A government has a responsibility to its citizens to ensure their safety. Therefore, some people think that the government should increase spending on defence but spend less on social benefits. To what extent do you agree?

As we move deeper into the third decade of the 21st century, tensions between Western and Eastern

countries

Use synonyms

are growing. Some argue that we should redirect funding from social benefits to defence spending, arguing that the

government

Use synonyms

has a responsibility to ensure the safety of its

citizens

Use synonyms

.

However

Linking Words

, I do not agree with

this

Linking Words

point. Increasing military spending would not necessarily lead to greater

prosperity

Use synonyms

, and could even escalate tensions

further

Linking Words

.

To begin

Linking Words

, it's important to recognize that simply increasing financial resources does not automatically lead to greater

prosperity

Use synonyms

for a country.

For example

Linking Words

,

while

Linking Words

purchasing new equipment for the army may be important for national defence, it does not necessarily improve the standard of living for the general population.

Instead

Linking Words

, the

government

Use synonyms

can create a more level playing field for all

citizens

Use synonyms

by implementing effective social benefit

programs

Use synonyms

. These

programs

Use synonyms

can help provide support for those who are struggling and ensure that everyone has access to basic necessities like healthcare and education. By investing in these kinds of

programs

Use synonyms

, the

government

Use synonyms

can help create a more equitable society and improve the

overall

Linking Words

well-being of its

citizens

Use synonyms

.

Secondly

Linking Words

, increasing military resources can often lead to disagreements between neighbouring

countries

Use synonyms

. When one country takes steps to strengthen its military capabilities, its neighbours may feel threatened and respond in kind.

This

Linking Words

can create a cycle of escalation and ultimately lead to a stalemate where both sides are spending a great deal of money on military reinforcement without achieving any significant advantage over the other.

Therefore

Linking Words

, it is often more productive for

countries

Use synonyms

to focus on improving their economies rather than their military capabilities. In the current public debate, there is often an argument that social benefit

programs

Use synonyms

make

people

Use synonyms

lazy and disinclined to work.

This

Linking Words

has led some to suggest that it would be better to spend

this

Linking Words

money on military or other initiatives

instead

Linking Words

.

However

Linking Words

,

this

Linking Words

argument is misguided. In reality, it is much more effective for the

government

Use synonyms

to help

people

Use synonyms

return to the workforce rather than simply cutting social benefits. By providing training, education, and other forms of support, the

government

Use synonyms

can help

people

Use synonyms

gain the skills they need to find good jobs and support themselves and their families.

This

Linking Words

approach not only improves

people

Use synonyms

's lives but

also

Linking Words

leads to greater economic growth and

prosperity

Use synonyms

for everyone. In conclusion, it is not true that by increasing military spending, the

government

Use synonyms

can ensure the safety of its

citizens

Use synonyms

. It may actually trigger similar mobilization in foreign

countries

Use synonyms

, resulting in an arms race.

Moreover

Linking Words

, cutting back on social benefit

programs

Use synonyms

would not contribute to the general

prosperity

Use synonyms

of the country.