It is now some time since the whole universe was involved in one war. The world nowadays is no comparison to the past, when millions of soldiers were lost on the battlefield. As the world today is significantly safer than previously, it can be argued that governments should stop spending large amounts of money on their military forces. I agree that governments should not spend abundant money on the military.
The last World War dates back nearly seventy years and, since 1945, no conflict have taken place in western countries. Thus, people have suggested that spending money on necessities within society instead of the armed forces is more useful. However, this is very difficult, as even though no significant conflict has taken place in western countries, they are still involved in the conflicts of other countries. For example, the US contribution in the Iraqi war has only recently ended. For such involvement of military forces in foreign lands, countries still need to have strong armed forces, in case they are needed.
In some countries like the UK, the military is already significantly weaker than it has been in the past. However, historically, a hundred years is not that long and because no conflict happened recently, this does not mean that there will be no conflict in the future. At the outbreak of World War Two, the UK was seriously under-prepared, as it had been thought that the horrors of World War One had convinced everyone of the uselessness of war.
In conclusion, certain armed forces are necessary for major countries at least to protect their people, even though the world is safer than a hundred years ago. They might need to intervene in conflicts in other countries and world peace is by no means assured for the future. Also, It is advisable to the authorities not to allocate abundant money to have armed forces.
It is
now
some
time since the whole universe
was involved
in one
war
. The
world
nowadays is no comparison to the past, when millions of soldiers
were lost
on the battlefield. As the
world
today
is
significantly
safer than previously, it can
be argued
that
governments
should
stop
spending large amounts of
money
on their military
forces
. I
agree
that
governments
should not spend abundant
money
on the military.
The last
World
War
dates back
nearly
seventy years and, since 1945, no
conflict
have taken place in western
countries
.
Thus
,
people
have suggested that spending
money
on necessities within society
instead
of the
armed
forces
is more useful.
However
, this is
very
difficult, as
even though
no significant
conflict
has taken place in western
countries
, they are
still
involved in the
conflicts
of other
countries
.
For example
, the US contribution in the Iraqi
war
has
only
recently ended. For such involvement of military
forces
in foreign lands,
countries
still
need to have strong
armed
forces
, in case they
are needed
.
In
some
countries
like the UK, the military is already
significantly
weaker than it has been in the past.
However
,
historically
, a hundred years is not that long and
because
no
conflict
happened recently, this does not mean that there will be no
conflict
in the future. At the outbreak of
World
War
Two, the UK was
seriously
under-prepared, as it had been
thought
that the horrors of
World
War
One had convinced everyone of the uselessness of war.
In conclusion
, certain
armed
forces
are necessary for major
countries
at least to protect their
people
,
even though
the
world
is safer than a hundred years ago. They might need to intervene in
conflicts
in other
countries
and
world
peace is by no means assured for the future.
Also
, It is advisable to the authorities not to allocate abundant
money
to have
armed
forces
.