A striking feature of the modern financial landscape is the growing enthusiasm among wealthy investors for the business of war. Defence stocks have long offered the allure of reliable government contracts and steady cash flows. Historically, however, many institutional investors avoided them due to ethical concerns about profiting from weapons that fuel global violence. In recent years that reluctance has sharply eroded, replaced by a gold-rush mentality that rewards militarisation and overlooks the misery it inflicts.
The turning point coincided with Donald Trump’s return to the White House. Despite branding himself as a “Peace President,” his administration has proven extraordinarily lucrative for arms manufacturers and the wealthy individuals who bankroll them. Defence equities have surged beyond what fundamentals alone would justify. Investors are not simply pricing in stronger earnings. They are paying a premium to participate in a geopolitical climate where conflict is treated as a growth opportunity.
Trump’s rhetoric and actions have been a major catalyst. He has urged European governments to significantly expand military spending. In 2024, NATO members formally endorsed a move toward defence budgets of 2 percent of GDP. Some members, including Poland and the Baltic states, have already moved closer to 4 percent. Trump has publicly pushed for even higher levels. Analysts who track global procurement believe that over the coming decade this could unlock more than one trillion United States dollars in new contracts, much of which would flow to American weapons suppliers such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics.
Trump has also supported high-profile kinetic operations and targeted killings that further undermine his peace narrative. While his supporters praise these actions as decisive strength, the financial markets interpret them as evidence of policy that favours rapid militarisation, conflict escalation and expanded weapons procurement.
The last comparable boom for war profits occurred under President George W. Bush after the attacks of September 11, 2001, which preceded the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. That era also saw deep corporate ties between the White House and defence contractors. Vice President Dick Cheney had served as chief executive of Halliburton, a firm that benefited from extensive Iraq war contracts. Yet even that period now appears modest compared with the current surge.
The Billionaire Windfall Behind the War Trade
The current rally is fuelled by two forces. The first is structural. As global security alliances fray, governments in Europe, Asia and the Middle East are raising military budgets at a pace not seen since the Cold War. Japan has committed to doubling defence spending by 2027. South Korea and Taiwan continue to accelerate procurement. Australia has announced its largest military expansion in decades, including participation in AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine programs that are projected to cost at least 368 billion Australian dollars over three decades. Each announcement sends defence stocks higher and attracts more private money from hedge funds and family offices run by the very wealthy.
Earnings forecasts reflect this momentum. Major Wall Street banks project that average earnings per share for leading defence contractors will grow strongly for several years. Share prices already reflect expectations of ballooning profits. Private equity firms have also accelerated acquisitions of smaller weapons manufacturers and emerging military technology firms to profit from rapid consolidation and future sales to governments.
The second force is cultural. War and military dominance have become fashionable among a segment of retail investors who treat the defence sector as a badge of patriotic strength. In the United States this cultural shift has been reinforced by political leaders who glorify martial values while belittling diplomacy. Public discourse is increasingly saturated with the language of force, national power and hostility toward multilateralism.
One of the clearest examples of this cultural shift is the extraordinary valuation of Palantir Technologies, a software company that supplies artificial intelligence tools that enhance battlefield targeting and surveillance. Although not classified as a traditional weapons maker, Palantir markets technology that accelerates the military kill chain. It has been rewarded with a market value that has vastly exceeded near-term earnings, reflecting investor appetite for firms that enable increasingly automated warfare.
The Human Cost Buried Under Profits
The expanding wealth of arms investors has direct consequences for people living in conflict zones. United Nations reports confirm that global civilian deaths from armed conflict have risen steeply over the past decade. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute has documented eight consecutive years of rising military expenditure worldwide, reaching a record 2.44 trillion United States dollars in 2023. Conflicts in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, Yemen and Myanmar have demonstrated that spikes in weapons transfers coincide with soaring civilian casualties, extensive displacement, long-term trauma and the destruction of infrastructure essential to human survival.
At the same time, a parallel crisis is emerging. Oxfam estimates that the world’s richest one percent own nearly half of global wealth. Many of the most profitable hedge funds, private equity firms and sovereign wealth funds now hold sizeable stakes in defence companies. These investment vehicles are often structured to obscure ownership, allowing billionaires and political donors to profit quietly from warfare while maintaining a public image of philanthropy or statesmanship.
The beneficiaries are concentrated. The victims are not. Weapons sold for shareholder returns are used in conflicts that devastate hospitals, schools and civilian homes. Cluster munitions and explosive weapons in urban areas have caused tens of thousands of avoidable deaths. The International Committee of the Red Cross continues to warn that the global arms race is worsening humanitarian crises and eroding international humanitarian law.
A Market That Celebrates War
The surge in defence stocks has strengthened the broader United States share market. Analysts estimate that war-linked equities, including aerospace, defence and defence-aligned technology, have contributed a material share of index gains. For investors, this is considered savvy portfolio positioning. For communities caught in bombardment, it is the financialisation of human suffering.
The core ethical dilemma has not changed. Every spike in the share price of a weapons manufacturer represents rising expectations of conflict, destruction or government fear. It rewards leaders for aggression and punishes advocates of diplomacy. The fact that this boom is unfolding under a political figure claiming the mantle of peace makes the contradiction more stark.
The Moral Reckoning Yet to Come
A stock market rally built on instruments of death cannot be divorced from the consequences. The business model of modern defence investment depends on perpetual insecurity. Peace reduces returns. War and the threat of war enrich investors.
The current era demonstrates how easily national security narratives can be manipulated to justify enormous transfers of public wealth to private shareholders in the arms industry. Unless there is a global shift toward transparency, accountability and strict ethical limitations on war-linked investments, the world will continue to drift toward a future in which shareholder profit is placed above civilian life.
The beneficiaries count their gains from private jets and luxury retreats. The victims are nameless families burying their children in rubble. The distance between those two realities is the true measure of this boom.
A Public Stage for War Profiteers, Sponsored by Government
The boom in private wealth linked to war is not confined to Washington. In Australia, the same pattern is unfolding in plain sight. The New South Wales government has stepped into the role of chief patron for a major arms fair, positioning itself as a partner to the global weapons industry despite international legal findings of genocide and widespread public outrage.
The Indo Pacific International Maritime Exposition took place in Sydney in early November 2025, hosted at the International Convention Centre on Gadigal land. The State of New South Wales and its trade agency, Investment NSW, were the event’s principal sponsors. The government framed this financial backing as a strategy to promote defence industry growth and support local firms in securing lucrative deals. In reality, the sponsorship signalled a clear willingness to legitimise the business of warfare during a period of mass civilian suffering.
Promotional material for the expo featured Defence Minister Richard Marles welcoming industry participants, while NSW Premier Chris Minns extended civic hospitality to visiting arms executives. His message praised the state’s leadership role in Australia’s defence industrial sector. To the activists, lawyers, human rights observers and civil society groups who have documented the scale of Palestinian civilian casualties, the spectacle resembled a public relations parade for those who profit from destruction.
When Genocide Becomes a Sales Pitch
The timing of the expo exposed the deep moral rupture between government rhetoric and humanitarian principles. A fragile ceasefire in Gaza had not halted periodic air strikes, nor the systematic attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank. Despite this, Israeli defence firms used the Sydney event to showcase weaponry that had been deployed in Gaza. Both Elbit Systems and Rafael Advanced Defence Systems secured exhibitor slots before the official closing date. Their marketing routinely highlights products as combat tested, a phrase that in this context is tied directly to operations that have devastated civilian neighbourhoods and killed large numbers of children.
Leading legal and human rights experts have raised alarms about this normalisation of genocide as a sales tool. Chris Sidoti, an Australian member of the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, has publicly named Elbit Systems as a key supplier of weaponry used by Israeli forces in actions that the UN has found constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Sidoti stated that no Australian government entity should engage with such a company. The NSW Labor government proceeded regardless.
The normalisation of the arms trade as a standard pillar of the economy is at the core of public anger. Protest organisers argue that the government’s sponsorship functionally launders the reputations of companies accused of supplying tools of ethnic cleansing. It also channels taxpayer money into networking events that increase the capacity of war manufacturers to secure new markets.
Public Rejection of the Industry of Death
Opposition to the expo was swift and broad. Activists, trade unionists, faith groups, First Nations leaders, peace organisations and anti genocide campaigners mobilised for a blockade. The Palestine Action Group coordinated a protest to confront exhibitors and disrupt the event. Their position was unambiguous: war profiteers should not be granted social licence to gather on stolen Indigenous land to promote weapons used in atrocities.
Hannah Thomas, a former Greens candidate and lawyer who has long campaigned for accountability over arms transfers, described the expo as a grotesque festival of war criminals. She highlighted that companies including Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, Thales, Elbit and Rafael have all benefited from the mass destruction of Gaza. Her message was blunt. The expo represented the transformation of suffering into business opportunity while civilians are buried under rubble.
The NSW Greens and several independent MPs condemned the event. City of Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore urged the Premier to withdraw support and side with peace rather than militarisation. Yet the NSW Government maintained its stance, characterising the expo as an opportunity for economic diversification and sovereign industrial capability.
Police response to peaceful protesters revealed the widening gap between public sentiment and state priorities. Hundreds of demonstrators were corralled behind barricades, pepper sprayed and forcibly pushed back when they attempted to block access for exhibitors. Thirteen people were arrested, with police citing safety and security for attendees. The message was unmistakable. The apparatus of government would defend the comfort of arms dealers over the rights of citizens to oppose genocide.
A Growing Market That Depends on Silence
The commercial scale of these events is significant. Defence expos in Australia have grown to attract hundreds of firms from around the world and thousands of military procurement officials seeking new technologies. The 2024 Land Forces exposition in Melbourne saw more than 110 arrests during mass protests. Yet the industry continues to expand with state backing and minimal regulatory constraint. The Australian Defence Department regularly participates as a key stakeholder, a decision that Sidoti has criticised as government complicity in enabling suspected genocide.
The moral contradictions are stark. Australia is a signatory to the Genocide Convention and the Geneva Conventions, which impose legal duties to prevent genocide and avoid complicity. Yet the state sponsors events that provide commercial platforms to corporations implicated in supplying weapons used in unlawful attacks on civilians. Officials justify participation as advancing economic and strategic interests. To communities that have witnessed the erasure of entire Palestinian neighbourhoods, such arguments ring hollow.
The Price Paid by the Powerless
The pattern is clear. Whether in Washington or Sydney, governments and billionaires aligned with the arms trade present warfare as economic opportunity. They speak in neutral terms of defence capability, jobs and innovation while marginalising the reality that every contract signed produces the tools that have levelled hospitals, schools and family homes and extinguished countless civilian lives.
This alignment of state and private capital in support of the war economy has a corrosive effect on democracy itself. When governments become partners to merchants of death, they normalise the idea that economic strength is measured in missile sales and battlefield lethality rather than human security or the preservation of life.
Public resistance is the only visible counterforce. Activists vow to stand at the gates of every expo to deny social licence to an industry built on blood. They argue that silence is complicity and that every act of obstruction is a barrier against the next war deal. Their defiance asserts that the community will not allow the suffering of civilians to be converted into stock value for the wealthy.
The stakes are not theoretical. While dignitaries toast defence contracts under bright convention centre lights, parents in Gaza spend their nights digging children from collapsed buildings with bare hands. The wealth generated from these events flows upward to investors who will never witness the carnage their profits helped to create. The cost is paid by families with no power, no protection and no voice in the boardrooms where their fate is traded.
The global war economy thrives on distance. It depends on the notion that those who profit will never be forced to look into the eyes of the grieving. The protests at Darling Harbour aimed to collapse that distance. Their message was that every missile launched and every drone strike enabled through these deals creates victims whose lives have value. The war industry would prefer that truth to remain unseen.
If the world continues to reward the financiers and politicians who treat war as business, the cycle of enrichment for the few and devastation for the many will persist. The struggle to resist is therefore not symbolic. It is a direct challenge to a system that measures success in shareholder gains rather than human survival.
The blockade at Sydney was a line drawn. Whether governments heed it will reveal whether there is any moral boundary left that money cannot cross.
Comments
Post a Comment