Understanding and Obtaining National Security

Question: Because of the ambiguity of the term “security”, can any country ever be fully secure?

No, this is an impossible scenario. The simple fact of living on earth precludes the possibility of an entirely secure nation. Even when disregarding organized human security threats, there will always remain threats of disease, technological malfunction, acts of God, and innumerable other scenarios. That even assumes that a world without opposing human forces, such as countries or armed factions, is possible, which, given the needs and aspirations of a society, is about as unlikely as anything. Opposition will always manifest, because humans are inherently self-interested, not community-interested. It is in the nature of evolution that we continue to do battle.

In the past few classes, the notion of being fully secure has repeatedly been explored. It is a state that I term “perfect security” Perfect security implies a total lack of opposition, both military and ideological, as well as faultless deterrence techniques against unforeseen non-human dangers. It is implausible, if not impossible, to reach this state. As one prominent Eastern philosopher would put it, security is “not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.”

This builds upon our argument in class. The question we debated was whether or not “national security” could be realistically defined, and, by extension, whether or not it is a relevant term. The other group took note of the political use of the phrase “national security”, especially in campaigns, and concluded that its vague and open-ended definition could be used to promote essentially any policy, rendering it irrelevant.

I agree with their assertion that the political usage is entirely meaningless. It’s a utopian vision that can be tailored to promote any action or policy. However, looking at the concept of national security from a wider historical viewpoint, there exists one constant motivation in each argument: the desire for greater deterrence capability against specific threats. National security is not a state of being, nor is it a stand-alone political platform. Rather, it is a direction pointed towards an inevitably unattainable goal that may be reached any number of ways. It is, admittedly, a very wide definition, and in practice provides no solid path or endpoint. But it is a definition, and one that can provide at least a basic sense of intent. That common quality in all arguments for national security provides relevance for the term’s continued use, if only to frame an argument in the appropriate context.