What is security?

[Britboy]

Afternoon everyone,

Was just pondering in my own mind what security is. The state is meant to guarantee it - indeed a definition of a state is 'the authority that has the right to wield force' to keep its citizens safe - it is the first duty of any state to establish a system and area that keeps its people safe from the anarchical international system.

This got me thinking, militaries are supposed to deliver security for society on behalf of the state - tasks such as guaranteeing territorial integrity, deterring foreign aggression, evacuating ex-pats from strife in other countries.

Undoubtedly this is of massive importance, but to what extent can militaries guarantee the whole spectrum of security? Even including other services such as the intelligence services, police, coastguard etc, who may be needed to combat terrorism for example, to what extent can these deliver all-aspect security?

For what its worth, I believe that other factors are important too. Security is more than Defence, although Defence is plainly a v large contributor to Security. Wider security must encompass economic stability, suppression of crime and corruption, maintenance of health and infrastructure, provision of justice and a governmental/societal system that is essentially acknowledged as being 'fair', in order to create the conditions in which people and industriousness can exist and thrive. As an example, look at Zimbabwe and perhaps Iraq now. No foreign Army threatens to invade next week, yet still, their lot is far from a happy one.

So what does MP.net think?

Is security just the absence of conflict, or is a wider, more hard to pin down state of affairs?

To what extent do you accept the concept of Human Security?

Regards
BB

[DesktopArmor]

I think that in the end, it is not as much the purely physical security ubt the psycological security that is the end goal. You can be completely safe from harm, yet live in a state of paranoia that prevents you from exercising your freedoms and desires. Likewise, you can live every part of your life unchanged even if you know you aren't 100% secure, and that the actual probability of harm is very small. 100% security strikes me as impossible, so I guess I'd say that security is the creating of a stae in which other freedoms/liberties can be exercised without fear of violence, harasment, intimidation. And I think most of that is psycological, not just dependent on the physical state of security.

[Britboy]

Interesting, so security isn't a tangible outcome, but rather the effect of allowing normalcy, in your view?

I wonder to what extent the physical realities of a situ can change, without severely affecting the majority of the population's sense of normalcy, i.e. willingness to still go out in the world, go to work, live life. That value would be, I suppose, that society's 'robustness' to external risks.

It is far less straightforward trying to create a psychological climate of normalcy for your own population to continue in, than it is to simply defend the state from its enemies!

I'd recently learned a little about human security, that holds that security has often been thought of in state-centric terms (how do I protect my country, my borders?), but what is a state if it is not its people? And actually, it is the role of the state to safeguard its people. Therefore, security should be thought of not in terms of 'what threatens to collapse states?' but rather 'what are the threats to people today?'. And by that reckoning, the main threats are famine and disease, even natural disasters, rather than open warfare.

Thoughts?
BB

[Britboy]

Come on, the rest of MP.net, this place should be full of those who either work in this field or are interested in it.

So don't be shy, chime in!

Regards
BB

[Calanen]

It's the security of the state that the military secures externally, predominantly. Not the security of the individual citizens within it.

[Britboy]

Yes, I know that the Armed Forces provide security from external threats to the state.

But this form of security, and even the security from internal threats that the intelligence services and police provide, do not seem to be the be-all-and-end-all of security itself.

So, looking not just at the work of the Armed Forces but at the idea of security itself, what does it consist of?

Regards
BB

[muck]

Security is a state where all measures and institutions that are charged with achieving security do work as well as they can. It's that simple in my books. Security is a relative impression you've got from the state of your environment.

[brainplay]

Security is:

1. The prevention and/or removal of threats by any means deemed appropriate by your laws.

2. Larry the 60 yr old guy around the corner with the sewed on badge and polyester pants.



Wider security must encompass economic stability, suppression of crime and corruption, maintenance of health and infrastructure, provision of justice and a governmental/societal system that is essentially acknowledged as being 'fair', in order to create the conditions in which people and industriousness can exist and thrive.

You are trying to mix several different tiers of security which are not all related to each other. You can try and claim it falls under "prevention" however, due to cultural and religious differences they really don't apply. As far as your "fair" theory goes, it sucks balls. Fairness in real life does not encourage growth nor permit people to thrive. Its is mediocrity at its fullest with concepts as ambition, profit, and gaining of wealth completely shunned.

[Britboy]

Security is a relative impression you've got from the state of your environment.

Intriguing, security as a relative judgement. I suppose someone in the first world's idea of security would be rather different from someone who has grown up in, say, Rwanda, Somalia, perhaps even certain areas within S Africa. They might be more likely to fare better with a higher level of 'background' violence in society, whereas others may feel the situation is untenably bloody. Is security subjective then?


Security is:

1. The prevention and/or removal of threats by any means deemed appropriate by your laws.
...
You are trying to mix several different tiers of security which are not all related to each other. You can try and claim it falls under "prevention" however, due to cultural and religious differences they really don't apply. As far as your "fair" theory goes, it sucks balls. Fairness in real life does not encourage growth nor permit people to thrive. Its is mediocrity at its fullest with concepts as ambition, profit, and gaining of wealth completely shunned.

Okay, you have mentioned 'threats'. I'm taking it you are considering threat of aggression, threat of terrorism - i.e. physical violence.

But what about threats to other aspects of our life?
Can a disease be a threat to security because it endangers the population?
Can an economic trend be a threat to security because it brings instability, or threatens to damage people's wealth to such an extent that there may be physical consequences (perhaps like the Great Depression)?

Ref the 'fair' theory, I should rather have said 'just'. That is to say there is freedom of opportunity, equality in terms of rights, and that the population have the ability to affect policy and determine the Government of their own nation. Self determination if you like. I'm not sure that any citizen of an autocratic country can ever be guaranteed of security on a personal level, because there would be no constitutional way for them to change the Govt, if it should pursue a course of action that placed that citizen in jeopardy in some way or another. Whereas in democracies, the wider public have the opportunity to 'plot their own course' by electing a Govt they wish to represent their interests for a term of office - therefore the Govt must 'look out for its people' - security.

[deadtired]

Okay, you have mentioned 'threats'. I'm taking it you are considering threat of aggression, threat of terrorism - i.e. physical violence.

But what about threats to other aspects of our life?
Can a disease be a threat to security because it endangers the population?
Can an economic trend be a threat to security because it brings instability, or threatens to damage people's wealth to such an extent that there may be physical consequences (perhaps like the Great Depression)?



I don't think the threats you mentioned (disease, poor economy, etc.) are security threats per se. The security threat come from the breakdown of law and order stemming from these events; i.e mass casualities/mass panic due to disease, or mass lawlessness due to hordes of starving people.

[DesktopArmor]

[quote=Britboy;3320392]Interesting, so security isn't a tangible outcome, but rather the effect of allowing normalcy, in your view?

Yes and no. I think there's a tangible outcome, but it cannot be achieved completely through tangible means. I think in the end security is dependent on the state of mind of the population, and that may or may not reflect the physical security realities. Part of it is dependent on the robustness of the society, but part of it is also dependent on the ability of the society and non-governmental social leaders to think and act rationally, and in doing so, lead the rest of society to act rationally. There are definite ways to help achieve security, like increasing border patrols, enlarging the armed forces, and improving intelligence, but most of them serve equally important roles a sort of pacifier for society.

[Winger]

Security is an outcome of the establishment of Order. Order is what is needed. Peace is not possible without Order. Order is an ongoing process, a maintenance. With Order comes the threat of violence (right or wrong) to maintain that Order.

For example....Iraq. Saddam's brand of Order was employed through violence(much of it wrong) but as a result of it, Iraq had a state of Order. This Order was needed as the factions that were carved up into Iraq were never really at peace. My two cents.

[Lokos]

Security, conceptually, is applicable across a broad range of contexts. Physical security (protection of assets), economic security (protection of production means, supply and demand, sustainable growth etc. etc.), cultural security (protection from destabilizing cultural factors, linguistic protection, protection of moral values etc) - when we say 'security' we are referring to the rejection of change we perceive as adverse in any context imaginable. It is a concept that points to prevention only insofar as it points to response/antidote/retribution - that is to say, any and all actions/reactions (including preemptive ones) that will eliminate a perceived 'bad' or 'evil' or 'negative' dynamic.

We value job security because without that security our livelihoods are at risk. Why? Because removing the 'security' from jobs leaves the latter open to negative development or risk.

So, let's try to be short:

Security is the active and passive promotion of 'good' over 'bad', of 'positive' over 'negative' in all contexts and by any means.

Lokos

[Flagg]

the recipe for security is 17 parts perception to 9 part reality, adjust to suit local taste......best served alongside a piping hot bowl of stone soup :)

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Afternoon everyone,

Was just pondering in my own mind what security is.

If you're British then notions of 'security' are what you trade your freedom for.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I'd say "security" is whatever one does to ensure the availability of the items listed in Maslow's hierarchy of needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs.svg). To what extent a people agrees to delegate the authority to deliver those items to their government determines how much personal freedom they retain.

[Winger]

I'd say "security" is whatever one does to ensure the availability of the items listed in Maslow's hierarchy of needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs.svg). To what extent a people agrees to delegate the authority to deliver those items to their government determines how much personal freedom they retain.

Was waiting for someone to throw out Maslow. Good call.

[orionhawk]

I regard "security" as a situation where I need not be fearful. Job security means I do not fear getting canned/laid off. Physical security means I am confident I can protect myself/family/property from any threat I cannot escape, and escape anything I cannot defend against.

The only security I look to a government for is job security, and that is only because I am in the Military.

2sheds and Lokos definitions are really good.