The arms trade has been quiet in the paper since 2020, but the world it describes has not. Global military spending hit a record in 2025 and Europe is rearming fast, which is exactly when a dormant question wakes up.
An arms-trade question rewards a student who refuses the easy moral verdict. The weapons business plainly fuels killing, and yet a state with no means to defend itself is a state at the mercy of one that does. Argue the tension between moral cost and the hard logic of deterrence, and anchor it in a world that is visibly rearming.
This is one of the bank's better sleepers. Security and conflict surfaced in 2016 on whether countries in conflict should be left to sort out their own problems, in 2018 on the shared responsibility to counter terrorism, and last in 2020 on the arms trade itself. Five years on, the angle is overdue.
The news has made it impossible to ignore. World military spending reached a record in 2025, the eleventh straight annual rise, and Europe's arms imports have more than trebled in five years. When the real world is rearming on this scale, an examiner reading the paper has a live, dateable issue in front of them.
We flag this as foresight, not a forecast of wording. No one knows what the examiners will set. What we can say is that war, security and the arms trade are back in the headlines after a quiet stretch, and a quiet stretch is often when a question returns.
set at A-Level most recent appearance. Clustered around the late 2010s, then five years quiet. A genuine sleeper, and the world has rearmed since.
These questions test whether you can hold a hard moral fact and a hard strategic fact at once. The arms trade profits from war, and a defenceless state invites the very aggression it fears. A script that only condemns the trade, or only defends deterrence, has answered half the question.
They also test whether you can reason about the world as it is, not as it should be. An examiner wants argument about a system in which most states arm because their neighbours do, not a wish that no one armed at all.
Two distinct, defensible routes through the question. A strong script commits to one and uses the other as the concession it answers, rather than sitting on the fence.
The arms industry has a commercial stake in conflict, sells to regimes that abuse the weapons, and diverts vast resources from human need, which is hard to square with any claim that it serves peace.
In a world of real aggressors, a state that cannot defend itself is at the mercy of one that can, so a regulated arms industry is a grim necessity rather than a simple evil.
Military spending as a share of global GDP reached about 2.5 percent in 2025, its highest level since 2009, so the world is not just spending more in absolute terms but devoting a larger slice of its output to arms.Source: SIPRI, as of 2026-06
Ukraine was the world's largest recipient of major arms in 2021-2025, taking about 9.7 percent of all imports, up from 0.1 percent in the previous five years, a vivid measure of how fast a single war reshapes the trade.Source: SIPRI arms-transfers data, as of 2026-06
The arms-control framework exists on paper, including the Arms Trade Treaty, but states routinely sell to buyers a strict reading of those rules would exclude, which is the gap an essay can press on.Source: general arms-control record, as of 2026-06
The arms trade profits from fear. The trouble is that the fear is often real, and a defenceless state is not a moral one. It is a target.The tension the question turns on
Book a free trial lesson and see how we teach GP from the exam backwards, building the two-stance habit on issues exactly like this one.