As we all know, the arms industry depends on war to up its sales. We also know that these sales need supplementation when war is less prevalent at times. Lockheed Martin for example, makes up 86% of the United State’s Defense sales. But if we look to others, we see Russia, from Cold War times, China, France, Germany, the UK, there are billions of dollars accounted for in the defense industry. Most of the top exporters are utilizing private banks to draw in capital and invest or spend in the defense industry. Your shares, your savings, are being revitalized in the arms dealings of the world and out of either paranoia or common sense, you already know that it’s happening. In the past few years, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Colombia, have seeked out weapons obtainment to beef up their arsenals, leading to a spike of sales. Barclays, a British bank, is one to be heavily invested in arms trading. With a portfolio aiding to the industry worth up to $8 billion. In recent years they have shyed away from these numbers due to the backlash of human rights violations attributed to such sales. The initial investments of private banks see more controversial publicity from its patrons because of these irreversible involvements in foreign wars. We could look to the sales of weapons to Saudi Arabia and see the accusations of the international community regarding such atrocities with the Yemen Civil War, for example. When the matter of socio-political advantages merge with the consumer oriented private banks, there is an imbalance of priorities mainly attributed to money. Money, money, money. This is seems to always be the outlying cause of both accusation and involvement. Is there leverage to these predicaments? Yes, because money is how the world still turns apparently in the world of politics. Hence, your need to supply these banks with money to, in the end, supply war. Is this ethical? Is this your role to the current international arena?