According to the latest data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), sales revenues from arms and military services by the world’s top 100 arms producers in 2024 increased by 5.9% over the previous year, reaching 679 billion US dollars. This is the highest revenue ever recorded by SIPRI (*1). Conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, and the rise in military spending by various countries justified by those conflicts, are cited as the main causes of this sharp increase. In 2024, security-related expenditures surged across five regions of the world, reaching a total of 2.7 trillion US dollars. This article looks at how private companies such as arms manufacturers and tech firms profit from war.

A tank driving in Afghanistan (Photo: Defence Imagery / Flickr [CC BY-NC 2.0])

Arms companies’ revenues hit an all-time high

With the exception of state-owned enterprises seen in countries like China and Russia, most arms manufacturers are private companies. Weapons produced by these private firms are purchased by national governments. There are also cases where a country’s domestic arms maker sells weapons to other governments; in such cases, the government may negotiate on behalf of the company, or the company and the foreign government may negotiate directly. Accordingly, arms manufacturers’ revenues depend heavily on national defense budgets.

In 2024, as governments increased orders to procure weapons, 77 of the top 100 companies increased their arms-related sales compared to the previous year. At least 38 companies also worked on expanding their operations in 2024, including establishing subsidiaries, acquiring other firms, and increasing production lines.

The top 100 are dominated primarily by Western companies. The United States accounts for 39 firms, whose 2024 revenues totaled 334 billion US dollars, up 3.8% year-on-year. This is roughly half of the total revenue of the top 100. The top three are occupied by major US firms: Lockheed Martin, RTX (formerly Raytheon Technologies), and Northrop Grumman.

Among the top 100, 26 companies are based in Europe, excluding Russia. Major European firms include the UK’s BAE Systems, Italy’s Leonardo, Airbus (a joint venture of four European countries), and France’s Thales.

Of the 26 European firms, 23 saw revenue growth, driven by increased demand linked to the Russia–Ukraine war. Czechoslovak Group, which depends heavily on Ukraine for its sales, recorded the highest growth rate in arms sales among the top 100 in 2024, up 193% to 3.6 billion US dollars. Ukraine’s private company Ukrainian Defense Industry (JSC) also increased its arms sales by 41% to 3.0 billion US dollars. In Russia, state-owned enterprises such as Rostec and United Shipbuilding Corporation made the list, and both boosted their sales.

In Asia, five Japanese companies and four South Korean companies recorded increased revenues. In Japan, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries ranked first by revenue, while in South Korea, Hanwha Group took the top spot. By contrast, the main eight Chinese companies saw a drop in sales. This is because key procurement contracts for 2024 were cancelled or postponed amid corruption allegations in China’s arms procurement. Major Chinese firms include state-owned enterprises such as Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC), China Electronics Technology Group Corporation (CETC), and China North Industries Group Corporation (NORINCO). India’s Hindustan Aeronautics and one other firm, as well as Singapore’s ST Engineering, are also ranked.

Of the top 100, 9 companies are based in the Middle East. Three Israeli companies—Elbit Systems, Israel Aerospace Industries, and Rafael—significantly increased their sales. In addition, five Turkish firms including Aselsan, as well as the United Arab Emirates (UAE)’s EDGE Group, made the list.

Lockheed Martin offices (Photo: Lumen Wilde / Wikimedia Commons [CC BY 2.0])

Among the top 100 companies, some are seeing not only revenue but also profits increase. The arms industry has long been a sector with high profit margins, and that tendency is intensifying. For example, profit margins for France’s Thales and Germany’s Rheinmetall are projected to rise even further by 2026. In Japan, the Ministry of Defense raised the assumed operating profit margin applied to orders placed with arms manufacturers in 2023 from the previous 8% to a maximum of 15%.

SIPRI has also identified the main suppliers of major weapons between 2020 and 2024. The top five countries—the United States, France, Russia, China, and Germany—supply 71% of the world’s major weapons. The top five recipient countries of these weapons are Ukraine, India, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and together they account for 35% of global arms imports.

Main products of the top 100 companies

What kinds of products do these top 100 military companies actually manufacture? As an example, let’s look at the products of the number one company, Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin is a US manufacturing company involved in the development of aircraft and spacecraft, producing a wide range of products. In the air domain, these include fighter jets, air force transport aircraft, helicopters, missiles, radars, and military communications networks. On land, it produces tanks and ground-based radars. At sea, it makes Aegis-equipped vessels, and in the cyber domain, communications jamming systems, among other products. In this way, a vast array of weapons and war-related services are being developed and produced daily. In the space sector, the company also manufactures non-military products such as rockets and Mars interior exploration probes.

In addition, the top 100 ranking includes the names of companies often thought of as non-military. Examples include European aerospace company Airbus, US firms Boeing and SpaceX, and Japanese telecommunications-related company NEC. Through what kinds of products are these firms involved in the military? Airbus manufactures military aircraft, provides military services such as flight and live-fire training, and conducts geographic information analysis using satellite communications. Boeing manufactures fighter jets, bombers, missiles, tankers, and transport aircraft. SpaceX provides satellite networks and other services to government agencies. NEC has entered the security field with communications systems and submarine sonars.

An unmanned aerial vehicle on display at the Paris Air Show (Photo: Tio Skill / Wikimedia Commons [CC BY-SA 4.0])

Although the top 100 tend to be companies that manufacture large-scale weapons, there are also arms makers that produce small arms such as machine guns, pistols, and hand grenades.

Tech companies and war

The industries profiting from war are not limited to companies that sell physical weapons. The tech sector, which handles IT technologies, is also an industry that sees conflict as a business opportunity. In recent years, for example, AI has become increasingly inseparable from the security field. The global market for military AI in 2024 is estimated at 9.31 billion US dollars, and is expected to continue growing.

Military AI is a field in which many countries are rushing to invest. In the United States, the Department of Defense is making large investments and, in cooperation with arms manufacturers and tech companies, leading this sector. In recent years, companies such as OpenAI and Palantir have secured defense contracts and have been involved in promoting the use of AI in security fields for US government officials. The Pentagon is also working on initiatives to attract startup tech companies and others into the security domain. In Asia, the military AI market is expanding as defense budgets increase in countries such as China, India, Japan, and South Korea. In Europe, the UK, Germany, and France are notable players in the military AI market.

Globally, companies such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, RTX, and IBM are driving the development of military AI. US firms including Google, Amazon, Microsoft, OpenAI, Palantir, and Oracle are known not only for providing services to the US military, but also for supplying services to the Israeli military in its attacks on Gaza. Many startups are also entering this field.

In the realm of weapons and war-related services, the areas tech firms are entering include autonomous systems, real-time analytics, and cybersecurity. Autonomous military systems use AI to carry out missions without human operators, with the aim of avoiding human risk and improving operational efficiency. Examples include AI-equipped drones and unmanned vehicles.

US Defense Secretary Ash Carter meets with Amazon founder Jeff Bezos in May 2016 (Photo: DoD photo by Senior Master Sgt. Adrian Cadiz (Released) / Wikimedia Commons [CC BY 2.0])

Real-time analytics refers to AI combining information from surveillance systems, reconnaissance drones, and other sources to carry out analysis that strengthens decision-making. Technologies already developed include AI that acts like a command center, instantly optimizing tasks and delegating operations, and systems that allow users to ask for instructions by voice over a radio. Other uses include monitoring communications of enemy military personnel and civilians, and using the data collected to select targets for airstrikes.

Cybersecurity refers to networks that prevent incidents such as cyberattacks and communications interception, and automatically recover from them. For example, software-defined radios to prevent wireless interception have been developed. AI-based work efficiency tools are another area of activity.

Governments, corporations, and war: the military–industrial complex

The factor that has greatly influenced the increase in arms company revenues in 2024 discussed above is the military–industrial complex. The military–industrial complex is a concept proposed in the United States that refers to the close relationship between the arms industry, government officials, and the Department of Defense. Private companies that provide weapons and war-related services lobby the Pentagon to emphasize the need for arms and a stronger defense posture in order to expand their profits. Since administrations and legislatures decide the Pentagon’s budget and the regulations governing weapons exports and related issues, the arms industry also engages in political donations and lobbying targeting those stakeholders. There are many cases where relationships are further deepened through personnel flows, such as secondments of employees between military companies and the Pentagon, or retired military personnel taking up positions in the arms industry (*2).

There is an increasing sense that the power of the military–industrial complex is now stronger than at any time since the concept was first articulated in 1961. In 2024, conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza led to increases in military spending around the world and, in turn, to higher revenues for arms firms. The close relationships between arms companies and government agencies have also strongly influenced this background.

In Europe, for example, since February 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine, large arms manufacturers appear to have seen this as a business opportunity, and their lobbying activities have intensified. One study found that lobbying budgets rose by about 40% between 2022 and 2023. Many firms—including Airbus, Swedish arms maker Saab, and France’s Thales—sharply increased their lobbying budgets and the number of staff stationed in Brussels, home to the European Union (EU) headquarters. The main aims of this lobbying are to increase funding for programs like the European Defence Fund (EDF), which promotes multilateral joint projects among private military companies, and to relax regulations related to the arms industry.

Arms fair held in Kyiv, the capital of Ukraine, in 2021 (Photo: VoidWanderer / Wikimedia Commons [CC BY-SA 4.0])

The military–industrial complex also affects public perceptions of arms manufacturers. Companies that profit by producing war-related products and services were once often condemned as “merchants of death” or “war profiteers.” Today, however, the tide is shifting due to the way governments and the media treat them. Governments justify increased weapons production and higher military budgets as strengthening defense capabilities in response to a worsening international situation, which in turn results in profits for the arms industry.

There are also cases where military officials move into defense-related companies and then appear in the media to advocate for higher military spending. In Japan, for example, a former military official who served as an advisor to an arms manufacturer appeared as a commentator in the media and made positive comments about increasing military expenditures without disclosing his ties to the arms maker. Terms such as “military budget” or “military spending” themselves are increasingly replaced by “defense budget” or “defense spending” (*3). Arms companies also claim that weapons production serves as a deterrent to war and “promotes the spread of human rights” worldwide. In many corporate profiles, their businesses are described with the word “defense” rather than “military.”

In reality, however, the fact remains that these companies profit from the production of weapons capable of killing. This is evident from the comment by RTX CEO Greg Hayes in 2022 that the 2022 drone attacks on the United Arab Emirates by Yemen’s Ansar Allah (also known as the Houthis), and the rising political tensions in Eastern Europe and the South China Sea, were creating “opportunities for international expansion.” Likewise, in a press release in December 2025, Germany’s Rheinmetall suggested that the situation of the Ukraine conflict in 2025 was “increasing the market potential.” Furthermore, the February 2026 US–Israeli attacks on Iran drove up the stock prices of arms companies around the world across the board.

In February 2026, people protest outside the Aberdeen branch of international financial group Barclays in Scotland over Barclays’ support for Israel (Photo: Lucas Kendall / Wikimedia Commons [CC BY-SA 4.0] )

The arms industry is also a sector where a great deal of corruption has been reported. Bribery and other forms of misconduct are more likely to occur between sellers—arms manufacturers—and buyers—government officials. The 1985 “Al-Yamamah arms deal” is one example. When British and French arms manufacturers were trying to sell fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, it was later revealed that British firm British Aerospace (now BAE Systems) had secured the contract by paying large bribes to Saudi Arabia.

Citizens and war

The arms and tech industries that profit from war, as seen so far, are closely intertwined with the lives of ordinary citizens. This means that ordinary people may be unknowingly complicit in war. One example is where tax money goes. Consider US taxpayers and Lockheed Martin. Approximately 73% of Lockheed Martin’s 2022 sales were to the US government. That same year, the company spent 7.9 billion US dollars—23% of its sales—on share buybacks. If we assume those buybacks were funded from across the company’s revenues, US taxpayers effectively covered 5.8 billion US dollars of the buybacks. In other words, the taxes they pay may unknowingly be turned into shareholder profits for arms companies.

Many citizens also use products and services such as smartphones, computers, software, AI, and online shopping from major tech companies. Given that tech firms profit from war, the act of purchasing and using these products may also be a way of becoming complicit in war without realizing it. Tech companies’ involvement in Israel’s genocide in Gaza is one such example. In October 2023, immediately after Israel began its attacks in Gaza, US firm Microsoft signed a contract worth more than 10 million US dollars with Israel’s defense agencies to provide data storage and technical services to the Israeli military and others.

The Israeli military has sought long-term storage and analysis of data and intelligence, and has worked not only with Microsoft, but also with US tech giants such as Google and Amazon. It is estimated that there are about 1.4 billion users of Windows, Microsoft’s flagship product, worldwide. How many of them know that the company is complicit in the conflict in Gaza?

Toward countermeasures

People protesting to block DSEI 2017, an international arms and security exhibition. The banner reads, “War starts here. Let’s stop it here.” (Photo: Campaign Against Arms Trade / Flickr [CC BY-SA 2.0])

Starting from the news that global revenues of arms manufacturers in 2024 reached a record high, this article has examined who profits from war. Private firms such as arms manufacturers and tech companies can become “merchants of death,” viewing war as a business opportunity and profiting by contributing to the killing of people. There are also companies that appear unrelated to the military at first glance, yet make money from war. Furthermore, these firms are closely tied to governments in order to expand their business. Ordinary citizens, too, may unknowingly become complicit in war by purchasing their products or shares.

What kinds of actions are being taken to stop this system that promotes war? One activity already underway is for shareholders of arms companies to exert pressure to halt inhumane business practices. At the annual shareholders’ meeting in 2022 of US firm General Dynamics—which ranked fifth in SIPRI’s 2024 ranking and is also involved in non-military businesses—a Christian organization in the United States made a proposal to shareholders calling for the company to reduce “business activities that cause death and destruction.” Although the proposal was ultimately rejected, many shareholders voted in favor.

There have also been cases in which employees protested when their companies moved into the war business. In 2017, US tech giant Google signed a large contract with the US Department of Defense and joined the highly classified Project Maven to develop software for military drones. But in 2018, more than 4,000 employees launched a signature campaign addressed to the CEO opposing military use, leading Google to withdraw from the project. However, starting three years later, Google once again entered into contracts with the US military, the Pentagon, and Israeli defense agencies, and continues to develop cloud and other services in the security field. At the same time, the company has been accused of unlawfully monitoring, interrogating, and dismissing employees who protested.

There are also demonstrations by ordinary citizens. Protests against arms makers are taking place across the globe. In September 2025, for example, an arms fair in the UK showcased products from more than 1,700 arms manufacturers from around the world. While the fair attracted tens of thousands of visitors, outside the venue hundreds of people held protests targeting Israeli companies that were taking part.

None of these three examples can be said to have stopped the war business, but if such efforts are carried out more widely around the world, it may be possible to put some pressure on companies that profit from war. In addition, there are boycott campaigns against products of companies, other than arms makers, that are complicit in war. There are many possible ways to oppose the activities of companies that see war as a business opportunity.

*1 The SIPRI database was launched in 1989, but at the time it did not include China, the former Soviet Union, or Eastern European countries. Data for Russian companies have been added since 2002, and for Chinese firms since 2015.

*2 For example, RTX has said that arms deliveries to Ukraine alone are expected to generate several billion US dollars in revenue. The company and the US government are linked by figures such as Lloyd Austin, who previously served as a member of the company’s board of directors and was US Secretary of Defense when Russia’s invasion of Ukraine began.

*3 Contrary to this trend, the United States changed the English name of the Department of Defense to the “United States Department of War” as of September 2025.

Writer: MIKI Yuna