The slogan “War is Peace” from George Orwell’s book “1984” has found a disturbing resonance in today’s world, where the global arms industry has transformed warfare into a profitable enterprise that benefits few while devastating many. Through the complex web of weapons manufacturers, private military contractors, and political interests, we see how Orwell’s dystopian vision parallels our modern reality.
The scale of the global arms trade reveals the enormity of this issue. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the top five arms-producing companies globally are U.S.-based, with Lockheed Martin leading the pack. The company, which manufactures F-35 fighter jets, exemplifies the industry’s reach. In fact, 51 of the world’s top 100 arms manufacturers are based in the United States, demonstrating the concentration of military-industrial power.
Perhaps most concerning is the role of the United Nations Security Council’s permanent members in the global arms trade. The United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom collectively account for approximately 75% of global arms exports. This creates a fundamental conflict of interest: the very nations charged with maintaining global peace are the primary suppliers of weapons worldwide. When these countries hold veto power over UN resolutions, meaningful arms control becomes nearly impossible.
UN Security Council members — the U.S., Russia, China, France, and the U.K. — control 75% of global arms exports, creating a stark conflict between their peacekeeping duties and weapons trade profits.
The financial scale is staggering. In 2022, U.S. military equipment sales to foreign nations reached $205.6 billion, according to Reuters. Even smaller players like Israel reported record-breaking arms sales of $12.5 billion, with 24% of its exports going to Arab nations. These transactions reveal how profit motives transcend traditional geopolitical alliances – while nations may appear opposed politically, their arms industries maintain robust business relationships.
The privatization of warfare has added another troubling dimension. Private military companies – euphemistically called “security contractors” – have become a shadow military force. The infamous Blackwater (now renamed) illustrates this trend. After its contractors killed 17 Iraqi civilians in 2007, the company faced minimal long-term consequences. Instead, it continued receiving hundreds of millions in government contracts. During the 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal, its founder Erik Prince charged $6,500 per person for evacuation services, profiting even from military withdrawal.
The revolving door between government and the defense industry further complicates this picture. During the Iraq War, former President George H. W. Bush served on the board of the Carlyle Group, which received numerous defense contracts. Former Vice President Dick Cheney’s connections to Halliburton, which received $7 billion in no-bid contracts, exemplify this pattern. A 2021 Business Insider report identified at least fifteen current lawmakers with investments in defense companies, highlighting the ongoing entanglement of political and military-industrial interests.
In just three years, conflicts in Gaza, Ukraine, and Sudan claimed 117,000 civilian lives, while Security Council members continued supplying weapons.
The human cost of this system is devastating. Recent conflicts in Gaza, Ukraine, and Sudan have resulted in over 117,000 civilian casualties in just three years, according to United Nations estimates. These deaths occur despite – or perhaps because of – the sophisticated weapons systems sold by permanent Security Council members and their allies. International humanitarian organizations, hamstrung by political considerations and veto powers, struggle to intervene effectively.
The solution requires systemic change. First, we need stricter regulations on the revolving door between government and defense contractors, including longer cooling-off periods and stronger conflict-of-interest rules. Second, the UN Security Council’s structure needs reform to address the fundamental conflict between members’ peacekeeping duties and their arms-trading interests. Third, we need greater transparency in military contracting and arms sales, with independent oversight and public reporting requirements.
Most importantly, we must shift government spending priorities. The billions spent on weapons could transform healthcare, education, and infrastructure. Countries like Costa Rica, which abolished its military in 1948, demonstrate that alternative approaches are possible. As taxpayers and citizens, we must demand accountability from our representatives and reject the notion that perpetual conflict is inevitable or profitable.
Orwell’s “War is Peace” was meant as a warning, not a business model. Until we confront the profit motives driving modern warfare, we risk allowing this dystopian vision to become our permanent reality.