By Juan Pablo Toro
There is a growing consensus that the world increasingly resembles a pre-war era, similar to the 1930s. In this scenario, one sector seems to benefit unequivocally: the defense industry. Nations are equipping themselves with tools to survive and gain the upper hand in the competitive arena among states. Thinking tragically to avoid tragedy, as realists would say, today means investing in armed forces.
As a result of the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, the possibility of a conflict between China and its neighbors, and the U.S. retrenchment in Asia, hundreds of billions of dollars, euros, renminbi, yen, and rupees are being funneled into military procurement—ranging from tanks and fighter jets to drones and missiles. The European Union, for example, established a rearmament fund of €800 billion; China increased its military budget by 7.2% this year, and the U.S. approved its defense budget in advance.
Particularly, Vladimir Putin’s illegal and unprovoked invasion, now entering its fourth year, serves as a reminder that wars are not always pristine or high-tech. They involve attrition, logistics, and the need to use, consume, replenish, and reuse resources.
Until now, the classification of “critical” or “strategic” minerals has mostly been tied to their role in the energy transition—decarbonizing economies to mitigate climate change. However, today’s volatile geopolitical landscape requires a broader view, including minerals essential for weapon systems and munitions. Even in 2017, when there were no major wars, the Pentagon consumed around 750,000 metric tons of minerals annually for military technology.
There are different interpretations of what constitutes a “critical” or “strategic” mineral, usually derived from a cross-analysis of its economic value, projected demand, and accessibility. Scarcity, concentration in small or geopolitically risky deposits, and vulnerabilities in supply chains all factor into the equation. In fact, countries often maintain similar criteria when defining their official lists of strategic resources.
The International Institute for Strategic Studies recently published infographics demonstrating how various minerals are embedded in standard military platforms—battle tanks, fighter jets, and naval frigates. Aluminum, cobalt, iron, lithium, molybdenum, manganese, silver, rare earth elements, and zinc all appear in hulls, sensors, casings, propulsion systems, and guided missile components.
From this, one can infer that as global demand for defense industry output grows, so too will competition for critical mineral supplies. Countries will ramp up search efforts and extraction initiatives for minerals with “strategic” characteristics tied specifically to defense.
In the context of the trade war initiated by former President Donald Trump, China responded by halting rare earth exports to U.S. firms. These elements are essential for powering next-generation fighter jets and guiding missile fins with precision. Meanwhile, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) recently released a list of 12 minerals considered essential for the defense industry.
Due to its geological characteristics, a significant portion of the periodic table’s elements can be found in Chile. The country’s vast reserves of critical defense-related minerals (not just those tied to the energy transition) will only increase its strategic relevance in securing global supply chains. This includes the economic opportunities such positioning could bring.
At the same time this article is being written, the FIDAE airshow featured the debut of heavy tanks weighing between 55 and 65 tons. One country alone acquired 180 South Korean Panther K2 tanks and is expected to purchase 100 more. It’s likely they won’t be the last to shop around. Perhaps someone at Expomin should start preparing for next week.
Juan Pablo Toro is Executive Director of AthenaLab