Governments across the world are moving away from pure globalized defense procurement and toward domestic production mandates. The shift is embedded in strategy documents, procurement regulations, and industrial funding programs.
The United States released a National Defense Strategy that prioritizes resilient supply chains and domestic manufacturing capacity. India has expanded domestic preference rules under its “Make in India” initiative and formalized them in its Defense Acquisition Procedure 2020, which gives priority to Indian-designed and Indian-manufactured systems. Canada recently announced measures aimed at strengthening domestic defense production and reducing reliance on foreign suppliers.
This pattern reflects a structural rethinking of how states define readiness. Access to advanced weapons no longer depends solely on purchase contracts. It depends on whether a country can produce, repair, and replenish systems without depending on fragile global supply chains.
India’s Push for Strategic Autonomy
India provides one of the clearest examples of deliberate defense self-reliance. The Ministry of Defence has issued “positive indigenisation lists” that restrict the import of hundreds of defense items and mandate domestic production over time. These lists cover everything from artillery systems to electronics components.
The Defense Acquisition Procedure 2020 created procurement categories such as “Buy (Indian – IIDM)” that prioritize equipment designed and manufactured in India. India has also increased defense exports significantly over the past decade, signaling that self-reliance does not mean isolation. Data show record defense export growth in recent years.
India’s motivation blends strategic autonomy with geopolitical realism. Historically dependent on foreign suppliers, particularly Russia, India experienced delays and vulnerability tied to external political shifts. Domestic production offers insulation from sanctions, supply disruption, and diplomatic leverage by supplier states.
The United States and Industrial Base Resilience
The United States has traditionally maintained the world’s largest defense industry, yet even Washington now frames industrial resilience as a national security imperative. Strategy emphasizes supply chain security, domestic production capacity, workforce development, and resilience in critical sectors such as munitions and microelectronics.
Congress has reinforced these priorities through statutes such as the Defense Production Act, which allows federal intervention to expand domestic production capacity in critical sectors. The COVID-19 pandemic, semiconductor shortages, and the strain on munitions stockpiles from the war in Ukraine exposed vulnerabilities in even the largest defense economy. Domestic production capacity is now treated as a core element of deterrence. The logic is straightforward: a country cannot deter effectively if it cannot replace expended weapons at scale.
Allies Reconsidering Dependence
Canada’s updated defense policy underscores supply chain security and domestic capability development. European Union institutions have also adopted measures aimed at strengthening the European defense industrial base, including financial mechanisms designed to encourage joint procurement and intra-European production.
These initiatives reflect lessons drawn from the war in Ukraine. Sustained high-intensity conflict consumes artillery shells, drones, missiles, and armored systems at rates that exceed peacetime production assumptions. Countries that relied on just-in-time procurement models discovered that global supply chains are optimized for cost, not for war.
Economic Nationalism or Strategic Realism?
Critics argue that domestic preference policies risk inefficiency, higher costs, and duplication across allied states. Defense procurement historically leveraged global specialization to reduce expense and promote interoperability. Domestic mandates may fragment supply chains and undermine alliance integration.
Trade law further complicates the picture. The World Trade Organization’s Government Procurement Agreement encourages open competition, yet national security exceptions allow states to restrict procurement for defense purposes. Governments increasingly rely on those exceptions to justify domestic preference rules.
Supporters counter that efficiency loses relevance if supply collapses during a crisis. A lower sticker price does not compensate for delayed delivery in wartime. Domestic capacity also supports employment, technological development, and export potential. India’s export growth suggests that self-reliance can coexist with global market participation.
The debate ultimately turns on how states weigh economic efficiency against strategic resilience.
The Geopolitical Consequences
If this trend continues, global defense markets may reorganize around regional blocs. The United States, European Union, India, and other major producers could each consolidate internal supply chains while maintaining selective export relationships. Strategic competition with China and Russia reinforces this fragmentation.
Industrial self-reliance also reshapes deterrence calculations. Production capacity becomes part of military credibility. A state that can rapidly surge missile output signals endurance. A state dependent on foreign supply signals vulnerability.
At the same time, complete self-sufficiency remains unrealistic. Modern weapons systems rely on globally sourced components, including rare earth minerals, semiconductors, and precision electronics. Even the most ambitious industrial policies must grapple with interdependence.
Where the Trend Is Heading
Defense self-reliance appears less like a temporary reaction and more like a structural adjustment to a more contested international order. Strategic competition, supply chain shocks, and high-intensity warfare have altered procurement assumptions.
The critical question is not whether countries will pursue domestic defense production. They already are. The question is how far they will go before alliance integration and economic efficiency push back.
Industrial policy now sits at the center of national security planning. The countries that balance resilience, innovation, and cooperation most effectively will likely shape the next era of military power.
