As global tensions mount and geopolitical rivalries intensify, countries across the NATO alliance, including the United Kingdom, are channeling unprecedented financial resources into defense budgets. This surge in military expenditure, exceeding $2.7 trillion annually on a global scale, has reignited debates reminiscent of the Cold War epoch, where the balance between warfare and welfare once again takes center stage. Yet, amidst these high-stakes discussions, a critical yet often overlooked player remains in the shadows—the arms industry. Emerging evidence now positions this sector not merely as a commercial enterprise but as a potent commercial determinant of health, with far-reaching implications that span beyond conventional security paradigms.
The arms industry operates through a complex web of corporate strategies that profoundly influence public policy and shape societal narratives around violence and security. Its arsenal extends well beyond weaponry, encompassing lobbying efforts, sponsorship of research institutions, and the cultivation of intimate ties with governmental agencies. These tactics, strikingly similar to those employed by the tobacco, alcohol, and fossil fuel sectors, effectively obscure the detrimental societal and health impacts intrinsic to the production and proliferation of arms. Consequently, this industry’s influence disrupts public health agendas and perpetuates cycles of conflict, injury, and mortality on a global scale.
Health professionals now find themselves at a pivotal crossroads. As the United Kingdom prepares to host the world’s largest arms fair, the urgency to counterbalance the pervasive reach of the arms industry on governmental priorities has never been greater. Researchers such as Mark Bellis of Liverpool John Moores University and his international collaborators have illuminated the direct and systemic harms arising from arms manufacturing and trade. Their analyses advocate for a paradigm shift that recognizes the arms industry’s corporate behavior—its marketing, lobbying, and institutional influence—as equally responsible for public health consequences as the weapons it produces.
The reallocation of resources toward defense spending increasingly strains budgets traditionally dedicated to health care and foreign aid, undermining efforts to improve population well-being domestically and internationally. Such fiscal shifts threaten to erode the already fragile social determinants of health, especially in vulnerable communities dependent on welfare systems and international assistance. The health costs associated with this militarization extend beyond battlefield casualties and encompass broader societal repercussions, including psychological trauma, displacement, and the degradation of health infrastructure in conflict zones.
Critically, while Europe seeks to diminish its security dependence on the United States, experts warn that this strategic autonomy must not come at the expense of sustaining essential health and welfare programs. The imperative to protect humanitarian interests and uphold global health commitments must guide defense policy decisions, rather than allowing commercial and militaristic imperatives to dominate. This approach aligns with a renewed advocacy for a “peace dividend,” a concept urging the reinvestment of military funds into social sectors that bolster health equity and human rights.
The academic and medical research communities currently exhibit a conspicuous gap in addressing the arms industry as a commercial determinant of health. By applying a critical lens to this nexus of commerce, policy, and health outcomes, scholars can unravel the intricate mechanisms through which the industry perpetuates health harms. This investigative framework not only enriches scientific understanding but also equips health practitioners and policymakers with evidence to challenge industry narratives and advocate for reforms grounded in ethical imperatives and health priorities.
The conceptual transition toward recognizing the arms industry within the health determinants paradigm demands robust interdisciplinary collaboration. Public health experts, researchers, and civil society must coalesce to champion a reorientation away from profit-driven arms development and deployment. Instead, global agendas must prioritize health preservation, human rights, and peacebuilding as foundational goals. This realignment necessitates confronting entrenched industry influence embedded in political and economic systems, a task requiring vigilance, transparency, and unwavering commitment from the health community.
Health practitioners wield unique moral authority and credibility, representing a formidable counterbalance to the arms industry’s framing of security issues. Their expertise in exposing the human cost of violence and conflict positions them as vital actors in reframing public discourse and influencing policy. Historical precedents underscore the efficacy of health sector engagement in challenging powerful industries—most notably the successful campaigns against tobacco corporations and fossil fuel lobbyists. This legacy provides a blueprint for confronting the arms industry’s entrenched position and advocating for health-centered security paradigms.
Moreover, medical journals and editorial institutions hold a critical role in this endeavor, serving as platforms for disseminating research, amplifying ethical concerns, and mobilizing professional communities. The collective action of journal editors, physicians, and anti-arms trade activists previously compelled corporate divestment from defense sectors, exemplified by Reed-Elsevier’s exit in 2007. However, despite these advances, current scrutiny of arms industry practices remains insufficient. A reinvigorated focus is essential to dismantle obfuscation tactics and hold corporations accountable for their contributions to global health crises.
Beyond direct health consequences, the arms industry’s influence undermines the structural determinants of peace and security, which are intrinsically linked to population health outcomes. Conflict-driven displacement, injury burden, and mental health disorders constitute only the visible manifestations of deeper systemic issues fueled by the continuous production and distribution of weapons for profit. Addressing these challenges requires integrating health considerations into security analyses, thereby promoting policies that mitigate harm and foster resilience.
A proactive stance necessitates that health professionals not only critique the arms industry’s impacts but also advocate for political and social reforms aligned with peace and health imperatives. This advocacy includes supporting disarmament initiatives, promoting transparency in defense spending, and demanding accountability mechanisms that address corporate complicity in perpetuating violence. By positioning the arms industry as a commercial determinant of health, the health sector can leverage its expertise to influence policy debates and prioritize human well-being over militaristic interests.
Ultimately, bridging the divide between public health and security sectors unveils an urgent imperative: reimagining global security through the lens of health and human rights. This vision challenges entrenched orthodoxies that conflate security solely with military might and instead advocates for comprehensive approaches that address the root causes of conflict and harm. The pursuit of such a transformative agenda requires solidarity among health professionals, researchers, policymakers, and civil society to confront the arms industry’s pervasive influence and champion a sustainable, peaceful future.
The mounting evidence and renewed advocacy underscore a critical juncture in the global discourse on security and health. Recognizing the arms industry as a commercial determinant of health elevates the conversation beyond traditional defense narratives, exposing the profound human and planetary costs of unchecked arms proliferation. As the world watches London host the largest arms fair, the call to action grows louder: health professionals must harness their collective power to advocate for peace dividends, safeguard welfare programs, and realign societal priorities to place health and human dignity at the forefront of security policies.
Subject of Research: The arms industry as a commercial determinant of health and its broader implications on global health, policy, and welfare.
Article Title: Weapons, wealth and health: the arms industry as a commercial determinant of health
News Publication Date: 2-Sep-2025
Web References: 10.1136/bmj-2025-086166
Keywords: Warfare, Government, International relations, Health care industry
Tags: arms industry lobbying effortsarms trade and conflict cyclescommercial determinants of healthcorporate influence on public policydefense budgets and global securitygeopolitical tensions and securityglobal arms industry impact on healthhealth implications of arms proliferationhistorical context of warfare and welfaremilitary expenditure and public healthNATO defense spending trendssocietal narratives around violence