Should Business Embrace War?
Some investors are getting excited about a more violent future
Palantir, named after a crystal ball in “The Lord of the Rings”1, is a highly successful Silicon Valley based company that provides big-data analytics software and services to government and corporate customers. Lately, it has rebranded itself as an AI company, which seems to have helped its business quite a bit, judging by its 36% revenue growth (Q4 2025, YoY) and exploding share price (up by 325% in the last 12 months).
The US government - specifically the Department of Defense - is a major client, accounting for 42% of $2.87bn in last year’s revenues. Its Maven project for the US military supports AI-enabled battlespace awareness, global integration, force management, contested logistics, joint fires and targeting workflows. To Israel and Ukraine, Palantir provides an AI-based system called AIP, designed to assist decision making on the basis of intelligence, and capable of analyzing enemy targets and proposing combat moves.
Alex Karp, Palantir’s eccentric2 CEO and co-founder, likes to strike a militaristic-philosophical tone when talking about his company’s vision:
Alex Karp signed off his annual letter to Palantir’s investors with a passage from historian Samuel Huntington3. The rise of the West, he quoted, was not made possible “by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion . . . but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence…Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”
In his upcoming book (“The Technological Republic - Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West”) Alex Karp invokes tech companies’s patriotic responsibilities4:
Other nations, including many of our geopolitical adversaries, understand the power of affirming shared cultural traditions, mythologies, and values in organizing the efforts of a people. They are far less shy than we are about acknowledging the human need for communal experience. The cultivation of an overly muscular and unthoughtful nationalism has risks. But the rejection of any form of life in common does as well. The reconstruction of a technological republic, in the United States and elsewhere, will require a re-embrace of collective experience, of shared purpose and identity, of civic rituals that are capable of binding us together.
Now, in my mind, there is nothing wrong with patriotic ideals for companies, from bolstering defense to improving health care. Although, reading this, one may feel a little reminded of previous centuries’ war enthusiasm or of Chinese government appeals to businesses: Wan Huning, China’s top political theorist, who presided over the meeting and praised Xi’s words as “highly insightful”, demanding they be studied and implemented “to create a new chapter in the development of private enterprise”.
Here is a promotional video from Palantir that projects the power of Alex Karp’s shared mythologies:
Enthusiasm for War
In the olden days, fighting wars used to be considered a virtuous undertaking and patriotic duty. “War is the father of all things”, “War is the mother of invention”, or “War is diplomacy by other means” are wisdoms from those days. The 19th century French writer Germaine de Staël-Holstein, a romantic liberal writer and enemy of Napoleon Bonaparte, expressed a concern about “young men getting soft because they lacked the experience of pain and hunger which they would only get from fighting in wars”.
World War I started with universal excitement in all participating countries, as everyone was convinced that victory was only a a few months away. The Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote in his diaries that “only in a near death situation, with his own life hanging in the balance, that he would truly see himself, above all his faith in God - and thus his capacity for happiness”5.
Stefan Zweig famously described the scene in Vienna, Austria at the announcement of World War I. He wrote: "In every station placards had been put up announcing general mobilization. The trains were filled with fresh recruits, banners were flying, music sounded, and in Vienna I found the entire city in a tumult... There were parades in the street, flags, ribbons, and music burst forth everywhere, young recruits were marching triumphantly, their faces lighting up at the cheering..."
Maybe with the exception of some boardrooms, defense departments, or mercenary services (e.g., Academi, formerly known as Blackwater, Executive Outcomes, or Wagner Group) we don’t see much of that enthusiasm these days. Thanks to the media, people know about the cruelties and futility of warfare. The casualties and long term damages from wars in the last 125 years are well documented:
My list includes only some of the biggest conflicts and I omitted others, such as Israel’s conflicts with its Arab neighbors (1948–49, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982, 2006), conflicts between France and former colonies (Indochine 1950s, Algeria 1960s), the Falkland War in 1982, Russia in Afghanistan (1979 - 1989), Iraq against Iran (1980 - 1988), the Yugoslavian civil wars (1991 - 2001), conflicts and war in Yemen (1990 - today), the current war in Sudan, and many more.
No matter how hard we try to contain damages and keep wars short and targeted, tragedy always unfolds in the same predictable and unlimited ways:
Military deaths and injuries: Nowadays typically “only” hundreds of thousands die, and not millions as in WW I of WW II. With the exception of Russia, armies are not used as “meat-grinders” anymore. But there are ~18 Mio living veterans in the US, of which ~78% served during wartime (including 120,000 from WW II) - one out of five having experienced serious injury, and many suffering from traumas.
Civilian deaths and injuries: These are always a consequence of war, often surpassing military casualties. Not all casualties are unintentional (i.e., Russian bombardments of cities in Ukraine), and some are cynically accepted as “collateral damage”, often resulting from civilians used as human shields (i.e., Gaza).
Displacement: Millions of people end up being internally or externally displaced, leading to disruption in their home and host countries.
Traumas: Members of the military and civilians experience life long traumas from combat, bombardments, loss of family members and friends (i.e., Russia deported 19,500 children from Ukraine for “adoption” in Russia).
Economic damage: Wars set countries’ economic development back by years and billions and trillions of dollars in output and wealth. While war efforts can actually increase GDP short-term and during reconstruction (as do earthquakes and wildfires), they consume resources that could have been better spent on developing a country’s long term well-being (health, education, technological progress, environmental improvement etc. etc.). Wealth always declines and takes generations to rebuild after a country has been turned into rubble. Even victorious countries (e.g. the UK after WW II, or the US after the Iraq war) end up with much increased budget deficits (i.e., an estimated $3trn from the Iraq War in the US) and economic dislocations.
Environmental damage: The damage to nature is an overlooked fact and it’s not “only” about wildlife. Contaminated soil and water resources, landmines, deforestation and desertification are the outcome of every war.
Cultural damage: Something that’s impossible to put a price on, but there’s a reason why aggressors like to go after cultural artifacts. The loss of cultural heritage destroys a society’s fabric and memory of history (e.g. ISIS in Syria, the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Japanese in China etc.).
Long term instability: Wars leave the defeated and the victorious in a state of limbo that often leads to more war within a few years - due to grievances about “undeserved” defeats (i.e., the Germans after WW II), economic hardship, or large numbers of displaced people who want to return to their lost homes. The illusion of lasting success after a limited war is exemplified by the broad satisfaction among the American allies after the Gulf War of 1991 - 1993:
The triumphal feelings that emerged at the end of the conflict surpassed what one might expect from a limited regional war. As the British ambassador to the United Nations argued, the war was “of far greater and of far more positive significance for all countries in the world, and for [the United Nations] as a whole, than the many regional conflicts with which we have tried to grapple over recent decades.” The conflict, he argued, “marked a clear, firm and effective determination of the world community not to allow the law of the jungle to overcome the rule of law.” The American ambassador called the war’s ceasefire agreement “unique and historic,” claiming that “it fulfils the hope of mankind.” In a sign of the times, the Soviet Union’s ambassador agreed, arguing that the conflict demonstrated “the soundness of the new thinking, the new system of international relations.”6
War as a fact of life, born out of instinct and based on humanity’s inherent violence, is a popular concept. The notion neglects our progress in developing our civilized societies. Clearly, civilization is a thin veneer that needs constant effort to maintain. Without it, we can all turn into monsters without compassion7. Other “facts of life” that we largely managed to eradicate are for instance: the abduction and raping of women8, sacrifices of children, burning of witches and apostates, public lynching, pogroms, religious inquisitions, cannibalism, incest, and slavery.
The following is a story from an old woman on the Pacific island of Tarawa, which saw heavy fighting between US and Japanese troops in WW II - a case where the Americans’ arrival brought a modicum of civilization:
"In those days death was on the right hand and on the left. If we wandered north, we were killed or raped. If we wandered south, we were killed or raped. If we returned alive from walking abroad, our husbands themselves killed us, for they said that we had gone forth seeking to be raped. That was indeed just, for a woman who disobeys her husband is a woman of no account, and it matters not how she dies. Yet how beautiful is life in our villages, now that there is no killing and war is no more... Behold my son and my grandson! These would have died with me that day at Nea if the warship had not arrived. And these"-she pointed out her great and great-great-grandchildren-"would never have been born. We live because the Government of Kuini Kabitoria brought peace to us, and here I sit plaiting this mat to be buried in because of the kindness of that woman, with all my generations around me to wrap me in it when I die."
Pacifism is a noble goal but it’s not the solution
Pacifism in the mould of Bertrand Russell is certainly admirable. Although his pacifism was not unreserved (he made a few exceptions, such as colonial conquests), he accepted going to prison for his convictions9.
But the world is a dangerous place and there are some evil characters in charge of whole countries. Unilateral disarmament or relinquishing defensive capabilities would be a suicidal strategy for many. Neutrality is a time tested strategy for smaller countries (i.e., Switzerland, Austria), as long its a defended neutrality. All other countries, whether they are threatened by aggressors or acts as global hegemons, should remember and respect the lessons of our rich history of awful wars:
Prevention: Most wars of the past seem quite preventable in retrospect.
Hitler could have been stopped by the allied powers in March of 1936, when German troops re-occupied the Rhineland, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles.
The attacks of 9/11 could have been prevented if US government authorities had listened to the many warnings of an impending attack. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq may not have happened as a consequence. ISIS would never have come to exist.
The Gulf war would have been unnecessary, if the US had not invested in Iraq and Saddam Hussein as a proxy against Iran in the 1980s.
Russia was preparing its attack on Ukraine in 2022 in broad daylight for months. The CIA was correct in its prediction of an upcoming attack, but the West did not act - a costly mistake.
The Hamas attacks of Oct 2023 came with plenty of warnings, but Israeli officials dismissed it as aspirational and ignored specific warnings.
As in human medicine or in matters of climate change, we under-invest in prevention and we only react to crises when they are in full swing.
Minimization of damage: Despite promises to protect civilian targets, attackers and defenders always resort to full-scale destruction. The US destroyed 80% of Iraq’s infrastructure in the Gulf war, leading to a large scale humanitarian catastrophe and laying the grounds for future conflict. Russia has utterly destroyed all infrastructure in the occupied territories (incl. dams) and still does its best to eliminate the rest of Ukraines ability to sustain itself. Israel has destroyed nearly 100% of Gaza’s infrastructure, thereby triggering an unresolved humanitarian crisis. Such destruction does not help win wars and subsequently requires enormous investments in reconstruction, often by the aggressor (i.e., the US in Iraq).
No illusions about achieving war goals: Nobody wins in war, some just lose less than others. Post WW II, there have been no clear winners and often the losing side goes on to run the country, after having suffered enormous losses (i.e., the Vietcong, the Taliban, others).
Understanding personal grievances: Putin is grieving about the fall of the Soviet Empire and attacks Ukraine to restore his idea of Russian imperial glory. The Chinese are ultra-focused on their territorial integrity and will probably try to forcibly integrate Taiwan in the next 2-3 years because they remember their painful history of being brutalized by other imperial powers (i.e., the Opium wars with Britain in the 19th century, the Japanese occupation etc.). And someone seems to have grievances about Canada and Greenland these days. Dealing with grievances, which are often personal, has to be part of a preventative strategy.
Effective deterrence: Modern militaries understand and apply game theory, which is an essential part of deterrence. The three Cs of deterrence are capability, credibility and communication. But judging by the events of the last 20 year, from Syria to Ukraine to Israel, something went wrong with deterrence. The reliance on mutually assured destruction failed to counter conventional threats and attacks.
It is now a well know problem that most parts of Europe lack capability and credibility when it comes to defense. Only a small minority of citizens would be willing to fight for their country, except for countries with a history of living under extreme threats (Baltics, Israel, Poland, Finland). Although, in a recent poll, one third of young Britains between 13 and 27 agreed that the country would be a better place if the army was in charge of government. Maybe the reintroduction of mandatory military service, as it exists in Cyprus, Greece, Austria, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, or Switzerland, would put them in touch with reality - away from computer game battles. Some military history lessons wouldn’t hurt either: Brazil and Argentina in the 1970s, Egypt and Iran of today, provide sobering examples of what military rule does to a country.
Don’t let businesses interests dictate military strategy: President Eisenhower, a general himself, warned about the military-industrial complex in his farewell speech in 1961:
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. . . . American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. . . . This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. . . .Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. . . . In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
Eisenhower’s warnings are relevant more than ever, now that about 60% of the US military’s 2025 budget of $850bn (equivalent to Poland’s annual output or GDP) is dedicated to operation, maintenance and procurement, items that are typically provided by corporate suppliers. The top suppliers to the US military (Lockheed, RTX, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, and Boeing) generate ~$200bn in annual revenue with the US military. There is nothing wrong with a strong national defense industry (Germany’s market leader Rheinmetall has seen its share price increase by 850% in the last five years), but military decisions should be the exclusive domain of the government and not of the military industry and its lobbyists.
A palantír ([paˈlanˌtiːr]; pl. palantíri) is one of several indestructible crystal balls from J. R. R. Tolkien's epic-fantasy novel The Lord of the Rings. The word comes from Quenya palan 'far', and tir 'watch over'.[T 1] The palantírs were used for communication and to see events in other parts of Arda, or in the past. (Wikipedia)
From the WSJ “Alex Karp Wants Silicon Valley to Fight for America”:
KETCHUM, Idaho—Palantir stock was days away from hitting an all-time high, and the company’s chief executive, Alex Karp, had retreated to his cavernous mountain cabin.
Its features neatly captured the interests of a billionaire on a quest to save the West. The windows were adorned with curtains bearing an American flag motif. Completed and half-completed Rubik’s Cubes were scattered on coffee tables.
“Do you want to see my guns?” he asked. One of Karp’s hobbies is long-range shooting, whose targets fall outside the normal parameters of a firearm, he explained. He struck a stance to show the blend of practice and instinct that combines for the perfect shot.
“The Clash of Civilizations”, by Samuel Huntington, in Foreign Affairs (1993) and as a book “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order” (1996)
“Why Silicon Valley Lost Its Patriotism - The tech industry was built in partnership with government, and it once pursued innovation as part of a shared national project.”, by Alexander C. Karp and Nicholas W. Zamiska, in The Atlantic, Feb 12, 2025
“Time of the Magicians - Wittgenstein, Benjamin, Cassirer, Heidegger, and the decade that reinvented philosophy”, by Wolfram Eilenberger (2020)
“The Gulf War’s Afterlife: Dilemmas, Missed Opportunities, and the Post-Cold War Order Undone”, by Samuel Helfont in the Taxes National Security Review, Spring 2021
“He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.” (Nietzsche) or “Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.” (Hemingway)
Not everyone agrees, of course. Very memorably, the Iowa Republican Congress Member Steve King asked in 2019: “If not for rape and incest, would there be any population left?”
In 1918, Bertrand Russell spent 6 months in Brixton prison for writing an editorial for a pacifist publication