The U.S. Should Head an Arms Cartel

The objective would be not to make money but to advance a security agenda.

Review and Outlook: The Heritage Foundation's latest 'Index of U.S. Military Strength' warns of declining power in the U.S. Navy and Air Force. Images: Department of Defence/Heritage Foundation Composite: Mark Kelly

The Biden administration recently released its conventional-arms transfer policy, which de-emphasizes the Trump administration’s focus on the economic benefit of weapons sales in favor of considering the buyers’ human-rights records. This is wise, given that American dominance of the global arms market means the economic benefits of a few additional sales pale in comparison to strategic advantages conferred by arms transfers. But the U.S. can’t—and shouldn’t—do it alone.

The war in Ukraine has adjusted geopolitical risk assessments and revealed the relative performance of Russian and Western weapons. This has accelerated an already existing trend in the global arms trade. Even before the war, U.S. market share had steadily grown to nearly 40%. Now the U.S. can’t build weapons fast enough to meet growing international demand in addition to its own.

Opinion

Continue reading your article with
a WSJ subscription

Subscribe Now

Already a member? Sign In

Sponsored Offers
  • TurboTax:
    TurboTax service code 2023 - $15 off
  • Wayfair:
    Wayfair promo code: 10% off any single purchase
  • The Motley Fool:
    Sign up to Stock Advisor for $79 for 1 year
  • American Eagle Outfitters:
    15% off American Eagle promo code
  • Kohl's:
    Save 15% on orders of $100+ with Kohl's coupon
  • Walmart:
    Walmart promo code 2023 - $20 off $50