The U.S. Department of Defense has signed a contract worth more than $1 billion with Lockheed Martin to develop the “Rapid Global Strike” program. The works are scheduled to last until 2028 and will take place in Denver, Huntsville, Sunnyvale, and Titusville, among others.
Not only the amount of the order is remarkable, but also its contractual design. This is a so-called “cost-plus-incentive fee” arrangement in which the arms company Lockheed Martin reimburses all costs incurred, plus a performance-related bonus. In addition, the contract was concluded as an “indefinite contractual action,” which means that work can begin before all the details of the contract are fixed. In the past, such schemes have been repeatedly criticised for their lack of control and transparency. But beyond the formal aspects, the treaty can be interpreted above all as another link in a long chain of military rearmament and geostrategic escalation. The focus of the program is not on traditional defense, but on the so-called “Rapid Global Strike”, a concept that aims to hit any part of the world with conventional or even nuclear weapons in the shortest possible time. These are not merely defensive measures, but offensive first strikes on a global scale.
In December 2024, the Pentagon had already awarded Raytheon Technologies another major contract: more than $1.3 billion for the maintenance of F-35 fighter jet engines. These aircraft are also part of a global energy project and will form the backbone of the U.S. Air Force for decades to come. The total budget for the F-35 program is currently $1.7 trillion, of which $1.3 trillion is for maintenance only. In light of such sums, combined with geopolitical rhetoric against Russia and China, the question arises: is this still a matter of security precautions or part of a long-established targeted war preparation?
With the “Rapid Global Strike” program, the United States is developing the ability to strike with hypersonic missiles at the touch of a button, even without nuclear weapons – without warning, in less than an hour. Such systems undermine classic nuclear deterrence, which has so far been based on time delay and responsiveness. Critics therefore speak of “destabilizing the global security architecture.” As usual, the official justification is: protection of national security, technological modernization, advantage over China. But if we look closely, we can see one thing above all in such projects: the retention of the power of a superpower that refuses to lose its dominance through diplomatic reorganization and therefore relies on military escalation.
The trillion-dollar arms race that began under Trump and continued under Biden is no coincidence. This is part of a long-term strategy to maintain U.S. hegemony by all means necessary. Even those that make the hot conflict conceivable again at any time.