In the shadow of rising geopolitical instability and amid warnings of renewed great-power conflict, European governments are on a buying spree: not of food or fuel, but of explosive weapons. Over the past year, the U.S. State Department approved over $3 billion in arms sales to Europe. Most of it is destined for stockpiling bombs, missiles, air-defence systems and other munitions. Officially, the purchases are framed as investments in NATO interoperability and deterrence. In practice, they signal a deeper shift: the remilitarisation of European economies, where arms are not just instruments of defence, but engines of political alignment, industrial growth and ethical compromise.
The scale of arms procurement is striking. Poland is acquiring $1.33 billion worth of AIM‑120D air-to-air missiles and $180 million in GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs. Norway, Türkiye, Italy and Romania are also lining up for American-made air defence and attack systems. Estonia’s $300 million order for Javelin anti-tank missiles is one of the largest US-EU sales of its kind, while Bosnia and Herzegovina is set to purchase $100 million worth of helicopters for “border security”.
Many of these purchased weapons are marketed as precise and “low-collateral”. The GBU-39, for example, is a 250-lb GPS-guided glide bomb designed to carry more ordnance per aircraft and to reduce the probability of collateral damage. Yet precision does not remove the inherent lethality. When these weapons miss, overshoot or are used in densely populated areas, the blast and fragmentation still maim and kill indiscriminately.
This pattern is not confined to NATO.
Switzerland, long associated with neutrality, has quietly joined the global arms bazaar. In the first half of 2025, Swiss weapons exports surged by over 20 percent, reaching 358 million Swiss francs. Major buyers included Saudi Arabia and Qatar, both active in regional conflicts and criticised for human rights abuses. The export hike comes amid a domestic political shift: Swiss legislators are pushing to loosen long-standing restrictions, including measures to allow re-export of Swiss arms without consent. Civil society groups are aghast. The NGO Group for a Switzerland without an Army summed up the criticism: “Switzerland should actively promote peace instead of gleefully profiting from this macabre business.”
Britain, on the other hand, has shifted from importing munitions to making them at home. The Defence Secretary has openly described munitions as “the foundation of our ability to fight and win on the battlefield” and even as an “engine for growth”. BAE Systems is constructing three new sites and deploying mobile manufacturing units for RDX and other propellants. A new Glascoed facility in Wales is slated to increase 155mm artillery shell output by a factor of sixteen.
The goal is to be “ITAR-free”: able to sell and buy munitions without U.S. export restrictions. It is an industrial response to the war in Ukraine, but also a hedge against American political volatility under a second Trump presidency. In Canada, Prime Minister, Mark Carney, has warned of “America’s threats to our very sovereignty” and pledged to double defence spending to over $110 billion by 2035. Even Europe’s logistics hubs are preparing for conflict: the Port of Rotterdam, Europe’s largest seaport, now reserves special berths for NATO weapons shipments in the event of full-scale war with Russia.
While governments focus on strategy and stockpiles, the actual use of these weapons paints a worrying picture and one that rarely makes it into policy briefs or corporate press releases. Bombs have a habit of being used in the most awful of contexts, a truism that needs repeating.
In Gaza, UN investigators have documented Israeli strikes using U.S.-made GBU-31s, GBU-32s and GBU-39s (the very same munitions European governments are acquiring) on schools, refugee camps and residential neighbourhoods. UN officials concluded that Israel’s campaign “consistently violated” the international obligation to minimise civilian harm in conflict. Yet, these same weapons have – at least until recently – continue to be traded freely with Israel, often by European governments that publicly profess horror at their effects. The number of countries that have both signed the Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences Arising from the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas and also are arming Israel is of deep concern.
As AOAV has long documented, the use of explosive weapons in populated areas produces overwhelming civilian casualties, often upwards of 90 percent.
Whether a 250-lb bomb or a 155 mm shell, the physics of blast and fragmentation mean that in populated areas civilian harm is inevitable. Buildings collapse, fires ignite, infrastructure is destroyed and survivors live with permanent injury and trauma.
Yet in arms contract briefings, corporate statements and legislative debates, this human cost is barely mentioned.
This is not just a procurement story; it is a moral one. Nations are increasingly choosing security over peace, production over protection and armament over accountability. The question is no longer whether Europe is rearming, but whether, in doing so, it is normalising a future in which explosive weapons are not exceptional instruments of war but everyday tools of policy. The devastation in Gaza and Ukraine shows what that future looks like.
Did you find this story interesting? Please support AOAV's work and donate.
Donate