those serving in uniform today, especially those in our youngest generations — those who will never allow America to fail within their temporal power. The stakes couldn't be any higher.
The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.
'Those who forget the past…'
The Bunker watched the Soviet Union’s Sputnik — the first human-made object to orbit the Earth — fly over his Connecticut house in 1957, and grew up witnessing the resulting “space race” (only one nation has landed people on the Moon. It wasn’t the Soviets). It also soon led to U.S. claims of a “missile gap” — Moscow supposedly had more of them than Washington — that turned out to be false. In the 1960s, The Bunker played near a shuttered missile base, built to destroy incoming Soviet bombers. That Nike system was fully abandoned as folly in the 1970s, when the U.S. military built its first missile-defense system in North Dakota. The Bunker walked the Safeguard site years later, eyeballing its strange 123-foot tall pyramid with sprinklers to wipe radiation from its four Cyclops-like radar eyes. It operated for less than a year before it became worthless against a growing Soviet missile force. Then, in 1983 — and more than $400 billion ago — The Bunker covered Ronald Reagan’s call(PDF) to build a Strategic Defense Initiative to render Soviet nuclear warheads “impotent and obsolete.” Quickly dubbed “Star Wars,” it too withered away, into the weak web of 44 ground-based interceptor missiles based in Alaska and California today capable of “defending” us against a limited attack.
But no matter. On January 27, President Donald Trump declared the Pentagon will build “a next-generation missile defense shield” to “deter — and defend its citizens and critical infrastructure against — any foreign aerial attack on the Homeland.” The president told the Defense Department that it had 60 days to propose “The Iron Dome for America” to defend the U.S. against “ballistic, hypersonic, advanced cruise missiles, and other next-generation aerial attacks from peer, near-peer, and rogue adversaries.”
Trump’s executive order is more marketing hype than a plausible military assignment. As if there were any doubt, the Pentagon reached out to industry(PDF) four days after Trump’s announcement, seeking “to understand Industry capabilities to address Executive Order `The Iron Dome for America’” (like U.S. defense contractors are not perpetually hyping what they can do, and have been secretly hoarding missile-defense silver bullets).
It's ambitious, aspirational — and a pipe dream. Such a Mission Impossible might make more sense if the U.S. military could keep one of its helicopters from colliding with a commercial airliner just down the Potomac River from its headquarters and the White House. Keeping two aircraft from colliding is a piece of cake compared to developing and deploying space and ground-based sensors and weapons able to detect, track, and destroy multiple incoming enemy missiles launched at the same time.
“The Iron Dome for America” echoes the much more modest Iron Dome system used by Israel to fend off fewer, slower, and shorter-ranged rockets and missiles. The president’s marching orders constitute a wish list lacking logic — or the money to pay for it (nuclear expert Joe Cirincione’s back-of-the-envelope estimate for it is $2.5 trillion). The U.S. currently spends about $10 billion annually on missile defense.
Unsurprisingly, defense contractors like what they’re hearing. “We’re a major partner in Israel’s Iron Dome today,” Chris Calio, chief executive of RTX, parent of Raytheon, said the day after Trump’s order. “It's the bedrock of Raytheon” — the Pentagon’s second-biggest contractor — “and they are among the best at it…we view this as a significant opportunity for us, something right in our wheelhouse.”
And something right in the taxpayers’ poorhouse.
A new rank rank: Commander-in-Chief Petty Officer
Much of President Trump’s push for missile defense, like those of his predecessors, is designed to thwart an attack by the Russians. Yet he’s emulating them when it comes to “defacing” those who have displeased him, eerily calling to mind Josef Stalin. Such imitation among autocrats apparently is the sincerest form of battery.
The Trump administration has removed two Pentagon portraits of retired Army general Mark Milley — picked by Trump to serve as his chairman of the Joint Chiefs in 2018 — because Milley placed his allegiance to the Constitution above his loyalty to Trump. Beyond that, Trump and his minions have stripped security details and clearances from Milley and several other former top U.S. officials who didn’t toe Trump’s line. They needed protection from Iran after — who else? — Trump ordered the killing of Iranian Major General Qassim Suleimani in 2020.
Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the senior Democrat on the armed services committee, denounced Trump for jeopardizing Milley’s life for his own “political satisfaction.” Even Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), a Trump acolyte and chairman of the intelligence committee, encouraged Trump to “revisit” his decision. Stripping security from Milley and others who have run afoul of Trump means they “could be targeted by Iranian assassins in public where innocent bystanders could be injured,” Cotton warned.
The Bunker turns five today…
It’s hard to believe that we launched The Bunkerfive years ago today. That’s a lifetime in Newsletter Land. The Bunker remains a proud skeptic, standing athwart all the zaniness that is U.S. national security, declaring: “Are you kidding me?”
The Bunker’s proud parents are Tim Farnsworth, vice president of communications and editorial strategy here at the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), and Mandy Smithberger, who was running POGO’s Center for Defense Information when The Bunker launched. Since then, we’ve had a capable team working behind the scenes to produce and publish The Bunker nearly every Wednesday morning (subscribe here for weekly 7 a.m. delivery via email). They include current CDI chief Greg Williams, Editorial Director Julia Delacroix, producers Jules Lemos-Maldonado and Spurthi Kontham, and ace proofreader/fact-checker Neil “Eagle Eye” Gordon. And three huzzahs to POGO chief Danielle Brian, who recently pushed to get The Bunker co-published on Responsible Statecraft’s website.
This note is just a helmet tip from The Bunker-in-chief to thank this crackerjack crew for a job well done. And a hearty Bravo Zulu to our valued readers. With five years now solidly behind us, The Bunker can’t wait to begin its sixth year. Finally, we’ll be able to start kindergarten.
The Chinese military would be unlikely to win a war with the U.S., according to experts from the usually hawkish RAND Corporation, quoted by David Roza in the usually hawkish Air & Space Forces Magazine January 31.
The median enlisted person in the U.S. military (average age 22) earned $115,400 in total compensation, including benefits, in 2024; median officers (average age 28) earned $184,600, the Congressional Budget Office reported January 30.
A review of posts on X by top incoming Trump Defense Department officials highlights their disdain for the status quo and a willingness to upset the Pentagon apple cart, Noah Robertson reported January 28 at Defense News.
Thanks for reviewing The Bunker this week. Consider forwarding this on to your pals so they can subscribe here.
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.