Security: Learning how to address it

During periods of crisis, countries resort to wars as a manner to assure peace, security of human life and the preservation of mortality. Duane Cady claims that ‘warism’ is critical and morally justifiable and required, giving rise to a ‘just war’. Although many cannot see the necessity or even correlation between war and security, Kant states that "possessing good intent constitutes the only condition of moral activity, regardless of the consequences envisioned or caused, and regardless, or even in spite, of any self interest in the action the agent may have." Does this provide a pathway to a violent and militaristic country? I believe Kant and Cady provide countries that are evaluating whether or not it is just to pursue a war for security purposes should not consider an alternative due to fear of being unethical.

Countries venture and explore the possibilities of improving technology (not necessarily military build-up) in order to develop more efficient technologies that can focus on building up security. What is security though? Is it simply attacks from an outside group? Oxford Dictionary states that security is  “the state of being free from danger or threat,” meaning that security issues could arise within and outside the borders.

Using this, and going slightly on a tangent, I started thinking of how security problems arise in a domestic situation. For instance, many have traced the source of a rising crime rate these previous years: the recession. Individuals become desperate to make means and end up pursuing illegal activities. As a result of the economic recession, major urban areas increase in crimes and it leads to a security problem for others in the community. Does it mean that when the United States addresses security problems, it should focus on social welfare? It’s an example where different areas in society contribute to the decrease in security, but funds to address security will not be used to address these problems.

Are environmental problems considered a security threat? For one, in the long term, human lives can be negatively affected if the environment is not dealt with. Nevertheless, is a “security council” (not a direct reference to the UN) in charge of dealing with this? Or would this be handed over to an environmental committee?

The vast problems within security force societies to develop different groups/committees that focus on addressing the issues. This gives rise to specialization and being able to effectively manage the problems.

The main idea that I’m trying to get across is that society aims at:

1. Protecting Human Life

2. Establishing Peace

            Nevertheless, one must understand that different countries will interpret “peace” as either with different countries or peace within the country alone. Countries will begin to address different problems and divide it amongst different government officials. It is important to remember that war is not the only response to security problems, but if one does need to pursue it in order to accomplish its overall strategic plan, it must remember that if is genuinely using the goals as its foundation for pursuing the war, it will be morally justifiable.