Last look: Can the world afford a new global arms race?

Can the World Afford a New Global Arms Race? Examining Economic, Ethical, and Security Implications

A renewed global arms race would demand trillions of dollars in defense spending, diverting resources from healthcare, education, and infrastructure while raising profound ethical and strategic risks. This analysis defines what constitutes a modern arms race, explores its economic burden and affordability challenges, examines emerging threats like autonomous weapons, reviews the status of arms-control treaties, unpacks the security dilemma driving escalation, and proposes sustainable security alternatives. We conclude by assessing societal costs and outlining how international cooperation and human-centered investments can replace perpetual military competition.

What Is a Global Arms Race and Why Does It Matter Today?

A global arms race is a competitive cycle in which states rapidly expand military capabilities to match or surpass rivals, affecting international stability and resource allocation. Understanding this concept and its historical precedents sets the stage for evaluating current affordability and risk.

How Is an Arms Race Defined in International Security?

An arms race is defined as an accelerated acquisition of military assets—including weapons, technology, and personnel—to maintain or achieve strategic advantage. This dynamic amplifies threat perceptions and often leads to spiraling security expenditures that outpace economic growth.

What Historical Examples Illustrate the Impact of Arms Races?

Classic cases include the Cold War nuclear buildup and the early 20th-century naval competition. During the Cold War, U.S. and Soviet nuclear arsenals grew exponentially, imposing a perpetual economic burden that contributed to systemic strain on the Soviet economy.

How Does the Security Dilemma Drive Arms Race Dynamics?

The security dilemma arises when one state’s defensive measures are seen as offensive by others, prompting reciprocal armament. This feedback loop of mistrust underlies most historical and contemporary military buildups, from Europe’s pre-World War I naval arms race to today’s multipolar tensions.

What Are the Economic Costs and Affordability Challenges of a New Arms Race?

Escalating defense spending strains national budgets and imposes long-term economic risks by crowding out social investment and increasing debt burdens. Affordability hinges on both absolute spending levels and opportunity costs.

How Has Global Military Spending Evolved in Recent Years?

Global military expenditure reached a record QuantitativeValue of 2718 (USD billion) in 2024, a 9.4 percent increase over 2023 and marking the tenth consecutive year of growth. Rising geopolitical tensions across all regions fuel this trend.

This table illustrates the concentration of defense budgets among leading powers and highlights the sustained upward trajectory of global spending.

What Are the Opportunity Costs of Increased Defense Spending?

Redirecting funds into defense diverts capital from healthcare, education, and infrastructure. For example, every 1 percent of GDP allocated to military expenditure reduces potential social investment, undermining long-term human development and economic growth.

Which Countries Lead in Military Expenditure and Why?

The United States, China, Russia, India, and Germany top spending ranks due to strategic priorities, perceived threats, and defense industrial bases. Geopolitical competition and regional security challenges drive each country’s allocation decisions.

How Have Past Arms Races Affected National Economies?

The Soviet Union’s collapse illustrates how unsustainable arms buildup can exhaust state coffers, distort resource allocation, and precipitate economic crisis. Similarly, interwar naval competitions burdened European powers and shifted focus away from post-war reconstruction.

What Are the Long-Term Economic Risks of Sustained Arms Buildup?

Persistent military expansion increases sovereign debt, reduces fiscal flexibility, and heightens vulnerability to economic shocks. In extreme cases, overcommitment to defense compromises social stability and growth prospects.

How Does Artificial Intelligence Influence the Ethics and Risks of Modern Warfare?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) transforms warfare by enabling lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) that operate with reduced human oversight, raising urgent moral and accountability concerns.

What Are Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems and Their Ethical Concerns?

Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems are armed platforms capable of selecting and engaging targets without direct human control. They pose accountability gaps, risk of malfunction, and dehumanization of lethal decisions.

• Autonomous systems can misidentify targets, leading to unintended civilian harm.
• Decision-making without human judgment undermines moral agency in conflict.
• Automation bias may erode commanders’ oversight and responsibility.

These ethical concerns demand robust governance frameworks before deployment.

How Do Accountability Gaps Arise in AI-Driven Military Systems?

When control shifts from human operators to algorithms, responsibility becomes diffuse among developers, commanders, and machine designers. This diffusion hinders clear legal recourse and undermines the rule of law in armed conflict.

What International Regulations Exist or Are Proposed for AI in Warfare?

Existing treaties like the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons offer limited AI oversight. Proposed measures include bans on fully autonomous lethal systems, mandatory human-in-the-loop requirements, and transparency obligations for algorithmic training data.

How Does AI Impact Human Control and Moral Agency in Conflict?

By delegating life-and-death decisions to machines, AI diminishes direct human involvement and raises questions about the validity of moral judgments. Preserving human control is essential to uphold established norms of distinction and proportionality in warfare.

What Is the Current State and Future of Arms Control and Nuclear Non-Proliferation?

Arms control treaties aim to limit weapon stockpiles and reduce proliferation risks. The impending expiration of New START marks a critical juncture for strategic stability.

How Will the Expiration of the New START Treaty Affect Global Security?

New START’s lapse in 2026 removes the last binding limits on U.S.–Russia nuclear warhead deployments and verification measures, increasing uncertainty and potential arms competition between major nuclear powers.

What Are the Challenges of Multilateral vs. Bilateral Arms Control?

Bilateral treaties are easier to negotiate but exclude emerging powers, while multilateral frameworks require consensus among many actors, often slowing progress. Multipolar threats and technology diffusion complicate both approaches.

Which Regions Face the Highest Nuclear Proliferation Risks Today?

The Middle East and parts of Asia—particularly involving Iran, North Korea, and non-NPT states—exhibit elevated proliferation risk due to regional rivalries, weak enforcement mechanisms, and covert programs.

How Do Emerging Technologies Complicate Arms Control Efforts?

Hypersonic missiles, cyber warfare tools, and AI systems can evade existing verification protocols, necessitating new monitoring regimes and adaptable treaty models to address non-traditional threats.

How Does the Security Dilemma Create Cycles of Mistrust and Escalation?

The security dilemma fuels reciprocal armament as defensive measures are perceived offensively, perpetuating mistrust and regional arms buildup.

What Is the Security Dilemma and How Does It Trigger Arms Races?

The security dilemma occurs when one state’s increase in defense capability prompts neighboring states to respond in kind, fearing strategic disadvantage. This dynamic drives arms races even among non-hostile parties.

How Has Europe’s Military Spending Responded to the Russia-Ukraine Conflict?

Following Russia’s aggression, many European NATO members increased defense budgets by up to 20 percent, aiming to deter further incursions. However, these defensive investments risk reinforcing Moscow’s threat perception.

What Role Does Deterrence Play in Preventing or Provoking Conflict?

Deterrence theory posits that credible military capabilities can prevent aggression, yet excessive buildup may signal offensive intent, provoking pre-emptive strategies and eroding stability.

How Can Trust and Transparency Reduce Security Dilemma Risks?

Confidence-building measures—such as joint exercises, data exchanges, and open-skies agreements—foster mutual understanding and reduce misinterpretation of defensive deployments.

What Are Sustainable Security Alternatives to a New Global Arms Race?

Sustainable security shifts focus from military strength to human development, addressing root causes of conflict and investing in resilience.

How Is Sustainable Security Defined Beyond Military Strength?

Sustainable security emphasizes social cohesion, economic opportunity, environmental resilience, and dispute prevention rather than armaments. It treats human wellbeing as the core measure of stability.

What Root Causes of Conflict Must Be Addressed for Lasting Peace?

Climate change, poverty, resource scarcity, and inequality underpin many modern conflicts. Tackling these drivers through development aid, climate action, and inclusive governance reduces incentives for militarized competition.

How Can Diplomacy and International Cooperation Promote Stability?

Multilateral forums, regional peace initiatives, and cross-border development projects build trust and shared interests, diminishing reliance on hard power and arms accumulation.

What Investments Support Human Security and Reduce Arms Race Pressures?

Funding health systems, education, infrastructure, and renewable energy creates economic opportunities and social resilience, mitigating the allure of militarized responses and offering sustainable alternatives to defense spending.

What Are the Human and Societal Costs of Prioritizing Military Spending?

When defense budgets dominate public expenditure, social sectors suffer, exacerbating poverty, inequality, and long-term vulnerabilities.

How Does Defense Spending Affect Public Health and Education?

Every additional USD billion spent on arms corresponds to reduced funding for hospitals, schools, and social services, leading to poorer health outcomes, lower literacy rates, and diminished human capital.

What Are the Broader Societal Impacts of a Global Arms Race?

High military burdens correlate with increased poverty, social unrest, and political instability. Communities deprived of basic services often experience higher crime rates and weakened civic trust.

How Can Societies Balance Security Needs with Social Wellbeing?

Adopting risk-calibrated defense postures, prioritizing multilateral security agreements, and committing fixed GDP shares to social programs help maintain readiness while safeguarding human development.

In sum, a return to a global arms race is economically unsustainable, ethically troubling, and strategically risky. Redirecting resources toward human-centered security, reinforced arms-control measures, and cooperative frameworks offers a viable path to lasting peace and shared prosperity.