Akashma Online News

by Akashma News

The profitability of war far surpasses that of agriculture, but at what cost? While farming sustains life, regenerates the environment, and contributes to national stability, the war industry thrives on destruction, consuming immense resources with little benefit to the average citizen.

Take, for example, a family of farmers cultivating 133 acres of land. With months of hard labor, favorable weather, and healthy crops, they might earn a profit of $25,000. This income, however, is never guaranteed—droughts, pests, and fluctuating market prices can easily wipe out their earnings. Meanwhile, their work produces thousands of bushels of grain, feeding people, replenishing the soil, and reducing reliance on imported food.

Scott Brooks, in his article What It Takes to Grow and Sell Corn (2008), highlights the immense effort required to bring a corn crop to market. He describes the long hours, unpredictable weather, and fluctuating commodity prices that determine a farmer’s success or failure. “A single bad season can set a farmer back years,” Brooks writes, emphasizing the financial precarity of agriculture compared to government-backed war contracts.

Contrast this with the war industry, which operates on a different economic plane. The United States government spends billions of taxpayer dollars annually on defense contracts, often with guaranteed profits for weapons manufacturers. For example, in 2022, the U.S. defense budget exceeded $800 billion, with major contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon raking in tens of billions in profits. Lockheed Martin alone reported $63 billion in revenue that year, with over 70% coming from government contracts—essentially, taxpayer-funded free money.

Unlike agriculture, which requires sustainable practices and reinvestment in land and resources, the defense industry generates wealth without producing anything that benefits the civilian economy. While a farm provides food security and environmental benefits, the production of weapons fuels conflict, pollutes ecosystems, and contributes to geopolitical instability.

Moreover, war spending diverts critical resources away from social programs. The United Nations estimates that just $30 billion annually could end world hunger, a fraction of what the U.S. spends on its military. Instead of investing in food security, healthcare, or education, governments prioritize defense spending, enriching a handful of corporations while leaving millions struggling.

The consequences are dire. While farmers fight to keep their land and livelihoods, defense contractors secure lucrative government deals, often free of traditional market risks. The war economy perpetuates a cycle of destruction, while agriculture—if properly supported—could provide the foundation for a healthier, more sustainable future.

Ultimately, the choice is clear: continue feeding the war machine or invest in a system that truly nourishes humanity. The contrast between these industries is not just financial—it is a reflection of our values and priorities. Until policies shift toward supporting life rather than destruction, we will remain trapped in an economy that profits from suffering rather than sustenance.