Essay for you

National Security Concerns Essay Checker

Rating: 4.4/5.0 (44 Votes)

Category: Essay


National Security Concerns Essay - 383 Words

National Security Concerns


The discussion focuses on the firmness, safety and the security of our country and of our community. This lecture is a fundamental awareness for us, as students, as young models, and as members of our respective societies. This is for us to be knowledgeable and responsive even to the least details because every aspect matters a lot. Security is the condition of being protected and to protect. In our community, we have patrols and forces of the high authorities. Their task is to provide insurance, safety, and safeguard. There are many ways that can make people vulnerable and defenseless against bad influences. And this results if we are ignorant to everything that happens around us. Another factor that contributes to our exposure to threats is our disunity as a country and as a nation. To me, this is a very alarming crisis because this factor is existent right now in our society. People hurt, people losing their properties and many more other consequences. And these happen due to our disunity. Conflicts and disputes are rampant in today’s time. All these lead to disorder, mess and chaos. What will our future be if these continue to rise? Well, as students, it is possible for us to make a change. By posing upright and decent influences, we can make other people to change their bad ways to good ways. As members of our own community, the slightest thing we can do is to be fully aware of the recent occurrences. People need rules and laws that can protect them. We need our government to defend us contrary to risks and dangers. However, the rules we need are the rules that sees no discrimination. They must put into consideration the gender equality, the level opportunity both the rich and the poor will receive, and despite the race we belong to. Our disunity is the source of the weakness in our county. And now we know that the source of the strength as a country is our unity. We should find the connections each of us have and let them.

Please sign up to read full document.


NationalSecurity Strategy & Policy NationalSecurity Strategy & Policy – Basic Concepts 1. In order to understand the concept of NationalSecurity Strategy & Policy (NSSP), it is pertinent to understand certain fundamentals. They are: a. Concept of nation-state in its universal application and more so its relevancy to Pakistan b. National Purpose (NP), a statement of resolve and determination for which a Nation – State aspires to exist. c. Determination of National Interests (NI) for which and Nation-State vows to live for d. A general view of Elements of National Power (ENP), the factors which provide requisite force to determination of NIs. e. Based on the above, formulation of NSSP is done by the government and disseminated to all concerned for further action. The latter is in the form of document essentially outlining major nationalsecurityconcerns and the government’s plans to deal with them. 2. NationalSecurity is the requirement to maintain the Survival of the State through the use of Economic, Diplomatic, Power Projection and Political Power. Another definition of NationalSecurity is, “Freedom from foreign dictation.” Yet another definition is, “National .

2461 Words | 7 Pages

Timothy Collins 2/10/2013 NationalSecurity . An Intuitive Understanding The debate over the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is one with strong opinions on both sides of the issues. There are pros and cons to the extensive network of security that the federal government has created to combat domestic and international terrorism. Nationalsecurity is the requirement to maintain the survival of the state through the use of economic power, diplomacy, power projection and political power. The concept developed mostly in the United States of America after World War II. Initially focusing on military might, it now encompasses a broad range of facets, all of which impinge on the non military or economic security of the nation and the values espoused by the national society. Accordingly, in order to possess nationalsecurity . a nation needs to possess economic security . energy security . environmental security . etc. Security threats involve not only conventional foes such as other nation-states but also non-state actors such as violent non-state actors, narcotic cartels, multinational corporations and non-governmental organizations; some authorities include natural disasters and events causing severe environmental damage in this category. Survival of the state can no longer depend.

1470 Words | 4 Pages

Nationalsecurity is the requirement to maintain the survival of the state through the use of economic, diplomacy, power projection and political power. The concept developed mostly in the United States of America after World War II. Initially focusing on military might, it now encompasses a broad range of facets, all of which impinge on the non military or economic security of the nation and the values espoused by the national society. Accordingly, in order to possess nationalsecurity . a nation needs to possess economic security . energy security . environmental security . etc. Security threats involve not only conventional foes such as other nation-states but also non-state actors such as violent non-state actors, narcotic cartels, multinational corporations and non-governmental organisations; some authorities include natural disasters and events causing severe environmental damage in this category. Measures taken to ensure nationalsecurity include: • using diplomacy to rally allies and isolate threats • marshalling economic power to facilitate or compel cooperation • maintaining effective armed forces • implementing civil defense and emergency preparedness measures (including anti-terrorism legislation) • ensuring the resilience and redundancy of critical infrastructure •.

1073 Words | 3 Pages

 NationalSecurity Strategy As much as the world is being progressed security will always play one of the most important roles as long as the states exist and thus the central responsibility of the nation state is its own survival. Every state has to deal with different issues in this world and the hardest thing is how to deal with them. America which is a very powerful state has to take care of its nationalsecurity and its citizens by different strategies that are shown in nationalsecurity strategy. NationalSecurity Strategy is a document that U.S.A and also other states make to outline the concerns that are present and how to deal with these problems. Over the past decade or more many, governments, especially western governments, have taken steps to draw together a wide range of different functions, objectives and institutions under the concept of ‘nationalsecurity ’. Thus, the main reason that this strategy is created it is because of citizens and countries that face different types of security threats. This strategy has elements of realism, liberalism and constructivism which are the main theories of international relations. To begin with, realism is a theory essentially about power and security . States relentlessly seek power and security because they.

1552 Words | 5 Pages

NationalSecurity Strategy The date September 11, 2001 has changed the way in which the entire world started to perceive threats and their own security related to these threats. Concerning the security and approach of the U.S. the White House has published its new ‘NationalSecurity Strategy’ in 2002 setting a guideline for its eventual war on terrorism. This is the primary text that will be mainly dealt with in this writing because it is the official source showing U.S. plans of action. The 35 page long document alongside other issues mainly refers to the supremacy of the U.S. concerning its military power in which Bush’s policy of preemptive wars is justified as a necessity to fight terrorism. My argument in this paper is that when one analysis the U.S. nationalsecurity plan after the attacks of September 11, the NationalSecurity Strategy is flawed, especially regarding certain points, first of all the threats are set too broadly in which it gives the U.S. the right to attack any state which is seen as a possible threat rather then mainly focusing on the most crucial terrorist groups alarming the USA such as al-Qai‘da. In addition to this the U.S. foreign policy in my opinion is one, which rather than solving the problem of terrorism will create more enemies and in addition increase the vulnerability of.

1719 Words | 5 Pages

Assignment 1 The study of security involves an evolving understanding of the global security situation, as well as an evolving understanding of the principle of security itself. To understand how this has changed we must understand where we came from, and where we are now. The ability to do so is crucial to our survival as a nation, and as the greatest power in the world. To show how the study of security has changed, I will demonstrate using our attitude towards security itself since the end of the Cold War. I will examine scholarly studies of security as well as NationalSecurity Council reports and addresses made by our Presidents. In doing so, I will establish that there has been a clear shift in thought on security from the days of the Truman Doctrine and NSC-68, to the Bush’s Administration and their War on Terror, and the most current shift underway, through President Obama. The security threat during the Cold War was two-fold. As a nation, we faced a super power wielding a mighty arsenal of nuclear weapons and a formable conventional force. However, our foe also had an ideological weapon. That was the ideological weapon of Communism. Communism, united Russia with deadly allies such as Cuba, North Korea, China, and much of Eastern Europe. As dangerous as the weapons of these countries were, the idea of Communism spread like.

1710 Words | 4 Pages

Globalization/ NationalSecurity It’s a small world, literally! With the steady improvement of high speed technology, immigrants are headed for the United States borders. Something must be done, is homeland security the answer? If security is increased along national borders migration might be slowed. For example, with just the click of a button someone’s complete identity can be on a screen. Why not with the power of technology that’s in place, anything is possible. U.S borders have been a target for many terrorist. Homeland Security plays a vital part in protection, therefore security guards should be added along the U.S borders. To help slow the invasion, first guards and the addition of other technologies must be added. Next is to slow international workers from being employed by U.S companies. Finally, by assisting neighboring countries on the development towards a more stronger and stable economy. Indeed in a modern day society in which globalization and homeland security plays a part in everyday life. There are various branches of security . but homeland security protects the everyday life of U.S citizens. Homeland Security is the branch that focuses on protecting the borders, in general one of the most secretive organizations in America. Nationalsecurity deals with many.

1144 Words | 4 Pages

age. Nationalsecurity can be defined as a country's need to maintain its survival by use of military, political and economic power for diplomacy. Civil liberty are freedoms and rights exercised by individuals in any country provided by their country's legislation or international laws, for example the right to life, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, the right to privacy, the right to security and liberty and many more. Nationalsecurity issues arose after the second world war in the united states of America with initial emphasis on the military. For any country in this day and age, nationalsecurity encompasses energy security . economic security . environmental security and many more. Security threats range not only from external states but also from illegal drug cartels, multi-national organizations and terrorists groups. The civil liberty concepts are protected under a country's constitution, bill of rights. Other legal legislation are also adopted by country's to uphold this civil liberties by giving effect to international laws passed in conventions such as the International Covenant and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. The protection of civil rights is deemed as the responsibility of a country's people and government. The extent of some civil liberties, such as.

1466 Words | 4 Pages

Other articles

1999-2000 National Winning Essay

1999-2000 National Winning Essay

Elspeth Simpson
Pulaski Academy
Little Rock, AR
Coordinators: Mr. William Topich and Ms. Ginger Kidd

Promoting Global and Regional Security in the Post-Cold War World

The post-cold War world presents an interesting paradox. Conflicts are becoming increasingly local while the world is becoming increasingly interconnected: although conflicts are on a smaller scale, their ramifications affect all nations. In addition, better technology means that the American public is better informed and more eager to intervene, yet at the same time, foreign aid is being drastically cut. The United States does not have the resources to intervene in every conflict or to solve all the problems in the conflicts it does intervene in. Therefore, the U.S. must set priorities, finding a balance between its national security interests and other concerns. In two cases, the drug-fueled civil war of Colombia and the withdrawal of North Korea from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the U.S. correctly intervened to promote regional and global security. However, in both cases, the U.S. mistakenly limited the effects of its efforts by putting humanitarian concerns before security.

Prioritizing foreign policy objectives can be difficult because there are many to choose from. Many believe that the U.S. should act as the world's policeman, seek to stop human rights abuses, provide humanitarian aid, or work to build democracies. While these are certainly admirable goals, the truth is that the U.S. can often do little good, and sometimes aggravates the problem with intervention. 1 The U.S. should instead work to promote both global and regional security. In the long run, this is the only way to achieve the goals mentioned above. It is the best way to promote U.S. interests. Although other domestic concerns, such as building democracies or promoting human rights, should be considered in every situation (and are often integral to the problem), when these concerns conflict with the promotion of global or regional security promoting security must come first. The U.S. must be careful not to jeopardize its attempts to promote global and regional security because of differing domestic concerns.

There is much policy overlap between pursuing regional and global security. This makes sense; in order for there to be a stabilized world, there must be stability at all levels, and regional instability can quickly lead to global instability in the increasingly globalized world. 2 The overlap can be most clearly seen in the objectives behind U.S. intervention in Colombia and North Korea, the fight against drugs and the fight to stop nuclear proliferation, respectively. No one doubts that drugs have negative effects on society, and when one country, such as Colombia, produces eighty percent of the world's cocaine, drugs are very destabilizing globally. 3 Conflict associated with drug trade is also regionally destabilizing as refugees flee war-torn areas. Similarly, nuclear buildup threatens global security, because a country with nuclear weapons is a threat to all nations. It also leads to regional instability, as the neighbors of a nuclear country become nervous.

Like many conflicts occurring today, the fighting in Colombia began during the Cold War. The two main guerilla groups, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN), date back to the 1960s. 4 These two groups underwent many changes, but when they entered into alliances with drug cartels, their attacks became particularly destabilizing to the region. The drug angle made the conflict more violent and complex. 5 The U.S. grew interested in Colombia as part of its war on drugs, a domestic program sparked by the concerns of citizens. The U.S. was seeing rapid increases in drug-related crime, and it was believed that drug trafficking should be stopped at the source. In 1996, when Colombian President Ernest Samper was accused of taking drug money for his campaign, the United States "Decertified" Colombia. This meant that Colombia could no longer receive certain U.S. loans. Decertification is used to embarrass a country into increasing its anti-narcotic efforts. It was not effective in this case because the Colombian government was unable to handle the drug problem alone. Colombia's certification has recently been reinstated, making it easier for the U.S. to assist the Colombian government. 6

Beginning in 1998, it became obvious that the conflict within Colombia was spreading to Panama, Equador, and Venezuela, threatening to destabilize the entire region. At least a million refugees had crossed the boarders of Colombia, adding to the instability. 7 Fears of regional instability as well as the global impact of the continuing drug trade caused the U.S. to increase the anti-narcotic movement by about 70 percent, to $500 million a year. 8 This aid was planned to be spent on radar systems, jets, helicopters, and anti-drug battalions. While the money would have been used to fight both the guerillas and the drug trade, it was restricted to the war on drugs because of fears that the Colombian army might repeat the human rights violations that it had been accused of in the past. This greatly handicapped the efforts to bring stability because of the close ties between the drug trade and the guerillas. The only way to fight one was to fight the other. 9 The drug wars are still raging in Colombia today. While the United States was correct to intervene in the conflict in Colombia to promote global and regional security, it was wrong to subordinate that effort to human rights concerns.

When the United States intervened in North Korea, it was not so much in response to a particular conflict as to prevent an impending one. There has been an animosity between North and South Korea for five decades, driven by differing ideologies and belief systems. There had already been war between the two countries, and in the early 1990s, North Korea began to build up a nuclear weapons arsenal. Little was known about it, which made people all over the world uncomfortable. In 1992, North Korea stopped allowing inspectors form the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect its nuclear plants. 10 Then, on March 13, 1993, North Korea announced its withdrawal from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. 11 This caused alarm throughout the region: Japan, China, and South Korea did not want a nuclear neighbor. There were many fears that the North Korean threat would provoke war in the area. 12 The thought of a nuclear North Korea not abiding to the Non-Proliferation Treaty was globally threatening as well, because of the fear of nuclear war. In response to both of these concerns, the U.S. began a series of talks with North Korea. In exchange for light-water reactors which the U.S. and South Korea agreed to provide, North Korea agreed to allow IAEA inspectors access to some sites and reaffirmed its commitment to denuclarizing the Korean peninsula. In addition, North Korea agreed to give up its main source of power, graphite moderate reactors, from which it was very easy to extract weapons grade plutonium. 13 This tentative agreement was later finalized as the Framework Agreement of 1994, in which, in exchange for North Korean nuclear freeze, the U.S. and South Korea agreed to give food and oil to the starving North Korean people, as well as to build two light-water reactors. 14 At the same time, many felt that this policy was too easy on the North Koreans who had already agreed to and broken the Non-Proliferation Treaty once. In fact, it later turned out that North Korea could not be trusted, as it continued to prevent IAEA inspectors from examining its sites to verify the nuclear freeze. 15 This situation raises a very important question; why did the U.S. not take stronger measures to ensure the freeze before giving food to the people? Simply put, the U.S. choose to put humanitarian aid before the promotion of global and regional security. Feeding the people of North Korea was more important than ensuring North Korean compliance. While some will argue that the U.S. had to avoid taking a strong stance against North Korea because of the nuclear threat, the truth is that the U.S. threw away much needed leverage by giving aid without demand a greater guarantee that North Korean government would keep its promises.

In both of these cases, the United States intervened at the insistence of its citizens, who recently listed stopping the flow of illegal drugs and nuclear proliferation as the two biggest foreign policy goals. 16 At first, the U.S. pursued a reasonable policy to promote global and regional security and end these threats. However, as domestic concern began to focus on different objectives such as humanitarian ones, domestic pressure jeopardized the attempt to promote security. In the future, U.S. foreign policy work to promote global and regional stability before all else. While the government should be mindful of its citizens concerns, it must remember that its citizens are easily swayed by forces like the media. Citizens' decisions are often made merely by looking at the short-term effects. Yes, other objectives, such as human rights and humanitarian aid, are important, but if they jeopardize the long-term promotion of security and stability, they must put aside. There is a lesson to be learned form U.S. intervention in Colombia and North Korea. Listen to the people, but never loose sight of your goals.

  1. Richard N. Haass, The Reluctant Sheriff (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1997) 5. [Back]
  2. Benjamin R. Barber, Jihad Vs. McWorld: How Globalism and Tribalism are Reshaping the World (New York: Ballantine Book, 1996) 4. [Back]
  3. Douglas Farah, "Raising the Stakes in Colombia," The Washington Post. 30 Aug. 1999: 15. [Back]
  4. Michael Shifter, "Colombia on the Brink," Foreign Affairs. July/Aug. 1999: 15. [Back]
  5. Mark W. Chernick, "Colombia's Fault Lines," Current History. Feb. 1996: 78.[Back]
  6. Tod Robberson, "Colombia Expected to Regain Drug-War Certification," The Dallas Morning News. 25 Feb. 1999: 15A. [Back]
  7. Linda Robinson, "Is Colombia Lost to Rebels?" U.S. News and World Report. 11 May 1998: 39. [Back]
  8. Peter Hakim, "Backing Colombia's Fight, Money Well Spent," Christian Science Monitor. 30 Sept. 1999: [Back]
  9. Robinson 39. [Back]
  10. J.F.O. McAlliser, "War of Nerves at the Nuclear Brink," Time. 8 Nov. 1993: 22. [Back]
  11. Manwoo Lee, "North Korea: The Cold War Continues," Current History. Dec. 1996: 439. [Back]
  12. William McGurn, "Nukes Across the DMZ," National Review. 13 Dec. 1993: 22. [Back]
  13. "US-North Korea Talks on the Nuclear Issue," U.S. Department of State Dispatch. 26 July 1993: 535. [Back]
  14. "Policy Bomb," The New Republic. 13 Oct. 1996: 11. [Back]
  15. "Golden Potatoes," The Economist. 20 March 1999: 45. [Back]
  16. John E. Rielly, "Americans and the World: A Survey at Century's End," Foreign Policy. Spring 1999: 101. [Back]

Barber, Benjamin R. Jihad Vs. McWorld: How Globalism and Triblaism are Reshaping the World. New York: Ballantine Books, 1996.

Chernick, Marc W. "Colombia's Fault Lines." Current History. Feb. 1996: 76-81.

Cirincione, Joseph. "The Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Nuclear Balance." Current History. May 1995: 201-6.

"Colombia Calls for Arms from Uncle Sam." The Economist. 25 Sept. 1999: 37-8.

Darling, Juanita. "Politics-and Drug Business - As Usual in Colombia." Los Angeles Times. 1 March 1998: A6.

Eaton, Tracey. "Colombia's Narco-Guerillas Trade Political Fervor for Drug Money." The Dallas Morning News. 9 June 1996: 1A.

Elliott, Michael and John Barry. "Nothing Short of Doomsday." Newsweek. 4 July 1994: 37.

Farah, Douglas. "Raising the Stakes in Colombia." The Washington Post. 30 Aug. 1999: 15.

"Friends to the End." National Review. 2 May 1994: 18-19.

"Golden Potatoes" The Economist. 20 March 1999: 45-6.

Haass, Richard N. The Reluctant Sheriff. New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1997.

Hakim, Peter. "Backing Colombia's fight, Money Well-Spent." Christian Science Monitor. 30 Sept. 1999: 11.

Lane, Charles. "Gone to Pot." The New Republic. 11 May 1998: 6, 53.

Lee, Manwoo. "North Korea: The Cold War continues." Current History. Dec. 1996: 438-442.

Lee, Rensselaer W. "Global Reach: The Threat of International Drug Trafficking." Current History. May 1995: 207-211.

Manning, Robert A. "The Nuclear Age: The Next Chapter." Foreign Policy. Winter 1997-98.

Manning, Robert A. "Time Bomb." The New Republic. 30 Nov. 1996: 37.

Martz, John D. "Colombia: Democracy, Development, and Drugs." Current History. March 1994: 134-137.

McAllister, J..F.O. "War of Nerves at the Nuclear Brink." Time. 8 Nov. 1993: 55.

McGurn, William. "Nukes Across the DMZ." National Review. 13 Dec. 1993.

Mendelsohn, Jack. "Arms Control: The Unfinished Agenda." Current History. April 1997: 145-150.

Nelan, Buce W. "Cooling-Off Period." Time. 22 Aug. 1994: 42.

"Policy Bomb." The New Republic. 19 Oct. 1998: 11.

Rielly, John E. "Americans and the World: A Survey at Century's End." Foreign Policy. Spring 1999: 97-113.

Robberson, Tod. "Colombia Expected to Regain Drug-War Certification." The Dallas Morning News. 25 Feb. 1999: 15A.

Robinson, Linda. "Is Colombia Lost to Rebels?" U.S. News and World Report. 11 May 1998: 38-42.

Sagan, Scott D. "The Causes of Nuclear Proliferation." Current History. April 1997: 151-156.

Shifter, Michael. "Colombia on the Brink: There goes the Neighborhood." Foreign Affairs. July/Aug. 1999: 14-20.

Tickner, Arlene B. "Colombia: Chronicle of a Crisis foretold." Current History. Feb. 1998: 61-65.

"U.S. Arms Colombia in War Against Drugs." Minneapolis Star Tribune. 20 Oct. 1996: 11A.

"U.S.- North Korea Talks on the Nuclear Issue." U.S. Department of State Dispatch. 26 July 1993: 535-6.

Weinberger, Caspar W. "Commentary." Forbes. 12 Oct. 1998: 37.

Weinberger, Caspar W. "Commentary." Forbes. 21 Nov. 1994: 35.

Zirnite, Peter. "The Militarization of the Drug War in Latin America." Current History. April 1998: 166-73.