Dark Truth About Weapons Industry

WAR IS A PEACE

The Israel-Palestine war began over a month ago, and over 10,000 lives have been lost already. Surprisingly, amidst this tragedy,  certain entities are benefiting significantly— American weapons manufacturers.

Since the war began, the stocks of these companies have surged by $30 billion. The two major defense contractors in America Raytheon and General Dynamics have unabashedly informed investors that the war in Israel would be financially advantageous.

Other arms manufacturers like  Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman have experienced substantial stock gains over the past three years. Lockheed Martin produces  F-35 Lightning II fighter jets used by Israel, as well as Black Hawk helicopters, Northrop Grumman produces submarines and combat vehicles.

Israel signed a $3 billion deal in July to buy these F-35 fighter jets. One might wonder about the source of Israel's substantial military budget. An obvious answer would be that it is an Israeli taxpayer's fund. But look at this news article.

In September 2016, during President Obama's tenure, the U.S. and Israel signed a $38 billion deal, as per this deal, the US provides military equipment worth $3.8 billion to Israel annually.

Consequently, a staggering 92% of Israel's imported weapons now originate from one country. The United States of America. But why does this matter?

A country buying weapons from an ally country would not seem suspicious. However, the peculiarity of this situation is that the weapons industry doesn't care about any alliances. The weapons industry has only one objective earning maximum profit. This year, in January, the U.S. State Department announced a record-breaking $205 billion in weapon sales to various countries worldwide in the latest fiscal year. Weapons worth more than $200 Billion were sold in a year by only one country. Marking a 49% increase from the previous year.

These weapons went to 58 different countries, including not only Israel but also several Arab nations such as Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Iraq. Does selling these weapons make the world a safer place? Or unsafe?

The issue extends beyond the United States; last year, Israel also set a record in weapon sales, surpassing $12 billion. This substantial figure includes sales of drones, missiles, rockets, and air defense systems. Notably, $3 billion or the %12 billion that is, 24% of this total export was to Arab countries. Israel ranks as the 10th largest arms exporter globally, with the top four positions occupied by the United States, Russia, France, and China.

The United Kingdom holds the 7th position. What distinguishes these five countries is their status as permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. A striking fact is that combining their weapon sales constitutes over 75% of global arms exports. After this fact comes to light, how can one expect that the United Nations would adopt a resolution to curtail arms exports globally?

In May of this year, Oxfam International's Head of New York office highlighted that four out of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council are the world's leading arms sellers. These weapons fuel conflicts worldwide. This is truly hypocritical, complicit, and immoral. Apart from them, Germany, Italy, and South Korea also feature among the top 10 arms exporters.

The weapons industry isn't bothered by what's right and what's wrong, who is an ally and who is not. This is evident in several examples. While many consider Russia a close friend to India, it is also one of the top three arms exporters to Pakistan. Between 2017 and 2021 China was the number one weapons supplier to Pakistan, followed by Sweden and Russia.

Look at this report from 2021. Russia pledged to provide more weapons to Pakistan, despite India's discomfort. Turning to weapon imports, the top countries importing weapons are on this list of Top 10 Largest Arms Importers. India is at number one, followed by countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

However, what's interesting here is that in positions 5th, 7th, and 10th reveal an intriguing dynamic with  China, South Korea, and America. This suggests a complex game of buying and selling weapons on the global stage, Seemingly unaffected by a country's foreign policy. In the realm of geopolitics, the U.S. aligns with Israel, while Russia and China form a separate bloc, even in the current crisis, these two sides are evident. Russian President Putin's opinion on the Israel-Palestine war is that it should be seen as a failure of the U.S. policy, Asserting that the US neglects the well-being of Palestinians. China, too, condemns Israel's actions in Gaza, characterizing them as "beyond self-defense".

This might create the impression of a divide,  with the U.S., Europe, and Israel on one side, and China and Russia on the other. However, when it comes to weapon exports, these seemingly opposing nations find themselves on the same side.

These countries collectively export the most weapons globally. By now you might be thinking that these countries are truly terrible. That we should be protesting the countries exporting weapons worldwide. But if you are thinking so, you are missing the point. A nation is formed by its citizens. Americans aren't bad. Neither are Russians, Israelis, or Chinese citizens. The citizens aren't actually consulted. The major players in this deadly weapons mafia are not everyday Americans,  Russians, Israelis, or Chinese citizens.

Ordinary people in these nations don't reap the benefits of arms sales; instead, private weapons manufacturers are the ones raking in profits. That's right. Almost all of the weapons sold globally by these countries aren't sold by the governments, rather they're sold by private capitalists.

Look at this list.

The top 100 weapons companies. Out of the top 100 companies, only a handful are government-owned, such as Israel Aerospace Industries or Aviation Industry Corporation of China. Disregarding these exceptions, the majority are private entities. Lockheed Martin, an American company, holds the top spot, followed by Northrop Grumman in third place. In fact, 51 of the companies on the list are American. What does this mean?

The massive profits generated from the sale of weapons flow into the coffers of these private companies. Ironically, the money used to purchase these weapons often comes from taxpayers, as governments fund these acquisitions. Many nations procure weapons either from private companies in their country or, when dealing with other countries, they engage with private entities of that country. Hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money, are funnelled into these companies. These funds are then utilized to purchase weapons, which inevitably end up being used in conflicts that affect ordinary people. A report by the Stockholm International  Peace Research Institute in April this year revealed that India's military spending stands at $81.4 billion, ranking it fourth globally in 2022. At the forefront of military expenditures is America with $877 billion, followed by China at $292 billion, and Russia at $86.4 billion. The top 10 list also features the UK and France, all five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council are on this list too. Why don't these 5 nations collectively decide to cease the wasteful spending on weapons? A united commitment to refrain from attacking one another could be a transformative step to  halt the financial drain on military budgets. However, the irony lies in the fact that the primary casualties of the weapons industry are often the American citizens.

The frequency of mass shootings in America is alarmingly higher than any other country.

This year alone, till mid-September,  over 500 mass shootings occurred, with a tragic impact on children, making "School Shootings" a  distressingly common phrase in America.

In 2021-2022, more than 327 school shootings took place in American schools. This is a direct result of the lax regulation surrounding gun ownership in America. Unlike in other countries where disputes are settled with fists and kicks.

But in America, people do not hesitate to fire guns. Only because of the fact that the American laws favour gun ownership. If the sale of weapons were prohibited, no one would be allowed to sell weapons, then these gun shootings would stop eventually. But how would the weapon manufacturers benefit then? This is why dozens of children lose their lives in America every year, politicians are often seen shedding tears, but the gun trade isn't affected. Disturbingly, between 2005 and 2020, gun sales in America tripled. In the previous year alone, Americans purchased a staggering 16.6 million guns. The government can easily change this if it wanted to.

Governments do not need to bow down to the weapons industry. Take Australia for example, once known for lax gun regulations, but in April 1996, when a 28-year-old man  killed 35 people with a semi-automatic rifle, "Gunman kills 25 people in Australia's worst massacre."

"The situation remains tense at the Port Arthur side." Following this mass shooting, Australian Prime Minister John Howard took decisive action to address the issue of firearms. The National Firearms Agreement was implemented a month later.

Between October 1996 and September 1997, the government seized over 650,000 privately owned guns. The gun owners were given monetary compensation to surrender their firearms to the government. People who had guns illegally weren't compensated, but legal amnesty was provided to them, they didn't face prosecution for voluntarily turning in their illegal weapons. As a result, today, in Australia, such mass shootings are rarely seen, if ever. Something similar happened in Serbia earlier this year. Following two shootings in May resulting in 17 deaths, including children, the government declared a one-month amnesty period for citizens to surrender their unregistered weapons.

"Recent mass shootings which left 17 people dead and 21 wounded, have sparked public outrage. Authorities have also declared a one-month amnesty period for citizens to hand over unregistered weapons, or face prison sentences."

Over 13,500 weapons were voluntarily surrendered within a week.

Later, this date was extended, and within 2 months, more than 100,000 illegal weapons were handed over to the government. It shows that with political will, governments can effectively control weapons and mitigate violence.

In certain regions, the influence of the weapons mafia has expanded beyond arms sales. Private companies are not only profiting from selling weapons but have ventured into providing private armies, commonly known as Mercenaries. During the Russia-Ukraine war, the Wagner group gained attention for attempting to overthrow Putin from the government. Considered by Putin as an anti-national force, the group was subsequently disbanded.

But do you know how this group formed? The Wagner group originated in Russia, Putin had said that this group received funding from the state budget, a fact that was initially denied for years. Putin eventually admitted to allocating  $1 billion to the group in a year. Dmitry Kiselyov, the head of the state-controlled Russian media group, stated that the Wagner group was provided a total of $9.8 billion by the Russian government. Remarkably, taxpayer money was used to finance private armies. The logical question arises:

Why didn't Russia use its army?

Why opt to hire private mercenary groups?

The primary motivation behind this decision is cost-effectiveness. In a wartime scenario, providing funds to a private company allows the company's private army to fight the war on behalf of the country. Deploying the national army is very bothersome. In the form of various financial obligations,  such as pension payments, army officers' salaries, health insurance, and compensations for families of martyrs. Choosing to hire contract fighters is better because once the country makes a payment to the company, the company bears all other responsibilities. Even if a mercenary of the private army dies fighting, they aren't included in the official casualty counts. While headlines may report the number of  Russian or Ukrainian soldiers killed, a third category exists, private army soldiers fighting who were neither Russian nor Ukrainian, but were fighting on behalf of Russia. Their d3aths may not garner significant attention or discussion. You might be wondering who would want to fight as a part of a private company's armies. Mercenaries often hail from economically disadvantaged countries, driven by financial constraints and limited job opportunities, they often join the army of these private companies. These private armies are not only contracted by governments but also by private companies and warlords. The Wagner Group, for instance,  engaged in conflicts beyond Ukraine, including countries like Syria, Sudan Mozambique, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Libya.

In these impoverished nations, they are frequently employed in mining contracts. The private mining companies that make money by selling the resources of these poor nations, hire these private armies so that they can quell local protests, Companies by Yevgeny Prigozhin mined for gold, uranium, and diamonds, particularly in countries such as Sudan, and Mali, Libya,  and the Central African Republic. These private armies killed hundreds of innocent civilians, looting houses, harassing activists,  and even killing journalists. The Wagner Group is not the only private military company. Russia has also employed other private military companies. Like POTOK, Don Brigade, Moran Security Group, and Slavonic Corps, ENOT Corp, to name a few. Russia isn't the only one to do so. For instance, Yair Klein, a former Lieutenant Colonel in the Israeli Army, established Spearhead Limited, a mercenary group that supplied weapons, and trained d3ath squads, in right-wing paramilitary groups in Colombia. Additionally, organized militias for drug traffickers like Pablo Escobar. Despite the Colombian government seeking to arrest him, Klein, just like other wealthy individuals,  managed to evade legal consequences. Israel is renowned for its cyber mercenaries who engage in cybercrimes for money, including hacking, forging blackmail material, disinformation spreading, planting false intelligence, and surveillance. Team George, an Israeli cyber mercenary group, interfered in 33 presidential campaigns, successfully influencing 27. Facebook exposed and banned 7 cyber mercenary companies in December 2021, These companies had targeted almost 50,000 people worldwide. Four of these were Israeli cyber-mercenaries, like Black Cube and Cobwebs. Apart from this, you would have heard of Pegasus, an infamous spyware sold to governments worldwide, which was being sold by an Israeli private company. An Israeli private cyber mercenary group called the NSO Group. Talking about America, between 1994 and 2007, approximately $300 billion was spent on 12 private militias. One of these private military companies is Blackwater, founded by former US Navy officer Eric Prince. Blackwater hires fighters from various countries, including the Philippines, Bosnia, Israel, and Chile, selling its private services for money. In September 2007, Blackwater gained notoriety when its mercenaries killed 17 innocent Iraqi civilians. Although four individuals were initially being prosecuted, they were pardoned in 2020  during Donald Trump's presidency. Blackwater's involvement has contributed to the escalation of numerous wars worldwide. In December 2021, a United Nations report accused Eric Prince of violating the weapons ban in Libya. The ongoing conflict in Libya is now characterized as a private war. Look at this news article stating that  Blackwater was hired by the Obama government to provide security in Afghanistan in 2010, at $220 million, public tax money was handed over to these private armies. Fast forward to 2021 when the Taliban regained control of Afghanistan; reports from the Wall Street Journal revealed that Eric Prince was charging $6,500 per person to facilitate safe evacuations from  Afghanistan on charter flights.

During the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in America, Blackwater secured a $73 million contract to assist the FEMA staff during the Katrina aftermath recovery operation, yet the guards hired by this private company received only $950 per day. These super-rich businessmen dealing in weapons, took millions of dollars for themselves while those hired in the private armies from impoverished countries received meager compensations. Not only this, Eric Prince has also made significant political donations to Republican politicians. This intertwining of financial contributions and business transactions works quite well here. The only difference is that not only are the super-rich businessmen corrupt, but they're dealing in weapons transactions, killing people all over the world. Eric Prince handed donations to politicians and the politicians handed his company, Blackwater, contracts worth $800 million. In Iraq, over 160,000 Blackwater employees served as guards for U.S. officials. An internal report from Blackwater disclosed that, among 195 shooting incidents in the last two years, the company's employees shot the first bullet in 160 instances. It's also quite common for politicians to invest in stocks of these private contractor companies, thereby becoming direct shareholders. This goes beyond a mere bribery situation. Any benefit made by the company would directly benefit the politician. George Bush was the US President during the Iraq invasion, and his father was a Board member of the Carlyle Group. This same group was awarded numerous defense contracts, through companies like Vought and United Defense.

Furthermore, the then U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, used to be the head of the company Halliburton, which received a $7 billion defense contract without any competitive bidding. The same company was awarded contracts to restore the oil sector in Iraq. Now, many people allege that the real reason behind the Iraq war was Iraq's oil. Oil companies like Halliburton,  Exxon Mobil, Chevron, BP, and Shell established themselves in Iraq. As of December 2021, there are at least 15 influential politicians in America actively shaping U.S. defense policy, who have personal investments in these military contractors. They are directing U.S. military policy while profiting from these arms-selling companies by holding their stocks. Can there be a more drastic conflict of interest?

By now, two key points should be clear:

First, in wars like the Israel-Palestine situation, the weapons industry reaps significant benefits.

Second, politicians benefit from it too since they are personally invested in it. especially those who have investments in these weapon-manufacturing companies.

Adding to this, the third point emerges: politicians often derive political benefits from wars. As poet Rahat Indori noted, [Are tensions erupting on the borders? Find out if it's time for elections.] When politicians have to answer for issues like corruption and unemployment, they can use wars to divert public attention. Especially for dictators, war serves as an effective distraction. George Orwell's novel "1984" emphasizes the idea that war should perpetually go on, not necessarily to win, but to continue fighting it to maintain and consolidate power. Think about it for yourself. India refrains from attacking other nations, that's a matter of national pride. In India, the military expenditures are primarily directed towards self-defense, especially against neighboring countries like Pakistan and China, However, when analyzing China's behavior, questions arise: Why does China keep on encroaching on Indian borders? Does a farmer in Shanghai benefit from the Chinese intrusion? Or some school teacher in Beijing?

No.

This muscle-flexing and chest-thumping mainly serves leaders like Xi Jinping, helping them consolidate and sustain power.

In foreign policy, such politicians are labeled "hawkish", while those advocating for peace are termed "doves".

Hawkish politicians often use public tax money to fortify their positions, In reality, during wars, it's the common people who end up fighting each other, not the politicians themselves. An example from 2014 highlights this:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's son had started his mandatory three-year army service. However, this turned out to be fake news, misleading the public into thinking his son was directly involved in the conflict. Critics have rightfully condemned him for sending his son to enjoy life at some American beach while sending ordinary citizens to fight. These issues should prompt the media to raise their voices and provide critical coverage.

Unfortunately, in many countries,  the media is often corrupt and it looks to benefit from wars, eagerly chasing the prospect of increased  TRP by talking about the latest conflict. Especially those TV channels aligned with the government's interests, they find it convenient to neglect the day-to-day issues faced by the common people and focus solely on war-related news. This highlights a stark truth about the world's weapons industry: an industry whose existence would be jeopardized if global wars were to cease. Perhaps this is why it is beneficial to continue wars to ensure the continuous flow of money. If you found this article informative, you may also appreciate it. Share your opinion.

Thank you very much!