whether to allocate a huge of money for defense is right policy

Topic: A country's first duty to its citizens is to protect them. Therefore, it is logical that defense should take up a significant proportion of the national budget. In what extent do you agree or disagree?

The matter whether the government should be invested a considerable amount of the national budget in defense remains controversial. Some people believe this policy brings a lot of benefits outweighed its drawbacks while others claim that the opposite is true. I am convinced by the latter view because of following reasons.

The first argument in favor of this policy is that big investment in defense can create some economic merits. While the government might gain significant profit from selling weapons to other countries, its citizens can devote all their energy to work and contribute to grow the economy. However, in my view, there would be a lot of disadvantages overshadowed advantages above if the policy were to come true. The first reason is that in order to receive amount of profit, the government have to invest a huge of capital in defense industry, leading to every small benefit in terms of rate of return and enormous sacrifice in other sectors, such as education. Another is that because of the shortage of capital allocated to developing economy, there are not enough jobs for people although they can work very effective in this secure environment.

The other point in support for this statement is strong defense brings political merits. Whereas the government might gain advantages in negotiation with other countries in case of occurring disputes, its citizens are protected from foreign threats. Nevertheless, I do believe this policy could causes greater downside in politic. The first is that it is so difficult to maintain these advantages, especially in long-term because other countries also spend the same or even greater money on strengthening their defense. Other argument is that whether its citizens are saved from threats abroad when its investment in defense can cause an arms race in region and bad relationship with the neighboring nations.

To conclude, I contend that big investment in defense isn't the good way of spending national budget. This policy doesn't bring high profit and isn't a smart measure to protect its citizens.

Another argument is that whether its citizens are saved from threats abroad when its investment in defense can cause an arms race in region and bad relationships with the neighboring nations.

In conclusion , I contend that big investment in defense isn't the best way of spending national budget.

Thanks Susan! I always appreciate your comments.

Some people believe this policy brings a lot of benefits outweighed its drawbacks while others claim that the opposite is true. --> the full sentence I want to express is "some people believe this policy brings a lot of benefits which outweigh its drawbacks while others claim that opposite is true". However I have one grammar mistake with the word "outweighed".

However, in my view, there would be a lot of disadvantages overshadowed advantages above if the policy were to come true. -> I intend to express that if this police were to realize, its disadvantages are greater than its advantages. Nevertheless, I use wrong words. Could you tell me in this sentence I should use what word?

In conclusion = To conclude?

Yes, but actually many teachers advise against using words like that in the essay. They say the conclusion should not have words like that. Instead, it should just be written in a way that makes the reader know that it is the conclusion. But what you say is true: if you want to write "In conclusion..." that is the same as writing "To conclude..."

I'll try to help, because Susan is not here today:

However, in my view, there would be a lot of disadvantages would overshadow the advantages above if the policy were to be implemented. come true.

I intend to express that if this police policy were to be realized, its disadvantages would be gre ater than its advantages.
;-)