Hammad Ishaq (10110541)
Poli Sci 283
Due Feb 6th, 2013
In the Article “Redefining Security”, Richard H. Ullman argues that it would be much more beneficial in the long run, if governments were to put more focus on non-military issues, rather than military issues. He states that defining national security merely (or even primarily) in military terms conveys a profoundly false image of reality (Ullman 1983, 129). Ullman states that, a significant disadvantage when a government’s main focus is on the military threats and they disregard non-military threats is that the total security of a nation gets reduced (Ullman 1983, 129). He argues in his article that non-military threats should be given greater attention. Ullman also goes on to state that when a nation only focuses on making their military strong, this act causes pervasive militarization, which eventually causes global insecurity between nations (Ullman 1983, 129).
In a state, security is the most important value a citizen expects, citizens want security to be assured from their government from internal or external sources, as because security is certainly a basic necessity. The government provides its citizens with security, what they ask in return are for all the citizens to follow their laws and regulations. Although some predicaments that rise are that the citizens want to tradeoff some increments of security for liberty and freedom, because citizens don’t want to live in a society with complete government control and little or no liberty. This type of society would be a called a totalitarian society, and would represent the ideology of Thomas Hobbes (Ullman 1983, 130). Most individuals including Richard Ullman have the ideology that this totalitarian approach is too extreme. These individuals prefer living in a society with security being provided to a certain extent, where you still get some amount of liberty and freedom. Governments want to provide their...