There is a stark and haunting disparity in human priorities which show that killing is more expensive than keeping people alive.
As global military expenditure surged to an unprecedented $2.7trillion, the world is now spending nearly 30 times more on the machinery of warfare than on the collective effort to eliminate global hunger.
While the cost of ending extreme hunger is estimated by organisations like the World Food Programme at roughly $90 billion to $100 billion annually, the global investment in security has accelerated to an all time high.
This stark 30-to-1 ratio highlights a global paradox: the world is increasingly well-equipped to wage war, but remains tragically underfunded when it comes to sustaining life.
Driven by regional conflicts and a new era of great power competition, global defense spending has hit $2.7 trillion, accounting for 2.5 percent of global GDP.
The data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and the United Nations (UN) paints a picture of a planet arming itself against perceived threats while ignoring the foundational threat of starvation. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute is one of the world’s most influential independent think tanks.
The global military spend which surged to an unprecedented $2.7 trillion in 2024 marks a decade of consecutive growth driven by escalating conflicts and geopolitical friction.
This figure is expected to increase significantly this year with the US/Israel – Iran war. As of March 13, 2026, the ongoing conflict between the US/Israel and Iran has already incurred staggering military and economic costs within its first two weeks.
The Pentagon recently briefed Congress that the first six days of the conflict (beginning February 28, 2026) cost the U.S. approximately $11.3 billion. The conflict is currently costing the U.S. roughly $891 million to $2 billion per day.
As global military budgets balloon, the humanitarian gap is widening; by 2026, over 318 million people are projected to face crisis-level hunger, yet aid funding is reaching historic lows.
Read also: Nigerian military rejects Global Terrorism Index, questions credibility
“Global military expenditure just hit $2.7 trillion – in a single year. According to United Nations (UN) estimates, ending world hunger by 2030 would require $93 billion annually.
That means we spend almost 30 times more every year on killing each other than on making sure everyone eats,” said Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director General, World Health Organization (WHO).
The warfare spend which jumped to $2.7 trillion isn’t merely a reflection of inflation; it is a direct consequence of a deteriorating security landscape.
Also speaking on this development, Abiola Rasaq, former head, investor relations and portfolio investments at United Bank for Africa Plc said, “It’s sad the aggression and threat from some global leaders is fuelling appetite for most countries to increase spending on military at the expense of more important infrastructure and social services.
“It is important for global leaders to rethink collaboration and reassess existing conflict resolution mechanisms, in a balanced way that prevents the domination or threat of one country over the other”.
He noted that “there is growing poverty levels and standards of living is dropping across the world, including in developed countries, partly because leaders are missing priorities and allocating resources to avoidable military spending.
“Whilst it’s important to ensure adequate military power to defend sovereignty, the pace of military spending across the world has been mainly a reflection of aggression, threat and fear. Why would I think of buying a gun, if my neighbour isn’t a threat”.
“The indirect cost of war is perhaps far more than the explicit cost. Indeed, the estimates by the United Nations is merely a part of a larger cost of war, as it is limited to only military expenditure.
Read also: Nigeria, US step up military cooperation, plan joint actions
“If we account for the opportunity cost of war and internal security issues, the cost is absolutely a lot more. For instance, whilst the United States is reported to have spent about $11.3billion on the war against Iran within 6 days, nobody is talking about the explicit cost to the US allies and indeed Iran itself,” he added.
“More so, nobody is taking stock of the cost of infrastructure that has been damaged across the middle east countries over the past week. We are not even fully accounting for the explicit costs, which I think is much lower than the implicit costs, especially the opportunity cost of many avoidable wars and internal security challenges.
“The whole world is bearing a cost of the war, at least from what we see in crude oil price and its inflationary impact across the world. If we take Nigeria’s insecurity challenge as a case study, the Federal government has spent over N20 trillion fighting insurgency over the past decade and that’s just the direct explicit cost. If we account for the devastating impact of the insecurity on the economy, we can better appreciate the full impact on the economy, in terms of lost potential GDP”, Rasaq said.
Speaking further, he said “If we assume a Nigeria without the insecurity crisis, where we can channel the funds being wasted on the fighting insurgency towards financing infrastructure deficit in the Healthcare, education, transportation sectors among others, we could have improved productivity and reduce the poverty level in the country”.
“The Russia-Ukraine war is now four years, and indeed, irrespective of the outcome of efforts to bring an end to it, there cannot be any victor because both countries have wasted enormous scarce resources and more importantly lost the opportunity to advance the course of human progress over the past four years. Indeed, it would take decades to rehabilitate and reconstruct the damages done in Ukraine, just like we see in many countries like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan.
“It’s unfortunate that global organsatons such as the UN, which are supposedly mediators and balance of powers, have been undermined, as some countries have whistled down the influence and powers of these organisations for their personal interests.
“What is supposedly an assembly of nations to foster tolerance and collaboration towards advancing the course of humanity has become somewhat docile over the past 10 years. Hopefully, these institutions can regains the influence and vision, as only through such instructions can the world stem this ugly crisis undermining human progress”, Rasaq further said.
António Guterres, UN Secretary-General said, “The world is spending far more on waging war than in building peace. Rebalancing global priorities is not optional—it is an imperative for humanity’s survival. Excessive military spending does not guarantee peace. It often undermines it—fueling arms races, deepening mistrust, and diverting resources from the very foundations of stability.”
According to Izumi Nakamitsu, UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, “We need a new vision of security—human-centered and rooted in the UN Charter. A vision that safeguards people, not just borders… Rebalancing global priorities is not optional—it is an imperative for humanity’s survival.”
According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), global military expenditure which increased to $2.7 trillion in 2024 is the steepest year-on-year (YoY) rise since at least the end of the Cold War.
Join BusinessDay whatsapp Channel, to stay up to date
Open In Whatsapp
