The Futility of Defence Expenditure in the Modern Era

In today's interconnected world, where consumer-based economics reigns supreme, the traditional notion of military might as the ultimate guarantor of national security is increasingly being questioned. The vast sums of money poured into defence budgets, the relentless arms race and the development of high-tech weaponry and next-gen fighters are arguably unnecessary and counterproductive.

The US President didn't get a Nobel Peace Prize

The Illusion of Military Supremacy

The notion that military power is the ultimate determinant of victory in interstate conflicts is a relic of a bygone era. While military strength has historically played a significant role in shaping geopolitical landscapes, the dynamics of power have undergone a profound transformation in the contemporary era.

The advent of globalisation, the rise of transnational corporations, and the increasing interdependence of nations have created a scenario where economic and political influence often trumps military might. In this context, pursuing military supremacy through exorbitant defence expenditure is a flawed strategy.

To illustrate, consider a hypothetical arms deal between two countries. One country manufactures a state-of-the-art stealth fighter aircraft with a price tag of $80 million per unit. The manufacturing country needs to secure buyers for these expensive aircraft to sustain its operations and profitability. On the other hand, the purchasing country would have to allocate a substantial budget, exceeding $1 billion, to acquire a squadron of these fighter jets, along with additional maintenance, training, and infrastructure expenses.

The crucial question to consider is: Will this $1 billion investment yield a commensurate return? Any astute taxpayer would argue that investing $1 billion somewhere else could generate at least $1.001 billion in a year. The economic benefits of such investments would far outweigh the uncertain and often intangible benefits of military expenditure.

Furthermore, the rapid pace of technological advancements continuously undermines the value of expensive military hardware. A sophisticated weapon system that costs billions of dollars to develop and deploy could become obsolete within a few years due to technological breakthroughs or the emergence of countermeasures. This constant obsolescence cycle necessitates continuous investment in research and development, further straining national budgets.

In contrast, investments in human capital, research and development, and infrastructure yield long-term economic benefits and enhance a nation's competitiveness. A highly skilled and educated workforce and a robust research and development ecosystem can drive innovation, create new industries, and generate sustainable economic growth.

Furthermore, diplomatic and economic tools, such as trade agreements, sanctions, and foreign aid, can be far more effective in achieving geopolitical objectives than military force. In an increasingly interconnected world, where economic interdependence is the norm, military force often results in unintended consequences and can damage long-term relationships.

The Price of Militarisation

The economic burden of maintaining a large standing army, developing sophisticated weaponry, and engaging in an arms race is staggering. Consider the following examples:

• A single fighter aircraft can cost upwards of $800 million.

• A defence deal can quickly run into hundreds of billions of dollars.

While these technological marvels may be impressive feats of engineering, their utility in addressing the complex challenges of the 21st century is questionable. Can a fighter aircraft be a productive asset for a typical household? Can the vast sums of money spent on defence deals be better utilised to address pressing social and economic issues?

The Power of Politics

If a country wishes to exert influence over another, there are far more effective and cost-efficient methods than resorting to military force. One such method is political manipulation. By influencing the opposition party of the target country, a nation can achieve its objectives without firing a single bullet.

History is replete with examples of how political intrigue, espionage, and propaganda have been used to destabilise governments, foment unrest, and achieve geopolitical goals. The human propensity for greed and lust for power makes such manipulation all too easy. This manipulation is not limited to the pages of history books; the present is undoubtedly a product of such historical machinations, and the cycle seems never-ending.

The methods used to achieve these goals are as varied as the goals themselves. Espionage can involve anything from stealing state secrets to spreading disinformation. Propaganda can sway public opinion, incite hatred, or justify aggression. Political intrigue can include anything from bribery and blackmail to coups and assassinations.

These methods are often combined, creating a web of deceit and manipulation that can be difficult to unravel. The human element is always a factor; those who seek to control others can exploit greed, ambition, and fear.

The construction of the Great Wall of China exemplifies the futility of relying solely on physical defences. While intended to prevent invaders, it was ultimately breached not by force but by the corruption of the human guards stationed at its gates. This illustrates a fundamental truth: the strength of any defence ultimately rests on the integrity and vigilance of those who uphold it.

In the modern era, manipulation methods have become even more sophisticated. The rise of technology has created new opportunities for espionage, propaganda, and political intrigue. Cyberattacks, social media manipulation, and artificial intelligence are just a few of the tools that can be used to destabilise governments and achieve geopolitical goals.

The challenges of the 21st century require a multi-faceted approach. While physical defences and military strength remain essential, they must be complemented by strategies that address the root causes of conflict. This includes promoting good governance, combating corruption, and addressing social and economic inequalities.

Ultimately, lasting peace and security hinge on recognising the interconnectedness of the global community. By working together to address the challenges of the modern era, we can create a more just, equitable, and secure world for all.

The Way Forward

In the contemporary era, the most prudent course of action is to reduce taxpayers' money allocated to defence expenditures. The significant funds allocated to military hardware and personnel could be reallocated to more beneficial and socially responsible initiatives. By investing in education, healthcare, infrastructure, and sustainable development, nations can foster a more secure and prosperous future for their citizens. Pursuing peace and prosperity through cooperation and diplomacy is a far more enlightened and sustainable strategy than the antiquated and counterproductive reliance on military might.

While advocating for reducing defence expenditure, it is essential to recognise the significant technological advancements achieved in the military sector. When applied to peaceful civilian use, these advancements can have a transformative impact on society. The potential applications of military technology in the civilian sphere are vast and diverse, ranging from mundane applications to cutting-edge technologies such as information technology, satellite systems, nuclear energy, and even medical advancements.

For instance, advancements in military communication systems can be adapted to enhance civilian telecommunication networks, improving connectivity and access to information for individuals and businesses. Similarly, satellite technology developed for military surveillance and reconnaissance can be utilised for environmental monitoring, disaster management, and urban planning, leading to more sustainable and resilient communities. Furthermore, research and development in nuclear energy, initially driven by military applications, can be harnessed to meet the world's growing energy demands while reducing reliance on fossil fuels and mitigating climate change.

In the medical field, innovations in military medicine, such as trauma care, prosthetics, and regenerative medicine, can be translated into life-saving treatments and therapies for civilians. The development of portable medical devices and telemedicine technologies, initially designed for battlefield use, can improve healthcare access and delivery in remote and underserved areas.

By redirecting funds from defence expenditure to these and other socially beneficial military technology applications, a more equitable and prosperous society can be fostered. By prioritising investments in human capital, sustainable development, and technological innovation, nations can create a more secure and peaceful world for future generations.

Pursuing military supremacy through exorbitant defence expenditure is a misguided strategy in the modern era. The dynamics of power have shifted, with economic and political influence now playing a more significant role in shaping geopolitical outcomes. Investing in human capital, research and development, and infrastructure while leveraging diplomatic and economic tools is a far more sustainable and practical approach to achieving national security and prosperity. Prioritising long-term investments in these areas is essential for ensuring continued success.

Also Read:

The Illusion of Unchallenged Power: How Asymmetric Warfare Disrupted the Western Strategic Order

U.S. vs. Iran: Could Trump’s Next Strike Ignite an Unwinnable War in the Persian Gulf?

The Collapse of Western Air Power in the Gulf

How asymmetric warfare, depleted missile stockpiles, energy shocks, and political setbacks exposed the limits of American power projection

The US's CSGs proved ineffective with Iran

The once-unquestioned dominance of Western air power in the Gulf has crumbled. With King Khalid International Airport engulfed in smoke, US bases rendered inoperable, and Washington urging its citizens to evacuate while seeking backchannel deals in Muscat, the historic security pact forged in 1945 has faced its ultimate unravelling, exposing the stark reality of modern asymmetric warfare.

The unravelling extends far beyond ruined runways in Riyadh. Across the maritime and strategic landscape, the signature instruments of American power projection have been systematically neutralised. Carrier Strike Groups (CSGs)—once deployed as untouchable symbols of global deterrence—were forced to pull back hundreds of miles into the open Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean, kept at bay outside the lethal envelope of anti-ship ballistic missiles and swarming drone barrages.

Simultaneously, the Pentagon’s magazines have run dangerously dry. Billions of dollars' worth of high-end SM-3s, SM-6s, and Patriot PAC-3 interceptors were burned through in rapid attrition, squandered against cheap composite munitions faster than the American industrial base could replace them.

Back home, the cost of sustained confrontation has shattered the domestic economic equilibrium. Oil shocks sent shockwaves through Western markets, yet the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR)—already drained from successive geopolitical crises—could neither be refilled nor adequately deployed to cushion the blow. High fuel prices and compounding war expenditures have battered the US domestic economy, stirring broad public fatigue.

The political humiliation is equally stark in Washington. The White House, which had sought historic accolades and envisioned clinching a coveted Nobel Peace Prize through grand Middle Eastern diplomatic deals and normalisation pacts, saw those aspirations turn to ashes. In place of a triumphant regional legacy, the administration is left managing empty stockpiles, broken alliances, soaring energy volatility, and quiet retreats to negotiating tables in Oman.

Also Read: 

The Illusion of Unchallenged Power: How Asymmetric Warfare Disrupted the Western Strategic Order

The New Geopolitical Battlefield Isn’t Oil: It’s Rare Earths

For decades, geopolitics has been closely associated with oil, gas and military power.

But a quieter resource is becoming just as strategically important: rare earths.

These minerals are essential for products ranging from electric vehicles and wind turbines to electronics and advanced technologies. The problem is not simply where these minerals exist; it is who controls their processing and supply chains.

Why Rare Earths Have Become a Geopolitical Weapon

China occupies a particularly important position in the global rare-earth supply chain, especially in processing and magnet manufacturing.

India is now building domestic rare-earth magnet capacity through dedicated rare-earth corridors and a ₹7,280 crore manufacturing scheme, aimed at reducing dependence on imports. Read the Government of India’s rare-earth strategy.

In May 2026, India and the United States signed a Critical Minerals Framework covering cooperation in areas such as mining, processing, recycling and investment. Read about the India–US Critical Minerals Framework. That creates a strategic vulnerability for countries that depend on Chinese supplies.

When access to a material can affect EV production, electronics, defence technology and clean-energy manufacturing, a supply chain can become more than an economic issue; it can become a geopolitical tool.

India Is Trying to Change the Equation

India is now focusing on building domestic capacity for rare-earth permanent magnets, which are critical components in automobiles, electronics and other industries.

The shift is significant because India is simultaneously trying to strengthen its manufacturing base while reducing vulnerabilities created by concentrated foreign supply chains.

India and the United States have also signed a framework for cooperation on critical minerals and rare earths, covering areas including mining, processing, recycling and investment. 

The Bigger Story Is About Power, Not Minerals

The rare-earth race reveals something important about modern geopolitics:

Countries no longer compete only for territory. They compete for control over the systems that make modern economies function.

Ports, semiconductors, AI technology, critical minerals, energy and manufacturing capacity are becoming increasingly interconnected.

And that means the next major geopolitical contest may not begin with a military confrontation.

It could begin with a supply chain.

The real question is no longer simply, “Who has the resources?”

It is:

“Who has the power to control what the rest of the world needs?”

Conclusion

The global race for rare earths shows how the nature of geopolitical power is changing. Control over critical minerals, processing capacity, and supply chains can influence industries as much as traditional energy resources.

For India, building domestic capabilities and partnerships with other countries could reduce supply-chain vulnerabilities while supporting its ambitions in manufacturing and technology.

The next geopolitical battle may not be over who owns the most resources, but over who controls the supply chains that turn those resources into power.