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 extend do you agree or disagree with this statement?

The current state of the world could be considered less dangerous compared to a century ago, and the authorities should spend less money on the armed forces. In

this

case, I would like to agree with the statement. There are some reasons why I agree which I will discuss in

this

essay.

Firstly

, the state of the world is completely different from a hundred years ago. A hundred years ago there might have been a lot of conflicts going on, especially in the 1930s up until the 1940s when there was a world war. Under the risk

of

Change preposition

that

show examples

an insurgence might occur any time of day, having sufficient armed forces to protect one's country is a necessity. But nowadays I would argue there are only a small amount of insurgence is happening,

therefore

buying a massive amount of offensive and defensive products is not necessarily the best choice.

Secondly

, the issue has evolved into a digital threat.

It is clear that

technology has been more advanced than it ever has at the present moment.

Accordingly

, the hazard has

also

shifted from physical to digital. It is uncommon to see on the news a data breach or a data leakage, and those are two examples of danger that should be addressed immediately. Putting a lot of money and effort into increasing the nation's digital security is an urgent matter in my opinion as the data contains a humongous number of personal information that could harm plenty of people if it is used inappropriately. In summary, it is unnecessary to allocate a huge amount of budget for physical artillery and it is wise to use it more on improving digital security as the kind of threat has

also

changed in the past century.