Are we heading towards greater security or an inevitable conflict? As global defence budgets soar, nations must decide whether rearmament ensures peace or fuels escalation.
The Context
Meanwhile, China has once again raised its defence budget by 7.2%, continuing its steady military expansion, which has the achievement of being the first navy in the world and now working hard on ballistic missiles.
The United States remains the undisputed leader, allocating a staggering $968 billion in 2024, dwarfing the budgets of other nations.
Russia, despite economic sanctions and the prolonged war in Ukraine, maintains a formidable $146 billion military budget, which has secured the leadership in hypersonic missiles. Some Russian hypersonic missiles include: Kinzhal (Kh-47M2) – Air-launched ballistic missile, reportedly capable of reaching Mach 10; Avangard – A hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV) deployed on ICBMs, exceeding Mach 20; Zircon (3M22 Tsirkon) – Hypersonic cruise missile designed for naval use, reaching speeds around Mach 8-9; and Burevestnik (though technically a nuclear-powered cruise missile, it may have hypersonic capabilities).
The U.S. still has a few years to catch up with these technologies. Due to budget constraints, Russia has chosen to focus on hypersonic missiles, some of which are nearly impossible to intercept.
European nations, too, are ramping up spending, with Germany at $86 billion, the UK at $81 billion, and France at $64 billion. Smaller nations such as Poland and Ukraine are also funnelling substantial resources into defence, highlighting the growing sense of urgency in an increasingly tense geopolitical landscape.
Is Conflict Inevitable?
These soaring figures prompt a pressing question: Are we preparing for an inevitable conflict, or is this an investment in securing peace through deterrence? Historically, arms races have often escalated into direct confrontations, yet theorists argue that strong defence capabilities serve as a stabilising force, preventing aggression through military strength.
As nations commit more resources to military expansion, global leaders must carefully balance security imperatives with diplomacy. The ultimate challenge lies in ensuring that these unprecedented investments do not lead to an arms spiral but instead contribute to a stable and secure world order. This is the challenge.
To Rearm or Not to Rearm: That Is the Question
Military budgets are soaring, alliances are strengthening, and geopolitical tensions are sharpening. The dilemma is clear: should nations continue expanding their defence capabilities, or is there room for a more pacifist approach to international security?
Arguments in Favour of Rearmament
Deterrence and Security – A well-funded military serves as a deterrent against potential aggressors. In a world where conflicts like the Russia-Ukraine war persist and China and the U.S. are expanding their influence in the Indo-Pacific, many nations view military strength as essential for national security.
Technological Superiority – Military funding drives technological advancements, not just in weaponry but also in cyber defence, artificial intelligence, and space exploration, which can have civilian applications too.
Alliances and Strategic Influence – Countries that invest in their military have greater influence within international alliances such as NATO, the EU, and regional security pacts. Strengthened forces enhance collective defence strategies.
Economic Stimulus – The defence industry creates jobs, boosts technological research, and stimulates economic growth. Military spending has historically been used as a tool to revitalise economies.
Arguments Against Rearmament
Risk of Escalation – History shows that arms races can spiral into open conflict. More weapons do not necessarily mean more security; they can also provoke adversaries into similar military build-ups.
Diverting Resources from Social Needs – Every money spent on the military is money not spent on healthcare, education, or climate change mitigation. In times of economic hardship, increased military spending can strain public budgets.
Nuclear Proliferation and Global Instability – Heightened military investment, especially in nuclear capabilities, raises the stakes for global security, increasing the risk of catastrophic consequences if diplomacy fails.
The Illusion of Military Solutions – Many contemporary security threats—cyberwarfare, terrorism, and economic coercion—are not necessarily best addressed through traditional military means. Over-reliance on military power may ignore alternative paths to stability.
Theoretical Approach for Rising Defence Budgets: Deterrence or Conflict Escalation?
The surge in global military spending raises a fundamental question in international relations: Are states preparing for an inevitable conflict, or are they investing in military deterrence to secure peace? Theories such as the security dilemma, deterrence theory, arms race theory, and the balance of power provide valuable insights into this debate.
- The Security Dilemma (John H. Herz, Robert Jervis)
The security dilemma suggests that when one state increases its military power to ensure its own security, other states perceive it as a threat and respond in kind, leading to an arms race and heightened tensions.
Herz (1950) introduced the concept, arguing that the pursuit of security often results in unintended insecurity.
Jervis (1978) expanded on this, highlighting that states misinterpret each other’s defensive actions, further escalating conflicts.
This perspective suggests that today’s growing defence budgets—whether in the U.S., China, or Europe—could fuel mutual distrust rather than enhance security, increasing the risk of war.
- Deterrence Theory (Thomas Schelling, Kenneth Waltz, Glenn Snyder)
Deterrence theory argues that military strength prevents war by making aggression too costly.
Schelling (1966) emphasised that states use military posturing and strategic threats to maintain stability.
Waltz (1979), a key neorealist, contended that a balance of nuclear and conventional power prevents wars by ensuring mutual destruction in the event of conflict.
Snyder (1961) argued that credible deterrence requires not just military capability but also the willingness to use it.
From this perspective, today’s military build-ups—particularly in NATO, Russia, and China—could be seen as rational deterrence strategies aimed at preserving peace rather than provoking war.
- Arms Race Theory (Lewis Fry Richardson, Robert Powell)
Arms race theory suggests that continuous military build-ups often lead to war rather than security.
Richardson (1960) used mathematical models to demonstrate that arms races often escalate due to an action-reaction cycle.
Powell (1993) highlighted that uncertainty and commitment problems force states into competitive arms expansions, sometimes leading to preemptive strikes.
This framework warns that unchecked military spending could result in destabilisation, particularly in regions of active conflict like Ukraine and the Indo-Pacific.
- The Balance of Power Theory (John Mearsheimer, Hans Morgenthau)
The balance of power theory suggests that states increase their military capabilities to prevent any single power from dominating the system.
Morgenthau (1948) argued that international politics is a power struggle, and military strength is essential for maintaining equilibrium.
Mearsheimer (2001), a leading offensive realist, asserts that states seek military superiority to ensure their survival in an anarchic international system. He argues that great powers inevitably compete for dominance, and military build-up is a natural and necessary response to shifting global dynamics.
Under this view, the military expansions of the U.S., Europe, China, Russia, India and Turkey are not merely about defence but are part of a larger struggle for regional and global influence and hegemony.
Conclusion: Is There a Place for Pacifism?
In a world experiencing a new era of multipolarity and rivalry, pacifism struggles to find its place. While military deterrence remains a dominant strategy, movements advocating for diplomatic engagement, arms control, and conflict prevention are not mainstream any longer. The European Union has gradually dismissed diplomatic solutions. The United Nations continues to push for peacekeeping operations and disarmament treaties, albeit with limited success.
With global military spending reaching historic levels, pacifism faces significant challenges. However, it does not mean complete irrelevance. Some scholars argue for “strategic pacifism”, a blend of military readiness with a strong commitment to multilateral diplomacy, conflict resolution, and crisis prevention.
The challenge is to ensure that increasing military expenditures do not undermine diplomatic efforts but rather reinforce them as part of a broader security strategy.
Further, the future trajectory of rising defence budgets will depend on whether states use their military investments to enhance deterrence (as per deterrence and balance of power theories) or fuel a destructive arms race (as suggested by security dilemma and arms race theories).
In an era of shifting geopolitical power, the question remains: Will military expansion lead to a multipolar balance of power that prevents war, or will it trigger conflicts that these same investments seek to avoid?
Ricardo Martins ‒PhD in Sociology, specializing in policies, European and world politics and geopolitics
