The world today is a safer place than it was a hundred years ago, and governments should stop spending large amounts of money on their armed forces. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? v.2

It is now some time since the whole world 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. The last World War dates back nearly seventy years and, since 1945, no conflict has taken place in western countries. Thus, people have suggested that spending money on necessities within society instead of 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 has 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 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.