What we burn in war could build the future

When missiles are launched, we count the impact zones. Yet the central issue is what we sacrifice by spending money on war rather than progress and what opportunities are lost when resources are devoted to conflict. 

As tensions escalate between the US and Iran, headlines focus on deterrence and retaliation. But behind every missile, every carrier deployment, and every replenished arsenal lies a quieter question: What else could this money and energy have built for us, our children and the world?

War diverts not just funds and effort, but the political will that could build brighter futures.

Modern wars can burn through billions of dollars in a matter of weeks. A recent Congressional Research Service report suggests that operating a US Navy aircraft carrier strike group costs about $6.5 million per day, or nearly $2.4 billion per year. 

Advanced missiles, each worth millions, are fired in seconds. The Tomahawk cruise missile, for instance, costs around $1.7 million per unit. Air operations devour staggering amounts of fuel. When the dust settles, ordinary people bear the burden of rebuilding their shattered communities.

What do these expenses mean to real people, for families and futures?

Take $1 billion, which amounts to just a few days of high-intensity military spending. That same amount could provide millions of childhood vaccinations. In many low-income countries, fully vaccinating a child costs less than $50. With $1 billion, we could protect about 20 million children from diseases no child should face.

This comparison is uncomfortable but critical.

The environmental heat of conflict

We often overlook the environmental damage caused by wars. High-carbon activities, such as military operations, consistently damage the Earth.

Military hardware consumes massive amounts of fuel — jets burn thousands of gallons per hour, fleets rely on heavy marine fuels and missile launches create toxic emissions. War debris further pollutes local and neighbouring environments. Yet military emissions, which account for a significant share of some nations' carbon output, are often left out of climate discussions. War exacerbates the fragility caused by climate threats such as droughts, floods and displacement.

Alternatively, with $10 billion, we could install enough solar panels to power millions of homes for generations — using a fraction of the cost of war spending.

One path heats the planet; the other powers a cooler, brighter future.

The silent trade-off: Aid vs armament

Agencies like USAID have supported food security, maternal health, disaster relief, education and climate adaptation in the areas that need help most. When budgets become tight, these lifelines are often the first to face cuts. 

Many countries have already felt the impact of US President Trump's decision to cut off the USAID grant, leaving thousands jobless overnight. These cuts do not just diminish hope; they also heighten instability. 

For example, a 2019 peer-reviewed study in World Development found that sudden reductions in foreign aid are strongly associated with an increased risk of civil conflict in recipient countries. This raises broader questions whether the fund was diverted in ways that could  fuel instability  

In a world with rising temperatures, greater inequality and fragile institutions, security is not just about missiles or fleets. It is also about solar panels installed, vaccines delivered, classrooms opened, and communities strengthened.

UNESCO estimates it would cost about $39 billion a year to provide every child on Earth with a basic education. That is about what a single sustained regional conflict can cost in a short time. Imagine if, instead, we invested in classrooms for every child.

Education is not charity — it forms the bedrock of strong, stable societies, reducing instability and making future conflict less likely.

Shifting funds from development to war weakens the essential conditions needed for lasting peace.

Security beyond hardware

Traditional ideas of security focus on threats and firepower. But today's threats are different: pandemics, climate refugees, fragile supply chains, and cyberattacks, to name a few.

Missiles cannot irrigate fields. Warships cannot vaccinate children. Airstrikes cannot put food on tables. This is not an argument against defence; every country needs security. But it is an argument for balance.

If poverty, weak governance, inequality and climate shocks spark instability, then investing in development is investing in security. It addresses the root causes, not just the symptoms.

The multiplier questions

Military spending creates jobs in factories, labs, and logistics. But the opportunities created through development spending benefits ripple through communities.

Investing in clean energy can reduce dependence on volatile markets and protect future price swings. Investing in public health not only reduces future treatment costs but also promotes longer and healthier lives, thereby creating opportunities for healthier and sustainable businesses. Invest in climate adaptation to cut disaster recovery costs. Invest in education, and you help people earn more and contribute more to society.

A dollar spent on sovereign safety often saves many more dollars — and lives — down the road. But we do not discuss the opportunity costs. We do not see the solar grids that were never installed or the clinics that were never built. But those lost opportunities are real, even if we cannot see them.

Let us not forget how mounting tensions in the Middle East impact remittance workers. Iran-Israel tensions and Gulf security issues could disrupt more than 60% of remittances from the Middle East. 

For Bangladesh, remittances from this region account for over 10% of GDP and cover nearly 47% of import payments. When conflicts displace these workers, it risks not only their livelihoods but also their families and our economy. Sadly, we have already lost two remittance earners during the US-Iran conflict.

A final accounting

The real question is not whether nations should defend themselves; of course, they should. The question is: Are we defending tomorrow as seriously as we are defending today?

In a world with rising temperatures, greater inequality and fragile institutions, security is not just about missiles or fleets. It is also about solar panels installed, vaccines delivered, classrooms opened and communities strengthened.

Every billion dollars spent on war is not just a line in a budget. It represents a decision to prioritise immediate defence over investments in a better future. This choice shapes the world our children will inherit.

Hard power may win a battle. But human security — education, health, stable energy, a livable climate — is what prevents the next one.

The true cost of war is what never gets built. Both missed opportunities and battlefield victories shape history. Our choices today will define tomorrow: will we leave ruins or renewal? By recognising the impact of each decision, we can turn potential loss into lasting progress. The future image rests in our hands.

Sketch: TBS

Shafiq R Bhuiyan writes on how communication, culture and corporate social responsibility (CSR) converge to shape a more conscious and compassionate society.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.