Scaling Peace in a World of Arms Races

As global defense budgets skyrocket and the technology sector doubles down on military applications, a bold and underfunded frontier is struggling to emerge: PeaceTech. In their compelling article, “Why PeaceTech Must Be the Next Frontier of Innovation and Investment,” authors Artur Kluz and Dr. Stefaan Verhulst deliver a powerful call to action for governments, investors, and technologists to prioritize the use of emerging technologies not just for warfare, but for peacebuilding and conflict prevention.

The article begins by laying out the current landscape: defense spending in the United States is soaring past $895 billion, while NATO countries and China are also scaling up their military budgets at unprecedented rates. This expansion is driven in part by legitimate threats such as Russia’s aggression and growing tensions in the Indo-Pacific. However, Kluz and Verhulst argue that the spending is also symptomatic of a self-reinforcing security dilemma—a global arms race fueled by fear and geopolitical realignment.

In this environment, technologies with both civilian and military applications—so-called “dual-use” tools like artificial intelligence, robotics, and space infrastructure—are receiving massive investment. Yet almost no attention is being paid to how these same technologies could serve peace. PeaceTech, as the authors define it, is the deployment of technology to prevent conflict, rebuild societies, and save lives. It includes tools like early-warning systems for violence, AI systems to verify ceasefires, and digital platforms for aid transparency and refugee services.

Despite its transformative potential, PeaceTech is radically underfunded. The United Nations, for example, aimed to raise $1.5 billion over seven years for peacebuilding, while private defense tech investments in 2023 alone totaled more than $34 billion. This disparity, the authors argue, stems partly from a cultural misconception that peace is “soft” or idealistic, when in fact it is one of the most complex, multidisciplinary challenges of our time—demanding engineering, diplomacy, foresight, and system-wide infrastructure.

Importantly, the article makes a compelling economic case. Violence costs the global economy over $17 trillion annually—more than 13% of global GDP. Even modest investments in technologies that reduce conflict could yield massive financial dividends. Predictive analytics that help avert war, or disinformation filters that preserve trust during ceasefires, could form the foundation of a multibillion-dollar PeaceTech sector—if only the funding and strategic commitment were there.

Kluz and Verhulst propose a path forward rooted in a “triple-use” paradigm, one that expands beyond the current dual-use framing of civilian and military technology. Peace must become a third pillar of innovation investment. They urge venture capital firms to commit a small percentage—just 5 to 10%—of their dual-use portfolios to PeaceTech ventures. They also suggest that governments earmark portions of their rising defense budgets to fund peace technology and that alliances like NATO formally integrate PeaceTech into their operational doctrines.

Just as governments and tech companies mobilized in unprecedented ways to respond to COVID-19 with vaccine development and contact tracing tools, a similar coalition could be assembled to tackle the epidemic of global instability and violence. PeaceTech, they argue, is not a charity or an afterthought; it is innovation in its highest form—one that could prevent wars rather than win them.

In conclusion, Kluz and Verhulst challenge the global community to reconsider what we mean by innovation. Technology is not neutral—it reflects the priorities of those who invest in it. If we continue to pour resources solely into tools for warfare, we are signaling that peace is accidental and conflict inevitable. But if we redirect even a fraction of our innovation capacity toward PeaceTech, we might just reshape the future of global security—not through force, but through foresight.

Disclaimer: This blog post is a summary and commentary based on the article “Why PeaceTech Must Be the Next Frontier of Innovation and Investment” by Artur Kluz and Dr. Stefaan Verhulst, originally published by Fast Company. It is not intended to provide legal, financial, or investment advice. Readers should refer to the original article and consult professionals for specific guidance.