Special Insight Article for Nomos Centre for Future Warfare (NCFW) by Cian Michael Westmoreland, former US Air Force Drone Technician.
"Whoever controls the territory possesses it; possession is a matter of technology."— Carl Schmitt, The Nomos of the Earth (1950)
In the annals of history, warfare has been the domain of states - kings, generals, and parliaments directing armies to defend borders or conquer foes. Today, that script is being rewritten. Private individuals - tech moguls like Elon Musk, Alex Karp, Palmer Luckey, Peter Thiel, Mark Schwarz and Jeff Bezos - are not just spectators or profiteers of war; they are architects of its newest frontiers. Through emerging technologies like artificial intelligence (AI), autonomous drones, satellite networks, and data analytics, these billionaires wield influence that rivals nation-states, often operating in shadows cast by their own innovations. This article explores their roles, the murky networks they inhabit, and my own perspective as a veteran of technologically enhanced network centric warfare with the United States Air Force in Kandahar in 2009.
The Privatization of War: Power Beyond the Pentagon
Warfare in the 21st century is no longer confined to tanks and missiles; it’s fought in cyberspace, low Earth orbit, and the neural networks of AI systems. Private individuals have seized this shift, leveraging their companies and Venture Capitalist funding to shape conflicts in ways that blur the line between commerce and combat. Elon Musk’s SpaceX, for instance, provides Starlink satellites that have become indispensable in Ukraine, keeping communication lines open amid Russia’s invasion (Sheetz, 2023). Yet, Musk’s influence isn’t merely logistical; reports suggest he’s held direct talks with Vladimir Putin, raising questions about how his business decisions intersect with geopolitics (Mac & Isaac, 2024). Jeff Bezos’s Amazon Web Services (AWS) now under Andrew Jassy secures Pentagon and CIA contracts worth billions, hosting sensitive data and enabling cloud-based military and intelligence operations, while his Blue Origin eyes space as a new theater of dominance (González, 2024).
Meanwhile, Peter Thiel’s Palantir aggregates battlefield data for the U.S. military, turning raw information into actionable intelligence - a role that’s earned it contracts exceeding $900 million (González, 2024). Palmer Luckey’s Anduril takes this further, building autonomous drones, command and control software and surveillance systems that redefine the soldier’s role, often bypassing traditional defense giants like Lockheed Martin (Wakabayashi, 2025). Bill Gates, though less overtly militaristic, shapes the landscape indirectly - his investments in AI and biotech through the Gates Foundation influence technologies that could one day weaponize health or cognition (Gates, 2021).
The (in)visibility of their involvement is striking. Musk’s Starlink deployment was hailed as humanitarian aid, yet its strategic value to Ukraine’s military is undeniable - and largely uncommented upon in mainstream narratives. Bezos’s AWS contracts are buried in financial reports, obscured by the sheen of Amazon’s consumer empire. Thiel and Luckey, operating through “Little Tech” firms, avoid the scrutiny leveled at Big Tech, their billions quietly reshaping warfare under the guise of innovation. This network of actors - tech CEOs, venture capitalists, and Pentagon intermediaries - forms a modern military-industrial-intelligence technology complex where profit and power intertwine, often beyond public accountability.
Emerging technologies amplify this opacity. AI-driven weapons, like those Luckey’s Anduril develops, can operate with minimal human oversight, their decision-making algorithms proprietary and unscrutinized (Wakabayashi, 2025). Satellite constellations, such as Musk’s Starlink, offer dual-use capabilities - civilian internet today, military surveillance tomorrow - without clear disclosure of their full scope (Sheetz, 2023). The net of actors extends beyond these titans to startups like Shield AI and HawkEye 360, funded by Thiel and others, creating a sprawling ecosystem where warfare is as much a business pitch as a battlefield strategy (CSIS, 2025).
"Technology is a useful servant but a dangerous master."- Christian Lous Lange, Nobel Peace Prize Lecture (1921)
In Kandahar in 2009, I will never forget the day my/our system went online at the 73rd Expeditionary Air Control Squadron. Seemingly non-violent technical acts we were trained to do came to a head when we started hearing battle managers coordinating airstrikes from within the Operations Modules. Radios and servers patched into distant ends, transferring enormous amounts of encrypted Command and Control data, enriched with surveillance - passing unimpeded through airwaves - like invisible nervous systems for a larger organism with many moving parts across a globe - culminating in the destruction of human histories at the push of a button by some nihilistic kid drinking a Monster in a Ground Control Unit in Sin City, Nevada.
Today we are considered mere support, 400 years ago we would been seen as dark sorcerers performing rituals and spells to deprive the heavens of its sanctuary. The button pusher’s buttons do nothing without a technician’s intervention, we kill by letting our systems breath. I understood this wasn’t like war in the past, that my role as a connector and enabler had network effects that created more potential harm than anyone involved in my profession wants to think about.
Certainly, one doesn’t imagine Mark Zuckerberg losing any sleep at night about the countless suicides that have occurred due to cyber bullying through his platform, or the innumerable incidents of child pornography being shared which are enabled entirely by the network effects his application facilitates. User’s don’t think about us until something breaks, our invisibility is a testament to our success. Unlike Facebook, our network’s primary objective was to cause harm, to “drop warheads on foreheads” and to protect our arbitrators of violence in places we never had any good moral or strategic reason for being in the first place. Our role in war deviates into accepting deterministic outcomes, hindering on necro-politics. We were awarded for our dispassionate efficiency in all that we facilitated.
Not to be hyperbolic, but as a technician I found myself occupying a similar position I can’t help but relate to that of a functionary in a concentration camp ( eg. IBM’s role) - only distributed - and instead of CS gas our executioners used algorithmic justifications and $150,000 missiles that incrementally increased shareholder value on every deployment. Human lives reduced to command lines by people who didn’t even have the courtesy of looking people in the eye before they made the decision to play God.
These new “God’s of War”, these “Invisible Generals” find comfort in statistical algorithms much like Robert MacNamara did in his failed war in Vietnam, and they likely never pause to think about the cumulative net consequences of their system’s misuse, or utter failures to exercise principles of proportionality and distinction, chalking errors up to a bump in the way of progress.
Reflecting on this, I find myself questioning the narratives I’m fed. The establishment paints Musk as a visionary, Bezos as a retail king, Gates as a philanthropist - yet their fingerprints on warfare are unmistakable (undeniable). I’ve dwelt on the consequences of my life every day since I became part of the violent enterprise of war, I’ve watched private companies with their own compartmentalized security clearances plug into our systems ad-hoc, only further amplifying and obfuscating what I must eventually answer to God for one day.
Musk’s Starlink isn’t just a lifeline; it’s a geopolitical lever. Thiel’s Palantir isn’t merely analytics; it’s a panopticon for the state. Luckey’s drones and Lattice framework don’t just innovate; they autonomize killing. This isn’t conspiracy - it’s pattern recognition.
My perspective isn’t just moral outrage at this point, however deep it is; I’ve spent far too long in the gutter of my soul. Instead, it’s a cold clarity: these individuals wield power that outstrips democratic oversight, they are killers too, and their technologies accelerate a future where war is less accountable, more pervasive, and harder to trace. As far as society has labeled me a “whistleblower”, I feel compelled to lift the veil - not simply condemn, but to reveal. The nuance lies in their intent: Musk may see Starlink as a tool for freedom, Gates and Nadella may view Azure cloud services as a global good, yet the outcomes serve war machines as readily as they serve humanity which is so glaringly obvious to anyone paying attention.
The Bigger Picture: A Call for Dialogue
The rise of these tech titans in warfare isn’t a fluke; it’s a symptom of a broader shift. States once monopolized violence, but privatization has eroded that boundary. The Pentagon now leans on Silicon Valley, outsourcing innovation to billionaires who answer to shareholders, not citizens (González, 2024). This isn’t inherently evil - Starlink’s role in Ukraine saved lives as much as it takes them - but it’s unchecked. Who decides when Musk toggles satellite access? Who audits Palantir’s data? Who tests Anduril’s drones before they kill?
History offers warnings. The East India Company, a private entity, waged wars for profit in the 18th century, its power unchecked until it imploded (Robins, 2006). Today’s tech moguls aren’t colonizing with muskets, but their tools - AI, satellites, drones - could destabilize just as profoundly. The difference is scale: their reach is global, their impact instantaneous. Yet, their visibility remains low, masked by corporate PR and the complexity of their tech.
I urge dialogue. Public scrutiny must match their influence. Regulators should demand transparency on dual-use technologies. Citizens should question why unelected billionaires shape wars. I see the data points aligning: power concentrates, accountability fades, and warfare evolves beyond our grasp. The future of conflict isn’t just in the hands of states—it’s in the servers, satellites, and minds of a few men. We can’t afford to look away.
References
1. CSIS. (2025). The tech revolution and irregular warfare: Leveraging commercial innovation. Center for Strategic and International Studies. https://www.csis.org
2. Gates, B. (2021). How to avoid a climate disaster: The solutions we have and the breakthroughs we need. Knopf.
3. González, R. J. (2024). How Big Tech and Silicon Valley are transforming the military-industrial complex. Brown University Costs of War Project. https://www.commondreams.org
4. Mac, R., & Isaac, M. (2024, October 25). Elon Musk’s secret talks with Putin raise security concerns. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com
5. Robins, N. (2006). The corporation that changed the world: How the East India Company shaped the modern multinational. Pluto Press.
6. Sheetz, M. (2023, March 15). SpaceX’s Starlink sees growing military demand as Ukraine war continues. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com
7. Wakabayashi, D. (2025, January 20). Palmer Luckey’s Anduril bets big on autonomous warfare. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com
Table: Private Individuals Impact On War
Name | Company | Role | Individual Net Worth | Agency Contracts | Domains Affected | Conflicts Involved In |
Elon Musk | SpaceX | CEO & Co-Founder | ~$400B | DOD ($100s of millions for launches, $70M+ Starshield satcom), Starlink Gaza (Israel-approved, 2023), Ukraine ($80M+). | Space (satellites, launches), communications (Starlink, Starshield). | Starlink Ukraine/Gaza control debates (Hamas risk); DOGE bias concerns; X anti-Semitism flak (Nov 2023). |
Alex Karp | Palantir | CEO & Co-Founder | ~$10B | DOD ($800M Army deal), DHS ($100s of millions), IDF contracts (Gaza ops, undisclosed value). | Intelligence, data analytics, AI-driven logistics. | ICE surveillance, Gaza ops backlash; war-on-terror DHS/Pentagon ties; consortium monopoly criticism. |
Palmer Luckey | Anduril | Founder | ~$2.5B | DOD ($250M counter-UAS), CBP ($100M+ border tech), OpenAI collaboration (2024, value TBD). | Command and control (via Lattice), autonomous systems (drones), border security, counter-UAS. | Border surveillance ethics; autonomous weapons alarm critics; OpenAI tie-up upset anti-defense staff. |
Jeff Bezos | Blue Origin / Amazon | Founder / Chairman (Amazon ex-CEO & Founder) | ~$250B | AWS: CIA ($600M), NSA ($10B), Nimbus with Google ($1.2B for IDF), DHS/Pentagon ($44.7B since 2004). | Space (lunar landers), cloud computing, logistics. | AWS CIA/NSA/IDF Nimbus and $44.7B war-on-terror haul spark privacy fears; Blue Origin lags SpaceX. |
Peter Thiel | Palantir / Anduril | Co-Founder / Investor | ~$11B | Indirect via Palantir (DOD/DHS) and Anduril (DOD/CBP); Clearview AI (DOD, undisclosed). | AI, autonomous systems, cybersecurity (via portfolio). | Political sway (e.g., Vance), consortium role, war-on-terror surveillance ties raise collusion fears. |
Hal Lambert / Richard Schwartz | Clearview AI | Co-CEOs | Not publicly listed (Lambert ~$50M est., Schwartz unknown) | DOD (Army/Air Force, undisclosed), Ukraine ($100K+ in searches), ICE (undisclosed). | Facial recognition, intelligence, OSINT. | Privacy lawsuits (e.g., $30.5M Dutch fine), bans in EU/Canada, ethical concerns over mass surveillance. |
Mark Schwartz | Google (Alphabet) | Google Public Sector Lead | Not publicly listed | DOD ($1B+ cloud/AI), Nimbus with AWS ($1.2B for IDF), Pentagon/DHS ($44.7B war-on-terror since 2004). | Cloud computing, AI, military simulations. | Maven revolt; IDF AI tools (Gemini, post-Oct 7), $44.7B war-on-terror contracts fuel ethics fire. |
Jensen Huang | Nvidia | CEO & Co-Founder | ~$105B | DOD ($700M supercomputing), indirect support via Google/AWS/IDF AI contracts (values TBD). | AI hardware, autonomous systems, simulations. | Chip supply risks amid U.S.-China tensions; military AI autonomy concerns; indirect war-on-terror support. |
Eric Hipkins | Booz Allen Hamilton | CEO | Not publicly listed | DOD ($6.8B annually), Palantir partnership (Dec 2024, value TBD), DHS war-on-terror deals ($100sM). | Cybersecurity, AI, defense IT infrastructure. | DOD bureaucracy criticism; Palantir tie-up seen as opportunistic; war-on-terror contracts bolster role. |
Charles Woodburn | BAE Systems (U.S. arm) | CEO (plc) | Not publicly listed | DOD ($15B in U.S. sales, e.g., electronic warfare systems), Navy contracts (e.g., $100sM for M777). | Electronic warfare, combat systems, aerospace. | Legacy prime status draws new tech rivalry; U.K.-U.S. ties complicate exports; less war-on-terror overlap. |
Steve Wadey | QinetiQ (U.S. ops) | CEO | Not publicly listed | DOD ($100M+ robotics/testing), U.K. MOD spillover (undisclosed U.S. value). | Robotics, testing systems, autonomous tech. | Minor U.S. role limits conflicts; U.K.-based testing tied to controversial arms, not war-on-terror heavy. |
Eyal Waldman | Mellanox (ex-Nvidia) | Ex-CEO & Co-Founder | ~$1.5B (pre-Nvidia exit) | Pre-acquisition: DOD networking (undisclosed); now Nvidia’s DOD ($700M supercomputing). | Networking, AI infrastructure (military data systems). | Mellanox’s Israeli roots, Nvidia merger flagged in U.S.-China rivalry; indirect war-on-terror role. |
References
Bloomberg. (2025). Bloomberg billionaires index. https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/(Used for real-time net worth estimates, e.g., Musk ~$400B, Bezos ~$250B, Huang ~$105B, Karp ~$10B, Thiel ~$11B, updated daily in 2025).
Defense News. (2024). Top 100 defense companies 2024. https://www.defensenews.com/top-100/(Source for defense revenue figures, e.g., Booz Allen $6.8B, BAE Systems $15B U.S. sales, informed agency contracts).
Forbes. (2025). The world’s real-time billionaires. https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/(Primary source for net worth: Musk ~$400B, Bezos ~$250B, Huang ~$105B, Karp ~$10B, Thiel ~$11B, Luckey ~$2.5B, Waldman ~$1.5B pre-exit, updated Feb 2025).
Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance. (2024, June 11). Pentagon embracing SpaceX’s Starshield for future military satcom. Missile Defense Advocacy Organization. https://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/space-news/pentagon-embracing-spacexs-starshield-for-future-military-satcom/(Details SpaceX’s $70M+ Starshield DOD contract and 100+ satellite plan).
Reuters. (2025, February 11). Elon Musk’s US Department of Defense contracts. https://www.reuters.com(Covers SpaceX’s DOD launch contracts in the hundreds of millions, broader Musk-DOD ties).
SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute). (2023). SIPRI top 100 arms-producing and military services companies, 2023. https://www.sipri.org/databases/armsindustry(Supports BAE Systems’ $15B U.S. revenue, broader defense contract context).
Space.com. (2023, November 29). Elon Musk, Israel agree on use of SpaceX Starlink satellite internet in Gaza. Space.com. https://www.space.com/elon-musk-israel-starlink-gaza(Details Starlink’s Gaza deployment with Israeli approval, no specific value).
The Verge. (2025, January 22). Google reportedly worked with Israel Defense Forces on AI contracts. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2025/1/22/24349582/google-israel-defense-forces-idf-contract-gaza(Reports Google’s IDF AI tools post-Oct 7, 2023, via $1.2B Nimbus with AWS).
U.S. Department of Defense. (2025). Contracts. https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/(Official DOD contract announcements, e.g., Feb 2025 posts for $7.5M+ deals, informs contracts like Anduril $250M, Nvidia $700M, general DOD revenue).
Vice. (2021, September 9). Big tech has made billions off the 20-year war on terror. Vice. https://www.vice.com/en/article/big-tech-has-made-billions-off-the-20-year-war-on-terror/(Cites $44.7B Pentagon/DHS contracts since 2004 for Amazon, Google, etc.).
Washington Post. (2025, January 21). Google rushed to sell AI tools to Israel’s military after Hamas attack. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/01/21/google-ai-israel-war-hamas-attack-gaza/(Details Google’s IDF AI push, e.g., Gemini, via $1.2B Nimbus, post-Oct 7).
Kommentare