The military-industrial complex (MIC), located in different parts of the world, functions as a sophisticated business strategic network where corporate profit and national security strategy are closely interlinked, a reality documented by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) from time to time. In the United States, the ‘Big Five’ – Lockheed Martin, RTX (Raytheon), Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics – control almost half of the global market, acting as the primary architects of modern aerial and missile warfare. These firms drive a ‘battle lab’ economy where active conflicts, such as in Ukraine and West Asia, serve as real-world testing grounds for high-tech systems like the HIMARS and Patriot missiles. SIPRI’s recent data confirms that while these American giants face supply chain bottlenecks, their order backlogs have reached historic levels, reinforcing a cycle of economic dependency where military spending remains a non-negotiable pillar of the domestic economy, often at the expense of social sector budgeting.Beyond the US, the record turns toward rapid regional rearmament and strategic patronage. Europe is now acknowledged as the fastest-growing arms hub, with companies like Germany’s Rheinmetall and France’s Dassault shifting to a ‘war economy’ trying to replenish continental stockpiles, while the Czechoslovak Group has registered unprecedented revenue growth by supplying heavy artillery. Meanwhile, Russia’s state-owned conglomerates, such as Rostec, have turned inward to sustain a closed-loop production cycle amidst international isolation.Also read: Why is India Ducking the Iran War Issue?In Asia, China utilises its massive state firms like AVIC and NORINCO as diplomatic levers, dominating the defense imports of countries like Pakistan to secure regional influence. According to SIPRI, this global trade is increasingly defined by a ‘technological arms race,’ where traditional manufacturers are aggressively acquiring AI and cyber-security startups, ensuring that the future of conflict is as much about algorithmic dominance as it is about kinetic force.Amid all reports of war, the latest findings of SIPRI present a world that is continuously moving into a new phase of militarisation. Military expenditure and arms transfers have risen again, even as the global economy struggles with inflation, debt, and uneven recovery. Global revenues from arms sales and military services by the world’s top 100 defence companies increased by 5.9% in 2024, reaching a record $679 billion, according to SIPRI. The increase in arms flows reveals a major turn in global priorities. Security concerns are taking centre stage, often at the cost of social and economic stability. The war in Ukraine has acted as a turning point. European countries have steeply increased their defence spending and imports of weapons. Many states that once relied on diplomacy and economic cooperation are now investing heavily in military preparedness. Ukraine has become one of the largest recipients of arms, supported by a wide network of suppliers. This has turned Europe into the largest arms-importing region. The rise is obviously driven by a fear of Russia and uncertainty about long-term security arrangements.Meanwhile, other regions continue to experience sustained levels of militarisation. Asia remains a major centre of arms imports, impacted by tensions involving China, India, Pakistan and regional disputes. West Asia continues to invest in advanced weapons despite fluctuations in overall import volumes. These trends show that militarisation is no longer limited to one conflict or region. This raises an important question. Is this level of militarisation justified? States often argue that security threats leave them with little choice. However, the scale of spending suggests a major change. Defence budgets are expanding even in countries facing economic pressure. Resources that could support welfare, climate action, or development are being redirected towards arms.Militarisation also creates its own momentum. When one state increases its capabilities, others follow. This cycle leads to a continuous expansion of military capacity without necessarily improving security. It resembles a situation where each actor prepares for the worst, even when cooperation could reduce risks.Suppliers, conflicts and the political economy of armsThe current arms scenario is dictated by a small group of powerful suppliers. The United States dominates global arms exports, accounting for more than 40% of the total. Its reach extends across regions, supplying nearly a hundred countries. This position gives it significant influence over global security dynamics. Arms exports, while being commercial transactions, serve as instruments of foreign policy and strategic alignment. France has emerged as the second-largest supplier, with a growing presence in Europe, West Asia, and other parts of Asia. Germany and Italy have also expanded their roles, particularly in supplying European allies and Gulf countries. In contrast, Russia’s position has apparently weakened over years. Its exports have declined due to sanctions, production constraints, and the demands of the Ukraine war. China continues to expand its domestic defence industry, though its global export reach remains limited compared to Western suppliers.The war in Ukraine has created a certain pattern of supply and demand. The United States, Germany, and other European countries have supplied advanced weapons to Ukraine, including combat aircraft, missiles, and air defence systems. These supplies are often justified as support for sovereignty and stability. But they intensify the conflict by sustaining military engagement over a longer period.In West Asia, the supply pattern indicates long-standing alliances. The United States continues to be the main supplier, followed by European countries. Israel plays a dual role as both an importer and a specialised exporter, particularly in missile defence and surveillance systems. Russia and China have a limited presence in this region, showing how political alignments influence arms flows. The types of weapons being traded also tell a story. There is strong demand for combat aircraft, missile systems, and air defence technologies. These systems have proven their effectiveness in ongoing conflicts. Their use in real battle conditions has increased their appeal to other states.This creates a political economy where conflict generates demand, and demand sustains production. Arms manufacturers benefit from rising orders. States strengthen their alliances through supply agreements. But this system also raises ethical concerns. Suppliers often provide weapons to regions experiencing active conflict, even when such transfers contradict stated commitments to peace.The nuclear question is a significant factor in this system with nuclear-armed states playing a leading role as suppliers. Their conventional arms exports are linked to strategic relationships that include nuclear deterrence. It becomes difficult to separate the trade in conventional weapons from the wider nuclear order. Both operate within the same structure of power and influence.Regional drivers and nuclear factorRegional geopolitical conditions provide a clearer picture of why militarisation gains ground. In Europe, the war in Ukraine has changed security thinking profoundly. States see the conflict as a reminder of traditional warfare returning to the continent. This perception has pushed a rapid increase in defence spending and arms procurement. NATO members have expanded their capabilities, often relying heavily on US systems.In West Asia, the factors are more complex. Gulf countries face a range of concerns, from missile threats to broader regional instability. Their response has been to invest in advanced defence systems, especially air defence and surveillance. These investments are aimed at protecting infrastructure, cities, and economic assets, as justified by Iranian attacks on Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. Iran, however, follows a different path. It imports very few major weapons and, instead, focuses on domestic production. Missiles and drones form the core of its strategy. This approach allows Iran to maintain a degree of independence while projecting power through regional networks. It also revealed the impact of sanctions and restrictions on arms imports. Also read: Trump Claims Saudi Crown Prince ‘Kissing My Ass’ as He Praises Arab Allies Over NATOIsrael combines strong domestic capability with external support. Its defence industry is highly advanced, particularly in missile defence and intelligence systems. But it relies heavily on imports from the United States for key platforms such as combat aircraft. This combination allows Israel to maintain a technological edge.Iran today relies on deterrence through asymmetric capabilities, while Israel focuses on precision and rapid response. Gulf states invest in defence systems to shield themselves from potential attacks. Ukraine, meanwhile, depends on external support to sustain its defence.The nuclear issue runs through all these driving factors. Israel is reported to possess nuclear weapons, as SIPRI report shows. Iran remains within the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) framework, even as its nuclear programme raises concerns. This creates a situation where nuclear capability is unevenly distributed, but central to geopolitical calculations. The NPT’s implementation reveals its own contradictions. Nuclear-armed states such as the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China, etc. retain and modernise their arsenals, while countries outside the treaty, including Israel, India, and Pakistan, continue to possess nuclear weapons without facing uniform consequences.This obviously creates a situation where rules appear uneven. Selective states that comply with the NPT are often subject to strict scrutiny. States outside the framework operate with greater flexibility. Iran’s case reveals this clearly. It remains part of the NPT and insists on its right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. But it faces pressure and sanctions over its nuclear programme, and the ongoing war launched by US and Israel is justified along these lines bereft of any moral claims. This stands in contrast to the treatment of other nuclear-armed states. The fact is that nuclear threats are often used to justify wars, military build-up, high defence spending and strategic alliances. The war on Iran is the clearest example. K.M. Seethi is director, Inter University Centre for Social Science Research and Extension and academic advisor to the International Centre for Polar Studies at the Mahatma Gandhi University (MGU) in Kerala. He also served as ICSSR senior fellow, senior professor of international relations and dean of social sciences at MGU.