Hubbry Logo
National securityNational securityMain
Open search
National security
Community hub
National security
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
National security
National security
National security
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

National security, or national defence (national defense in American English), is the security and defence of a sovereign state, including its citizens, economy, and institutions, which is regarded as a duty of government. Originally conceived as protection against military attack, national security is widely understood to include also non-military dimensions, such as the security from terrorism, minimization of crime, economic security, energy security, environmental security, food security, and cyber-security. Similarly, national security risks include, in addition to the actions of other states, action by violent non-state actors, by narcotic cartels, organized crime, by multinational corporations, and also the effects of natural disasters.

Governments rely on a range of measures, including political, economic, and military power, as well as diplomacy, to safeguard the security of a state. They may also act to build the conditions of security regionally and internationally by reducing transnational causes of insecurity, such as climate change, economic inequality, political exclusion, and nuclear proliferation.

Definitions

[edit]

The concept of national security remains ambiguous, having evolved from simpler definitions which emphasised freedom from military threat and from political coercion.[1]: 1–6 [2]: 52–54  Among the many definitions proposed to date are the following, which show how the concept has evolved to encompass non-military concerns:

  • "A nation has security when it does not have to sacrifice its legitimate interests to avoid war, and is able, if challenged, to maintain them by war." (Walter Lippmann, 1943).[3]: 5 
  • "The distinctive meaning of national security means freedom from foreign dictation." (Harold Lasswell, 1950)[3]: 79 
  • "National security objectively means the absence of threats to acquired values and subjectively, the absence of fear that such values will be attacked." (Arnold Wolfers, 1960)[4]
  • "National security then is the ability to preserve the nation's physical integrity and territory; to maintain its economic relations with the rest of the world on reasonable terms; to preserve its nature, institution, and governance from disruption from outside; and to control its borders." (Harold Brown, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 1977–1981)[5]
  • "National security... is best described as a capacity to control those domestic and foreign conditions that the public opinion of a given community believes necessary to enjoy its own self-determination or autonomy, prosperity, and wellbeing." (Charles Maier, 1990)[6]
  • "National security is an appropriate and aggressive blend of political resilience and maturity, human resources, economic structure and capacity, technological competence, industrial base and availability of natural resources and finally the military might." (National Defence College of India, 1996)[7]
  • "[National security is the] measurable state of the capability of a nation to overcome the multi-dimensional threats to the apparent well-being of its people and its survival as a nation-state at any given time, by balancing all instruments of state policy through governance... and is extendable to global security by variables external to it." (Prabhakaran Paleri, 2008)[2]: 52–54 

Dimensions

[edit]

Potential causes of national insecurity include actions by other states (e.g. military or cyber attack), violent non-state actors (e.g. terrorist attack), organised criminal groups such as narcotic cartels, and also the effects of natural disasters (e.g. flooding, earthquakes).[3]: v, 1–8 [8][9] Systemic drivers of insecurity, which may be transnational, include climate change, economic inequality and marginalisation, political exclusion, and nuclear proliferation.[8]: 3 [9]

In view of the wide range of risks, the security of a state has several dimensions, including economic security, energy security, physical security, environmental security, food security, border security, and cyber security. These dimensions correlate closely with elements of national power.

Increasingly, governments organise their security policies into a national security strategy (NSS);[10] as of 2017, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States are among the states to have done so.[11][12][13][14] Some states also appoint a National Security Council and/or a National Security Advisor which is an executive government agency, it feeds the head of the state on topics concerning national security and strategic interest. The national security council/advisor strategies long term, short term, contingency national security plans. India holds one such system in current, which was established on 19 November 1998.

Although states differ in their approach, various forms of coercive power predominate, particularly military capabilities.[8] The scope of these capabilities has developed. Traditionally, military capabilities were mainly land- or sea-based, and in smaller countries, they still are. Elsewhere, the domains of potential warfare now include the air, space, cyberspace, and psychological operations.[15] Military capabilities designed for these domains may be used for national security, or equally for offensive purposes, for example to conquer and annex territory and resources.

See also: Elements of national security and Elements of national power

Physical

[edit]
Main article: Military security

In practice, national security is associated primarily with managing physical threats and with the military capabilities used for doing so.[11][13][14] That is, national security is often understood as the capacity of a nation to mobilise military forces to guarantee its borders and to deter or successfully defend against physical threats including military aggression and attacks by non-state actors, such as terrorism. Most states, such as South Africa and Sweden,[16][12] configure their military forces mainly for territorial defence; others, such as France, Russia, the UK and the US,[17][18][13][14] invest in higher-cost expeditionary capabilities, which allow their armed forces to project power and sustain military operations abroad.

See also: Terrorism, Border guard, and Military aggression

Infrastructural

[edit]
Main article: Critical infrastructure

Infrastructure security is the security provided to protect infrastructure, especially critical infrastructure, such as airports, highways,[19] rail transport, hospitals, bridges, transport hubs, network communications, media, the electricity grid, dams, power plants, seaports, oil refineries, and water systems. Infrastructure security seeks to limit vulnerability of these structures and systems to sabotage, terrorism, and contamination.[20]

Many countries have established government agencies to directly manage the security of critical infrastructure, usually, through the Ministry of Interior/Home Affairs, dedicated security agencies to protect facilities such as United States Federal Protective Service, and also dedicated transport police such as the British Transport Police. There are also commercial transportation security units such as the Amtrak Police in the United States. Critical infrastructure is vital for the essential functioning of a country. Incidental or deliberate damage can have a serious impact on the economy and essential services. Some of the threats to infrastructure include:

Virtual

[edit]
Main article: Computer security

Computer security, also known as cybersecurity or IT security, refers to the security of computing devices such as computers and smartphones, as well as computer networks such as private and public networks, and the Internet. It concerns the protection of hardware, software, data, people, and also the procedures by which systems are accessed, and the field has growing importance due to the increasing reliance on computer systems in most societies.[21] Since unauthorized access to critical civil and military infrastructure is now considered a major threat, cyberspace is now recognised as a domain of warfare. One such example is the use of Stuxnet by the US and Israel against the Iranian nuclear programme.[15]

Political

[edit]
Main article: Political security

Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, Jaap de Wilde and others have argued that national security depends on political security: the stability of the social order.[22] Others, such as Paul Rogers, have added that the equitability of the international order is equally vital.[9] Hence, political security depends on the rule of international law (including the laws of war), the effectiveness of international political institutions, as well as diplomacy and negotiation between nations and other security actors.[22] It also depends on, among other factors, effective political inclusion of disaffected groups and the human security of the citizenry.[9][8][23]

Economic

[edit]
Main article: Economic security

Economic security, in the context of international relations, is the ability of a nation state to maintain and develop the national economy, without which other dimensions of national security cannot be managed. Economic capability largely determines the defence capability of a nation, and thus a sound economic security directly influences the national security of a nation. That is why we see countries with sound economy, happen to have sound security setup too, such as The United States, China, India among others. In larger countries, strategies for economic security expect to access resources and markets in other countries and to protect their own markets at home. Developing countries may be less secure than economically advanced states due to high rates of unemployment and underpaid work.[citation needed]

Environmental

[edit]
Main article: Environmental security

Environmental security, also known as ecological security, refers to the integrity of ecosystems and the biosphere, particularly in relation to their capacity to sustain a diversity of life-forms (including human life). The security of ecosystems has attracted greater attention as the impact of ecological damage by humans has grown.[24] The degradation of ecosystems, including topsoil erosion, deforestation, biodiversity loss, and climate change, affect economic security and can precipitate mass migration, leading to increased pressure on resources elsewhere. Ecological security is also important since most of the countries in the world are developing and dependent on agriculture and agriculture gets affected largely due to climate change. This effect affects the economy of the nation, which in turn affects national security.

The scope and nature of environmental threats to national security and strategies to engage them are a subject of debate.[3]: 29–33  Romm (1993) classifies the major impacts of ecological changes on national security as:[3]: 15 

Energy and natural resources

[edit]
Main article: Energy security

Resources include water, sources of energy, land, and minerals. Availability of adequate natural resources is important for a nation to develop its industry and economic power. For example, in the Persian Gulf War of 1991, Iraq captured Kuwait partly in order to secure access to its oil wells, and one reason for the US counter-invasion was the value of the same wells to its own economy.[citation needed] Water resources are subject to disputes between many nations, including India and Pakistan, and in the Middle East.

The interrelations between security, energy, natural resources, and their sustainability is increasingly acknowledged in national security strategies and resource security is now included among the UN Sustainable Development Goals.[12][11][27][14][28] In the US, for example, the military has installed solar photovoltaic microgrids on their bases in case of power outage.[29][30]

Issues

[edit]

Consistency of approach

[edit]

The dimensions of national security outlined above are frequently in tension with one another. For example:

  • The high cost of maintaining large military forces can place a burden on the economic security of a nation and annual defence spending as per cent of GDP varies significantly by country.[31] Conversely, economic constraints can limit the scale of expenditure on military capabilities.
  • Unilateral security action by states can undermine political security at an international level if it erodes the rule of law and undermines the authority of international institutions. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the annexation of Crimea in 2014 have been cited as examples.[32][33]
  • The pursuit of economic security in competition with other nation states can undermine the ecological security of all when the impact includes widespread topsoil erosion, biodiversity loss, and climate change.[34] Conversely, expenditure on mitigating or adapting to ecological change places a burden on the national economy.

If tensions such as these are mismanaged, national security policies and actions may be ineffective or counterproductive.

Versus transnational security

[edit]

Increasingly, national security strategies have begun to recognise that nations cannot provide for their own security without also developing the security of their regional and international context.[14][27][11][12] For example, Sweden's national security strategy of 2017 declared:

"Wider security measures must also now encompass protection against epidemics and infectious diseases, combating terrorism and organised crime, ensuring safe transport and reliable food supplies, protecting against energy supply interruptions, countering devastating climate change, initiatives for peace and global development, and much more."[12]

The extent to which this matters, and how it should be done, is the subject of debate. Some argue that the principal beneficiary of national security policy should be the nation state itself, which should centre its strategy on protective and coercive capabilities in order to safeguard itself in a hostile environment (and potentially to project that power into its environment, and dominate it to the point of strategic supremacy).[35][36][37] Others argue that security depends principally on building the conditions in which equitable relationships between nations can develop, partly by reducing antagonism between actors, ensuring that fundamental needs can be met, and also that differences of interest can be negotiated effectively.[38][8][9] In the UK, for example, Malcolm Chalmers argued in 2015 that the heart of the UK's approach should be support for the Western strategic military alliance led through NATO by the United States, as "the key anchor around which international order is maintained".[39]

Civil liberties and human rights

[edit]
See also: Civil liberties, Human rights, Mass surveillance, Preventive State, and Police state

Approaches to national security can have a complex impact on human rights and civil liberties. For example, the rights and liberties of citizens are affected by the use of military personnel and militarised police forces to control public behaviour; the use of surveillance, including mass surveillance in cyberspace, which has implications for privacy; military recruitment and conscription practices; and the effects of warfare on civilians and civil infrastructure. This has led to a dialectical struggle, particularly in liberal democracies, between government authority and the rights and freedoms of the general public.

Even where the exercise of national security is subject to good governance, and the rule of law, a risk remains that the term national security may become a pretext for suppressing unfavorable political and social views. In the US, for example, the controversial USA Patriot Act of 2001, and the revelation by Edward Snowden in 2013 that the National Security Agency harvests the personal data of the general public, brought these issues to wide public attention. Among the questions raised are whether and how national security considerations at times of war should lead to the suppression of individual rights and freedoms, and whether such restrictions are necessary when a state is at peace.

Meaning

[edit]

Daniel W. Drezner says, "the definition of national security has been stretched almost beyond recognition" with some seeing "everything as a national security threat". Drezner explains how policymakers overreacting can "explain that they were just being cautious or that their very warnings helped neutralize the threat".[40] "The term has been described as invoking "an ambiguous foreign threat" and being "exploited to deflect public scrutiny and provide political cover for unpopular policies".[41] The extensive focus on national security can also lead the public to look to security rather than diplomacy.[40]

By region

[edit]

Argentina and Brazil

[edit]

National security ideology as taught by the US Army School of the Americas to military personnel was vital in causing the military coup of 1964 in Brazil and the 1976 one in Argentina. The military dictatorships were installed on the claim by the military that Leftists were an existential threat to the national interests.[42]

China

[edit]
Main article: National security of China

China's military is the People's Liberation Army (PLA). The military is the largest in the world, with 2.3 million active troops in 2005.

The Ministry of State Security was established in 1983 to ensure "the security of the state through effective measures against enemy agents, spies, and counterrevolutionary activities designed to sabotage or overthrow China's socialist system."[43]

European Union

[edit]
Main articles: Schengen area, Europol, and Common Foreign and Security Policy

For Schengen area[44] some parts of national security and external border control are enforced by Frontex[45] according to the Treaty of Lisbon. The security policy of the European Union is set by High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and assisted by European External Action Service.[46] Europol is one of the agencies of the European Union responsible for combating various forms of crime in the European Union through coordinating law enforcement agencies of the EU member states.[47]

European Union national security has been accused of insufficiently preventing foreign threats.[48]

India

[edit]
Main articles: National Security Council (India), National Security Strategy (India), Terrorism in India, and Illegal immigration to India

The state of the Republic of India's national security is determined by its internal stability and geopolitical interests. While Islamic upsurge in Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir demanding secession and far left-wing terrorism in India's red corridor remain some key issues in India's internal security, terrorism from Pakistan-based militant groups has been emerging as a major concern for New Delhi.

The National Security Advisor of India heads the National Security Council of India, receives all kinds of intelligence reports, and is chief advisor to the Prime Minister of India over national and international security policy. The National Security Council has India's defence, foreign, home, finance ministers and deputy chairman of NITI Aayog as its members and is responsible for shaping strategies for India's security in all aspects.[49]

A lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay filed a Public interest litigation (PIL) in the "Supreme Court of India" (SC) to identify and deport illegal immigrants. Responding to this PIL, Delhi Police told the SC in July 2019 that nearly 500 illegal Bangladeshi immigrants have been deported in the preceding 28 months.[50] There are estimated 600,000 to 700,000 illegal Bangladeshi and Rohingya immigrants in National Capital Region (NCR) region specially in the districts of Gurugram, Faridabad, and Nuh (Mewat region), as well as interior villages of Bhiwani and Hisar. Most of them are Muslims who have acquired fake Hindu identity, and under questioning, they pretend to be from West Bengal. In September 2019, the Chief Minister of Haryana, Manohar Lal Khattar announced the implementation of NRC for Haryana by setting up a legal framework under the former judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Justice HS Bhalla for updating NRC which will help in weeding out these illegal immigrants.[51]

Russia

[edit]

In the years 1997 and 2000, Russia adopted documents titled "National Security Concept" that described Russia's global position, the country's interests, listed threats to national security, and described the means to counter those threats. In 2009, these documents were superseded by the "National Security Strategy to 2020". The key body responsible for coordinating policies related to Russia's national security is the Security Council of Russia.

According to provision 6 of the National Security Strategy to 2020, national security is "the situation in which the individual, the society and the state enjoy protection from foreign and domestic threats to the degree that ensures constitutional rights and freedoms, decent quality of life for citizens, as well as sovereignty, territorial integrity and stable development of the Russian Federation, the defence and security of the state."

Singapore

[edit]
Main article: Total Defence (Singapore)

Total Defence is Singapore's whole-of-society national defence concept[52] based on the premise that the strongest defence of a nation is collective defence[53] – when every aspect of society stays united for the defence of the country.[54] Adopted from the national defence strategies of Sweden and Switzerland,[55] Total Defence was introduced in Singapore in 1984. Then, it was recognised that military threats to a nation can affect the psyche and social fabric of its people.[56] Therefore, the defence and progress of Singapore are dependent on all of its citizens' resolve, along with the government and armed forces.[57] Total Defence has since evolved to take into consideration threats and challenges outside of the conventional military domain.

Ukraine

[edit]

National security of Ukraine is defined in Ukrainian law as "a set of legislative and organisational measures aimed at permanent protection of vital interests of man and citizen, society and the state, which ensure sustainable development of society, timely detection, prevention and neutralisation of real and potential threats to national interests in areas of law enforcement, fight against corruption, border activities and defence, migration policy, health care, education and science, technology and innovation policy, cultural development of the population, freedom of speech and information security, social policy and pension provision, housing and communal services, financial services market, protection of property rights, stock markets and circulation of securities, fiscal and customs policy, trade and business, banking services, investment policy, auditing, monetary and exchange rate policy, information security, licensing, industry and agriculture, transport and communications, information technology, energy and energy saving, functioning of natural monopolies, use of subsoil, land and water resources, minerals, protection of ecology and environment and other areas of public administration, in the event of emergence of negative trends towards the creation of potential or real threats to national interests."[58]

The primary body responsible for coordinating national security policy in Ukraine is the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine. It is an advisory state agency to the President of Ukraine, tasked with developing a policy of national security on domestic and international matters. All sessions of the council take place in the Presidential Administration Building. The council was created by the provision of Supreme Council of Ukraine #1658-12 on October 11, 1991. It was defined as the highest state body of collegiate governing on matters of defence and security of Ukraine with the following goals:

  • Protecting sovereignty
  • Constitutional order
  • Territorial integrity and inviolability of the republic
  • Developing strategies and continuous improvement of policy in the sphere of defence and state security
  • Comprehensive scientific assessment of the military threat nature
  • Determining position toward modern warfare
  • Effective control over the execution of the tasks of the state and its institutions keeping defence capabilities of Ukraine at the level of defence sufficiency

United Kingdom

[edit]

The primary body responsible for coordinating national security policy in the UK is the National Security Council (United Kingdom) which helps produce and enact the UK's National Security Strategy. It was created in May 2010 by the new coalition government of the Conservative Party (UK) and Liberal Democrats. The National Security Council is a committee of the Cabinet of the United Kingdom and was created as part of a wider reform of the national security apparatus. This reform also included the creation of a National Security Adviser and a National Security Secretariat to support the National Security Council.[59]

United States

[edit]
Main article: National security of the United States

National Security Act of 1947

[edit]
Main articles: National Security Act of 1947 and United States National Security Council

The concept of national security became an official guiding principle of foreign policy in the United States when the National Security Act of 1947 was signed on July 26, 1947, by U.S. President Harry S. Truman.[3]: 3  As amended in 1949, this Act:

Notably, the Act did not define national security, which was conceivably advantageous, as its ambiguity made it a powerful phrase to invoke against diverse threats to interests of the state, such as domestic concerns.[3]: 3–5 

The notion that national security encompasses more than just military security was present, though understated, from the beginning. The Act established the National Security Council so as to "advise the President on the integration of domestic, military and foreign policies relating to national security".[2]: 52 

The act establishes, within the National Security Council, the Committee on Foreign Intelligence, whose duty is to conduct an annual review "identifying the intelligence required to address the national security interests of the United States as specified by the President" (emphasis added).[61]

In Gen. Maxwell Taylor's 1974 essay "The Legitimate Claims of National Security", Taylor states:[62]

The national valuables in this broad sense include current assets and national interests, as well as the sources of strength upon which our future as a nation depends. Some valuables are tangible and earthy; others are spiritual or intellectual. They range widely from political assets such as the Bill of Rights, our political institutions, and international friendships to many economic assets which radiate worldwide from a highly productive domestic economy supported by rich natural resources. It is the urgent need to protect valuables such as these which legitimizes and makes essential the role of national security.

National security state

[edit]

To address the institutionalisation of new bureaucracies and government practices in the post–World War II period in the U.S., the culture of semi-permanent military mobilisation joined the National Security Council (NSC), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Department of Defense (DoD), and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) for the practical application of the concept of the national security state:[63][64][65]

During and after World War II, U.S. leaders expanded the concept of national security, and used its terminology for the first time to explain America's relationship to the world. For most of U.S. history, the continental United States was secure. But, by 1945, it had become rapidly vulnerable with the advent of long-range bombers, atom bombs, and ballistic missiles. A general perception grew that future mobilization would be insufficient and that preparation must be constant. For the first time, American leaders dealt with the essential paradox of national security faced by the Roman Empire and subsequent great powers: Si vis pacem, para bellum — "If you want peace, prepare for war."[66]

— David Jablonsky

Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer offers a seven-characteristic definition for 'national security state' as where the military and broader national security establishment, e.g., exert influence over political and economic affairs; hold ultimate power while maintaining an appearance of democracy; are preoccupied with external and/or internal enemies; define policies in secret and implement those policies through covert channels.[67]

Obama administration

[edit]

The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff defines national security of the United States in the following manner :[68]

A collective term encompassing both national defense and foreign relations of the United States. Specifically, the condition provided by: a. a military or defense advantage over any foreign nation or group of nations; b. a favorable foreign relations position; or c. a defense posture capable of successfully resisting hostile or destructive action from within or without, overt or covert.

In 2010, the White House included an all-encompassing world-view in a national security strategy which identified "security" as one of the country's "four enduring national interests" that were "inexorably intertwined":[69]

"To achieve the world we seek, the United States must apply our strategic approach in pursuit of four enduring national interests:

  • Security:  The security of the United States, its citizens, and U.S. allies and partners.
  • Prosperity:  A strong, innovative, and growing U.S. economy in an open international economic system that promotes opportunity and prosperity.
  • Values: Respect for universal values at home and around the world.
  • International Order:  An international order advanced by U.S. leadership that promotes peace, security, and opportunity through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges.

Each of these interests is inextricably linked to the others: no single interest can be pursued in isolation, but at the same time, positive action in one area will help advance all four."

— National Security Strategy, Executive Office of the President of the United States (May 2010)

Empowerment of women

[edit]
Main article: Hillary Doctrine

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said that, "The countries that threaten regional and global peace are the very places where women and girls are deprived of dignity and opportunity".[70] She has noted that countries, where women are oppressed, are places where the "rule of law and democracy are struggling to take root",[70] and that, when women's rights as equals in society are upheld, the society as a whole changes and improves, which in turn enhances stability in that society, which in turn contributes to global society.[70]

Cyber

[edit]

The Bush administration in January 2008 initiated the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI). It introduced a differentiated approach, such as identifying existing and emerging cybersecurity threats, finding and plugging existing cyber vulnerabilities and apprehending those trying to access federal information systems.[71]

President Obama said the "cyber threat is one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a nation" and that "America's economic prosperity in the 21st century will depend on cybersecurity".[72]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

National security

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
National security encompasses the protection of a state's citizens, , institutions, and core interests from internal , foreign , and other existential threats through integrated measures in national defense, foreign , , and foreign relations. Traditionally centered on military capabilities to deter or defeat armed invasions, the concept has broadened since the late to address non-state actors, cyber intrusions, disruptions to , pandemics, and economic coercion, driven by empirical shifts in global threats such as and technological vulnerabilities. In the United States, foundational structures like the reorganized executive agencies—including the Department of Defense, , and —to centralize decision-making and resource allocation for these multifaceted risks, a model influencing many allied nations' frameworks. Key components typically integrate the "3Ds" of defense, diplomacy, and development, alongside intelligence and economic tools, to maintain deterrence, resilience, and alliances amid evolving challenges like weapons proliferation and hybrid warfare. Notable controversies arise from the expansion of surveillance powers and the prioritization of certain threats, which have sparked debates over civil liberties and resource misallocation, as evidenced in post-9/11 policy shifts that amplified domestic intelligence roles.

Conceptual Foundations

Definition and First-Principles Basis

National security constitutes the measures a undertakes to protect its , population, institutions, and capacity for against threats that could compromise its existence or autonomy. This encompasses defense against military aggression, subversion of internal order, and disruptions to core functions enabling independent . At its core, it prioritizes the prevention of existential harms, distinguishing it from broader goals like economic welfare or ideological promotion, which may support but do not define . From first principles, national security arises from the causal reality of human conflict in unstructured environments, where individuals and groups compete for scarce resources, leading to violence absent coercive authority. In the , as described by in (1651), life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" due to mutual insecurity, prompting rational actors to covenant to a for mutual protection. The state's legitimacy derives from this , wherein subjects authorize absolute sovereign power to enforce peace, deter invaders, and suppress domestic disorder, with security as the primary end of political association. Empirical observation reinforces this: polities that neglect defense against verifiable threats, such as conquest or , dissolve, as seen in historical collapses from unchecked external incursions. This foundation underscores causal realism in threat assessment, focusing on actors with intent and capability to inflict harm—rival states, insurgencies, or internal betrayals—rather than probabilistic or ideological abstractions. Modern formulations, such as the U.S. , operationalize these principles through integrated military, intelligence, and diplomatic apparatuses to preserve amid interstate rivalry. Yet expansions beyond vital interests risk diluting focus, as non-military domains like pandemics or , while impactful, do not inherently threaten state survival without direct agency. Thus, first-principles reasoning demands prioritization of defensible borders, credible deterrence, and internal cohesion as prerequisites for any enduring polity.

Historical Evolution

The concept of national security crystallized in the 17th century amid the (1618–1648), which devastated through intertwined religious, dynastic, and territorial conflicts, culminating in the that enshrined sovereign equality, territorial integrity, and non-interference as foundational principles for emerging nation-states. Prior to this, security paradigms emphasized imperial expansion, feudal loyalties, or city-state defenses rather than fixed national boundaries, as rulers prioritized personal or dynastic power over institutionalized state preservation. In the early American republic, figures such as and employed the term "national security" during the Revolutionary era to denote safeguards against foreign invasion and domestic disorder, linking military readiness to economic vitality and constitutional order without a precise doctrinal framework. The extended these ideas through doctrines like , which justified territorial expansion to secure trade routes and buffer against European powers, reflecting a blend of defensive and offensive strategies amid industrialization and rising great-power rivalries. The two world wars accelerated the evolution toward comprehensive national security, as total mobilization revealed interdependencies between military, industrial, and intelligence capabilities; , in particular, prompted Allied powers to integrate economic production with frontline defense, foreshadowing postwar structures. In the United States, this culminated in the , signed by President on July 26, which unified the armed services under a new Department of Defense, established the for policy coordination, and created the to centralize espionage amid emerging Soviet threats. The classified NSC-68 directive of April 7, 1950, further defined imperatives, advocating massive military expansion, global alliances like (formed April 4, 1949), and to counter communist subversion without direct provocation. Throughout the Cold War (1947–1991), national security doctrines broadened to encompass ideological containment, nuclear deterrence—as in Eisenhower's 1953 New Look policy emphasizing strategic bombers and ICBMs—and economic resilience against blockades or resource denial, driven by events like the 1948–1949 Berlin Airlift and 1973 oil crisis. This era marked a shift from purely territorial defense to holistic threat mitigation, including proxy wars and technological arms races, with over 70,000 U.S. nuclear warheads peaking in 1967. Post-Cold War, the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union prompted reevaluation; the U.S. National Security Strategy of 1993 under explicitly integrated and regional stability as security tools, influencing interventions in the and . The September 11, 2001, attacks reframed priorities toward non-state actors, leading to the 2002 U.S. National Security Strategy's preemptive strike doctrine and the 2002 creation of the Department of to address , proliferation, and asymmetric threats. By the 2010s, resurgence of peer competitors like and , coupled with cyber intrusions (e.g., the 2015–2016 Russian election interference) and disruptions, expanded the domain to include digital infrastructure, critical technologies, and economic coercion, as articulated in strategies emphasizing great-power competition over unilateral primacy. This progression reflects causal pressures from technological advances, , and shifting power balances, though critics argue overextension dilutes focus on core military capabilities.

Core Dimensions

Military and Territorial Integrity

Military and territorial integrity constitutes a core pillar of national security, encompassing the preservation of a state's sovereign borders, landmass, and exclusive control over its geographic domain against external coercion or seizure. From first principles, territorial control enables resource extraction, governance, and demographic stability; its erosion undermines state legitimacy and invites cascading vulnerabilities, as aggressors exploit weakness to alter power balances. Empirically, violations of territorial integrity, such as through armed incursions or hybrid tactics, precipitate broader conflicts that degrade national autonomy, as observed in prolonged hybrid warfare scenarios where initial encroachments escalate to full-scale hostilities. The serves as the primary instrument for upholding via deterrence and, if necessary, decisive defense. Deterrence operates on the credible threat of unacceptable retaliation, where potential invaders calculate that gains from aggression would be outweighed by military costs; this relies on visible capabilities like advanced weaponry, troop readiness, and strategic positioning rather than mere declarations. In practice, states maintain standing armies, naval forces for maritime domains, and air superiority to deny adversaries territorial footholds, with nuclear arsenals providing existential safeguards against existential threats. For instance, the , ranked as the world's preeminent military power in 2025, deploys over 200,000 personnel across global bases while sustaining a defense exceeding $800 billion annually, enabling to deter encroachments on allied or homeland territories. Global military expenditure underscores the prioritization of territorial defense, reaching $2.718 trillion in 2024—a 9.4% real-term increase from the prior year and the highest recorded level—driven by state competitions where territorial ambitions, such as Russia's actions in or China's claims, necessitate robust countermeasures. Effective strategies emphasize modernization, including counterspace capabilities to protect satellite-dependent command systems and integrated homeland defense postures that layer forward deterrence with domestic resilience. However, diverting military resources to non-traditional roles, such as extensive policing against irregular migration, risks diluting lethality and readiness for peer-state invasions, as forces optimized for high-intensity warfare may lack for sustained domestic enforcement. Alliances amplify by extending deterrence umbrellas; for example, NATO's collective defense clause has historically deterred direct assaults on member states' territories, though reliance on such pacts demands domestic military sufficiency to avoid free-riding dilemmas. Violations through gray-zone tactics—short of overt —test resolve, requiring hybrid responses that blend military presence with legal and informational tools to reaffirm boundaries without escalating to full conflict. Ultimately, causal realism dictates that military atrophy invites predation, as evidenced by deterrence failures where perceived weakness emboldens revisionist powers seeking territorial revision.

Economic Independence and Resilience

Economic independence refers to a nation's capacity to produce essential domestically or through diversified, reliable alliances, minimizing reliance on potential adversaries for critical inputs that could be weaponized in conflicts. This dimension of national security gained prominence in the 2017 U.S. National Security Strategy, which explicitly stated that "economic security is national security," emphasizing how vulnerabilities in trade and supply chains enable , such as export restrictions or sanctions. Dependence on foreign suppliers for strategic materials undermines deterrence and operational readiness, as disruptions can cascade into military or industrial shortfalls; for instance, concentrated import sources amplify shocks from geopolitical tensions or . Resilience, in turn, involves building redundant systems, stockpiles, and domestic capabilities to withstand such pressures, drawing from first-principles recognition that prolonged access to resources determines sustained . A primary vulnerability lies in critical minerals, where the United States remains heavily dependent on , which dominates global supply chains for rare earth elements essential to defense technologies like missiles, fighter jets, and electronics. controls approximately 70% of rare earth capacity, 90% of separation and , and 93% of magnet production as of 2025, creating risks of supply denial that could halt U.S. production within weeks during escalations. In December 2024, imposed bans on several minerals in retaliation for U.S. restrictions, exacerbating these concerns and highlighting how such dominance enables asymmetric leverage without kinetic conflict. This dependence extends to batteries and semiconductors, where Chinese bottlenecks threaten production and advanced weaponry, underscoring causal links between resource control and . Broader fragilities compound these risks, as evidenced by heightened geographical concentration in imports, which has increased vulnerability to exporter-specific shocks amid rising geopolitical . The and Russia's 2022 invasion of exposed how just-in-time manufacturing models falter under stress, with U.S. industries facing delays in semiconductors and energy components due to overreliance on Asian hubs. , while a tool for U.S. leverage—such as those targeting Iran's nuclear program or Russian aggression—can boomerang if domestic resilience is lacking, as retaliatory measures like China's mineral curbs demonstrate the bidirectional nature of . From 2020 to 2025, global economic restrictions surged fourfold annually, reflecting a shift where nations treat supply chains as extensions of . To enhance resilience, policies have focused on diversification and reshoring, including the U.S. CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, which allocated $52 billion to bolster domestic semiconductor production, reducing exposure to Taiwanese and Chinese vulnerabilities. The Promoting Resilient Supply Chains Act of 2025 mandates assessments of over 40 indicators across 431 industries to identify risks and prioritize federal investments. Efforts to onshore critical mineral processing, such as partnerships for rare earth refining, aim to counter China's monopoly, though challenges persist due to environmental regulations and capital costs. Historical precedents, like the 1973 Arab oil embargo that spurred U.S. energy independence initiatives, illustrate how targeted disruptions catalyze long-term autonomy, but require sustained fiscal commitment to avoid recurring dependencies.
Critical MineralU.S. Import Dependence on China (%)Key National Security Applications
Rare Earth Elements80+Magnets in F-35 jets, precision-guided munitions
90+Battery anodes for drones, submarines
50+ (rising)Flame retardants in military gear, alloys
These metrics highlight the urgency of decoupling from adversarial dominance to preserve operational freedom in protracted conflicts.

Cyber and Informational Security

Cyber security in national security encompasses the protection of , military networks, and government systems from unauthorized access, , and disruptive attacks by adversarial actors. State-sponsored operations, particularly from and , represent the most persistent threats, focusing on to steal and pre-position for potential wartime . According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's 2025 Homeland Threat Assessment, (PRC) actors have embedded cyber capabilities in U.S. systems to enable destructive attacks during conflicts, targeting sectors like , , and transportation. The 2025 Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community highlights that these intrusions often evade detection for months, allowing adversaries to map networks and exfiltrate terabytes of data annually. Notable campaigns include PRC-linked groups such as Volt Typhoon, which since mid-2023 has compromised routers and devices in U.S. to maintain persistent access for future disruptions, as detailed by the (CISA). Similarly, Salt Typhoon, another PRC operation, infiltrated U.S. providers in 2024, enabling broad surveillance and against government and private targets. Russian actors have conducted parallel efforts, including deployments against Ukrainian infrastructure spilling over to allies, with tactics adaptable to U.S. systems. These operations prioritize stealth over immediate disruption, reflecting a of long-term positioning amid great-power competition. In 2024, criminal-inspired attacks on U.S. water utilities, potentially emulating state tactics, underscored vulnerabilities in under-resourced sectors. Informational security addresses foreign attempts to manipulate narratives and public discourse through —deliberately false or misleading content spread to deceive audiences and achieve strategic objectives. Adversaries like and deploy these tactics to amplify societal divisions, erode trust in democratic institutions, and influence policy without kinetic force. A 2024 U.S. Government Accountability Office report notes that such campaigns weaken democratic resilience by fostering political instability and interpersonal conflict, with effects persisting beyond initial dissemination. 's operations, including those targeting U.S. elections, have involved coordinated amplification and proxies to promote polarizing content, as analyzed in State Department assessments of foreign adversary efforts. Chinese influence activities, often via "" networks, blend malinformation—factual data distorted for harm—with covert funding of sympathetic outlets to shape perceptions on trade, technology, and . The convergence of cyber and informational domains forms hybrid threats, where digital intrusions facilitate delivery, such as through hacked networks leaking manipulated data to sow chaos. For instance, PRC espionage on U.S. telecoms enables that informs tailored campaigns. These efforts exploit open societies' information ecosystems, with impacts including economic losses from IP theft—estimated in billions annually—and degraded national cohesion during crises. Effective countermeasures require robust attribution, public-private partnerships for resilience, and international norms to deter escalation, though enforcement remains challenged by attribution difficulties and adversary deniability. Government reports emphasize that while non-state actors contribute, nation-states drive the most consequential threats due to their resources and strategic intent.

Energy and Resource Autonomy

Energy and resource encompasses a nation's ability to secure sufficient domestic or allied supplies of and essential raw materials, thereby insulating , capabilities, and economic output from adversarial manipulation or global market shocks. Dependence on foreign sources exposes states to leverage, as suppliers can impose embargoes or price manipulations during conflicts; for instance, the 1973 Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries embargo against the and allies led to quadrupled oil prices, widespread shortages, and a that persisted until 1975. Similarly, Europe's heavy reliance on Russian —peaking at 40% of imports in 2021—allowed to curtail flows after its 2022 invasion of , forcing emergency measures like coal plant reactivations and LNG imports that inflated costs by up to 300% in some countries. These episodes underscore that vulnerabilities amplify geopolitical risks, potentially constraining mobilization or civilian resilience in crises. In the energy domain, fossil fuels remain central to due to their and scalability for and power generation. The transitioned from net importer to net total energy exporter in 2019, driven by hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling in shale formations, which boosted domestic oil production to 13.3 million barrels per day by 2023. By 2024, U.S. primary energy production reached a record 103 quadrillion British thermal units, with exports comprising 30% of output and net exports hitting 9.3 quadrillion British thermal units—the highest on record—primarily via (LNG) shipments that enhanced allied while reducing domestic exposure to imports. contributes baseload reliability, with the U.S. operating 93 reactors supplying 18% of in 2023, though regulatory hurdles have limited expansion compared to fossil fuel agility. Renewables like and solar, while growing to 13% of U.S. generation in 2023, introduce risks without sufficient storage, and their supply chains often depend on foreign components, potentially undermining net gains. Resource autonomy extends to critical minerals vital for defense technologies, such as rare earth elements used in fighter jet magnets, systems, and electronics. controls over 60% of global mining and 85% of processing for rare earths as of 2024, creating a strategic chokepoint; U.S. imports met 100% of domestic demand for 14 of 50 critical minerals in 2023, exposing supply chains to export restrictions that has wielded as leverage, including a 2010 embargo on amid territorial disputes. This dependence threatens readiness, as evidenced by assessments that disruptions could halt production of key weapons systems within months. Efforts to mitigate include the U.S. Department of Defense's 2020 strategy to stockpile minerals and fund domestic processing, alongside international partnerships like the Minerals Security Partnership, though progress remains slow with U.S. rare earth mining output at under 43,000 metric tons in 2023 versus 's 240,000. Achieving greater autonomy demands policies prioritizing domestic extraction, refining capacity, and over import substitution via unreliable partners. For , maintaining permissive regulatory environments for drilling and pipelines has proven effective, as U.S. net exports deterred potential adversaries by flooding global markets with LNG post-2022. strategies similarly emphasize mapping reserves—such as the U.S. Geological Survey's identification of viable domestic deposits—and incentivizing private investment, countering China's state-subsidized dominance that distorts markets through overproduction. Failure to advance these measures risks cascading failures in high-tech sectors, where causal linkages from scarcity directly impair national defense postures.

Border Control and Demographic Stability

Secure borders constitute a foundational element of national security by regulating entry to prevent the infiltration of individuals posing direct threats, such as terrorists or criminals, while preserving demographic equilibrium essential for societal cohesion and . In the United States, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reported 7,181 southwest border apprehensions in March 2025, reflecting a decline from prior peaks but underscoring ongoing vulnerabilities; since 2021, agents have encountered 394 individuals on the terrorist watchlist between ports of entry. Over 250 such encounters occurred in fiscal years 2023-2024 alone, with at least 99 released into the interior pending proceedings, highlighting enforcement gaps that could enable adversarial actors to exploit migration flows. Effective thus mitigates hybrid threats where non-state actors blend with economic migrants, as evidenced by increased watchlist hits correlating with overall encounter surges prior to 2025 policy shifts. Demographic stability underpins national security by maintaining a aligned with the host society's cultural, linguistic, and institutional norms, which foster trust and defense capabilities; unchecked influxes disrupt this balance, accelerating shifts toward lower native birth rates—often below replacement levels of 2.1 children per woman in Western nations—and elevating reliance on high- immigrant cohorts from disparate regions. In , the 2015-2016 refugee wave, involving over 1 million arrivals primarily from the and , exemplifies how rapid demographic reconfiguration strains integration, with native fertility averaging 1.5 in the EU as of 2023, contrasted by immigrant rates exceeding 2.5 in initial generations. Such changes risk forming parallel communities with reduced intergroup trust, as Robert Putnam's research on ethnic diversity demonstrates short- to medium-term declines in , including and mutual reliance critical for security resilience. Empirical evidence links porous borders to elevated risks through correlated rises in and fiscal burdens that erode public support for defense priorities. Peer-reviewed analyses of large migrant waves in , such as late-1990s asylum inflows to the , reveal modest increases in rates attributable to newcomers, with a 1% migrant rise associating with 0.1% upticks in robberies and thefts, though effects remain negligible in aggregate. In the U.S., undocumented immigrants impose a lifetime net fiscal drain of approximately $68,000 per person due to welfare utilization outpacing contributions, exacerbating state and local amid 2023 immigration surges costing $9.2 billion net. These dynamics, compounded by institutional tendencies in academia to underreport adverse integration outcomes—often prioritizing narrative alignment over raw data—underscore the causal pathway from lax to diminished national vitality, where resource diversion and cultural fragmentation weaken the societal fabric requisite for confronting external threats.

Ideological and Cultural Defense

Ideological and cultural defense encompasses strategies to preserve a nation's core values, historical narratives, and cultural cohesion against internal fragmentation or external subversion that could erode the societal unity necessary for collective self-preservation. This dimension of national security recognizes that military and economic defenses rely on a populace motivated by shared identity and ideological commitment; without it, states become vulnerable to exploitation by adversaries who target divisions through propaganda, demographic shifts, or cultural relativism. Empirical analyses link strong national identity to heightened defense willingness, as fragmented societies exhibit reduced resilience to hybrid threats. Historical precedents underscore the causal role of ideological defense in state survival. During the , Western powers countered Soviet communism not merely through arms but via institutional promotion of liberal democratic ideals, cultural exports like media and education, which fortified domestic resolve against Marxist infiltration; declassified U.S. documents from 1947 onward emphasized ideological warfare as integral to . Post-Cold War, Samuel Huntington's 1993 thesis posited that global conflicts would increasingly align along civilizational lines—Western, Islamic, Sinic—rather than ideological ones, arguing that cultural incompatibility drives fault-line wars, as evidenced by Balkan conflicts in the 1990s where ethnic identities fueled secessionist violence despite shared communist heritage. Contemporary threats to cultural cohesion include unassimilated forming parallel societies, which studies correlate with heightened internal security risks through eroded trust and parallel legal norms; for example, European data from 2015-2020 show correlations between rapid demographic changes and rising parallel economies in nations like and , weakening national solidarity. and digital propaganda further dilute indigenous traditions, prompting protectionist responses in states like , where "ideological defense lines" against Western "peaceful evolution" tactics are institutionalized via education and media controls to maintain regime stability. In democratic contexts, and without enforced assimilation have been critiqued for fostering zero-sum competitions over resources and narratives, potentially inviting external actors to amplify divisions, as seen in Russian influence operations during the 2016 U.S. election targeting cultural flashpoints. Effective countermeasures prioritize causal mechanisms over symptomatic fixes. Nations employ civic curricula emphasizing historical achievements and shared sacrifices—such as Israel's mandatory service and narrative-building post-1948—to cultivate attachment; surveys indicate this boosts defense mobilization rates by reinforcing collective efficacy. Border and policies mandating cultural integration, coupled with media regulations against foreign , address root vulnerabilities; Taiwan's 2020s cognitive warfare defenses, including public campaigns against Chinese tactics, exemplify proactive ideological hardening, reducing susceptibility to subversion as measured by polling shifts in pro-independence sentiment from 2020 to 2024. Realist frameworks stress avoiding naive , instead leveraging civilizational self-awareness to build alliances with kin cultures while quarantining incompatible ideologies, thereby sustaining the internal cohesion that underpins all security apparatuses.

Primary Threats

Competition from Peer States

Peer state competition in national security encompasses strategic rivalries among nations possessing comparable military, economic, and technological capacities, enabling them to contest core interests through direct military challenges, economic , or influence operations. Unlike asymmetric threats from non-state , peer competitors can impose symmetric pressures, such as territorial incursions or arms races, that risk escalation to large-scale conflict. This dynamic has reemerged as the central paradigm of interstate relations since 2017, driven by the revisionist ambitions of powers like and , which seek to reshape global order in ways that undermine the and security of established states. China exemplifies peer competition through its rapid military modernization under the (PLA), which has prioritized capabilities for regional dominance and . In 2024, 's military expenditure reached $314 billion, the second-highest globally after the , funding expansions like the world's largest by number of hulls (over 370 ships) and advanced hypersonic missiles capable of threatening U.S. assets in the . The PLA's integration of leverages civilian tech sectors for dual-use advancements, enhancing and mechanization toward a "world-class" force by 2049, as outlined in strategic plans. This buildup supports assertive actions, including militarization of artificial islands in the and frequent incursions near , heightening risks of confrontation with the U.S. and allies. Economic dimensions amplify the threat, with export controls on rare-earth minerals and tech restrictions signaling a shift to protracted rivalry, where exploits dependencies to erode adversaries' resilience. Russia represents another peer threat, leveraging its nuclear arsenal—estimated at over 5,500 warheads—and conventional forces to coerce neighbors and challenge 's eastern flank. spending hit $149 billion in 2024, third globally, sustaining operations amid the ongoing invasion of launched in February 2022, which demonstrated Russia's willingness to employ hybrid tactics including cyberattacks, , and territorial to weaken Western cohesion. identifies Russia as the most significant direct threat to member security, citing shadow warfare like and influence operations that blur lines between peace and conflict. These actions, rooted in Russia's 2021 National Security Strategy emphasizing protection of its , underscore peer competition's potential for escalation, including risks of nuclear brinkmanship or spillover into territory. Such rivalries drive global arms races and alliance realignments, with top spenders—the U.S. ($997 billion), , and —accounting for over 50% of worldwide outlays in , fueling innovations in domains like cyber and . Peer demands integrated strategies balancing deterrence against revisionist gains, as unilateral concessions risk emboldening aggressors while overextension invites exploitation of internal divisions. Empirical trends indicate sustained increases in expenditures, with and the also surging in response, highlighting the cascading effects on global stability.

Non-State and Hybrid Actors

Non-state actors, including terrorist organizations, transnational criminal networks, and insurgent groups, represent persistent threats to national security by operating outside traditional state frameworks and exploiting governance vacuums. Groups such as and have demonstrated capacity for high-impact attacks, with controlling territory across and from 2014 to 2019, resulting in thousands of deaths and regional instability. Violent non-state actors adapt rapidly to measures, sustaining operations through decentralized structures and ideological recruitment, thereby challenging state monopolies on violence. Cyber-enabled non-state actors, particularly gangs, have inflicted economic damage exceeding billions annually; for instance, the CL0P group exploited vulnerabilities in Progress Software's MOVEit platform in 2023, compromising data from numerous organizations. These actors often prioritize financial gain but can disrupt , as seen in attacks on healthcare and energy sectors, amplifying vulnerabilities without direct territorial ambitions. remains concentrated in regions like , designated as the global epicenter in 2025 assessments, with groups leveraging ungoverned spaces for training and logistics. Hybrid actors integrate non-state tactics with state-like resources, blurring lines between and subversion to evade attribution and escalation thresholds. defines hybrid threats as coordinated overt and covert actions, including campaigns, cyber intrusions, and proxy militias, often below armed conflict thresholds. Russia's operations in (2014) exemplified this through ""—unmarked forces—combined with information operations, enabling territorial gains without full-scale invasion. State sponsorship enhances hybrid threats' potency, as major powers supply advanced capabilities to proxies; Russian-backed groups have conducted and influence operations across , with incidents like the 2015 TV5Monde disrupting broadcasts. Such tactics exploit target vulnerabilities, such as energy dependencies, as in hybrid pressures on Baltic Sea infrastructure noted in 2025 analyses. The difficulty in attributing hybrid actions—due to deniability—complicates deterrence, allowing actors to test resolve incrementally while avoiding direct confrontation.

Emerging Technological Risks

Advancements in (AI), , and pose novel risks to national security by amplifying adversaries' capabilities in cyber operations, cryptography disruption, and , respectively. These technologies enable asymmetric threats where non-state actors or revisionist powers can exploit dual-use innovations to bypass traditional defenses, as noted in the U.S. Director of National Intelligence's 2025 Annual Threat Assessment, which emphasizes their role in transforming existing threats into new classes of attacks. Unlike , these risks stem from rapid scalability and diffusion, where breakthroughs in one domain—such as AI accelerating biotech design—compound vulnerabilities across others. AI systems heighten national security risks by democratizing sophisticated cyberattacks, enabling propaganda, and powering lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS). For instance, AI lowers barriers to , generation, and social engineering at scale, with state actors like and integrating it into to manipulate information environments. The National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI) warns that unchecked AI proliferation could create "wonder weapons" and systemic power shifts, particularly if (AGI) emerges, allowing superhuman decision-making in conflicts. In 2024, AI-driven campaigns surged, with over 200 documented instances tied to foreign influence operations, underscoring the need for defensive AI safeguards amid U.S. lags in deployment compared to peers. Quantum computing threatens to render current encryption obsolete, exposing classified data and critical infrastructure to "harvest now, decrypt later" attacks. Algorithms like Shor's could break widely used standards such as RSA and ECC, with adversaries potentially stockpiling encrypted traffic for future decryption; the U.S. (CISA) identifies this as a high-risk vector for the 55 National Critical Functions. NIST finalized its first three standards in August 2024—ML-KEM, ML-DSA, and SLH-DSA—to migrate systems, but full implementation lags, leaving systems vulnerable as quantum prototypes advance in labs like those in . By 2025, bipartisan U.S. urged accelerated assessments of quantum-induced cybersecurity gaps, highlighting risks to and financial networks. Synthetic biology and gene-editing tools, such as , facilitate the engineering of novel s or bioweapons, raising risks through accessible DIY labs and dual-use research. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) assesses that could enable non-state actors to enhance virulence or create de novo agents, with global dissemination of protocols amplifying threats post-COVID-19. Convergence with AI exacerbates this, as models design optimized biothreats; a 2024 Carnegie Endowment analysis prioritizes AI guardrails to curb misuse, noting over 100 gene-editing incidents with security implications since 2020. U.S. intelligence reports from 2025 flag state-sponsored biotech programs in adversaries as vectors for engineered pandemics, underscoring vulnerabilities in screening amid rapid commercialization.

Strategic Approaches

Domestic Policy Frameworks

Domestic policy frameworks constitute the internal legal, institutional, and strategic architectures that states employ to mitigate threats to , , and societal cohesion, distinct from but complementary to external deterrence measures. These frameworks derive authority from constitutional provisions and statutes that delineate executive powers for security operations, as established in the United States since George Washington's 1793 Proclamation of Neutrality, which affirmed presidential initiative in with implications for domestic enforcement. Effective frameworks prioritize risk-based resource allocation to avoid overreaction to , which can amplify adversaries' impact by diverting billions in federal spending—such as the post-9/11 escalation where al Qaeda's $500,000 investment prompted disproportionate U.S. outlays on agencies like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and (TSA). Central to these frameworks are inter-agency coordination for intelligence sharing and emergency response, often embodied in dedicated homeland security entities responsible for six critical mission areas: intelligence and warning, and transportation security, domestic , protecting , defending against catastrophic threats, and emergency preparedness. Legislation such as anti-espionage statutes and post-9/11 reforms enable domestic surveillance and interdiction, but must navigate to prevent executive overreach, as highlighted in rulings like that reaffirmed legislative war powers. Frameworks emphasize federal focus on unique competencies like regularization to interdict threats, while devolving protection to states, localities, and private entities to enhance efficiency and adaptability. Resilience-building policies form another pillar, integrating domestic industrial reinvestment, supply chain fortification, and to withstand hybrid threats like cyberattacks on , as evidenced by the 2024 Volt Typhoon intrusions targeting U.S. and transportation sectors. Recommendations include expanding roles for agencies like FEMA in anticipatory planning, establishing state-level resilience officers, and fostering societal through civic programs and , drawing from historical models such as Cold War-era drills and contemporary examples like Finland's comprehensive approach. Such measures treat domestic manufacturing depth as a imperative to reduce vulnerabilities to economic coercion. Balancing security imperatives with remains a core challenge, as expansive policies like warrantless wiretapping or —continued from the Bush to Obama administrations—risk eroding public trust and long-term legitimacy. Strategic frameworks advocate prohibiting practices such as , secret prisons, and military tribunals for domestic actors, instead promoting transparent, rights-respecting prevention to sustain domestic support for security efforts. This equilibrium, rooted in constitutional "invitation to struggle" between branches, ensures policies remain robust without inviting internal backlash that adversaries could exploit.

Deterrence and Alliances

Deterrence in national security strategy involves persuading potential adversaries that the costs of would outweigh any prospective gains, primarily through credible threats of retaliation or denial of objectives. This approach relies on demonstrating resolve, capability, and communication to influence enemy decision-making before conflict erupts. The U.S. Department of Defense identifies deterrence as its core mission, emphasizing prevention of attacks via combat-credible forces and integrated tools of . Empirical evidence from the supports its efficacy in averting direct superpower confrontation, as mutually assured destruction (MAD) doctrines between the and ensured neither initiated nuclear war despite ideological and proxy conflicts. Nuclear deterrence, a subset of this strategy, centers on maintaining survivable second-strike capabilities to impose unacceptable damage, thereby stabilizing crises through fear of escalation. During the , this framework contributed to over four decades without nuclear exchange between major powers, though it did not preclude regional wars or proxy engagements. Extended nuclear deterrence extends this umbrella to allies, as in U.S. commitments to members and Indo-Pacific partners like and , where forward-deployed assets and joint exercises signal readiness to respond. However, deterrence's limits are evident in non-nuclear thresholds, such as Russia's 2022 invasion of , where nuclear signaling deterred direct intervention but failed to prevent aggression against a non-member. Alliances amplify deterrence by pooling resources, sharing intelligence, and distributing risks, creating collective thresholds that raise the perceived costs of attacking any member. The exemplifies this through Article 5, which deems an armed attack on one ally an attack on all, obligating mutual defense and deterring aggression via unified response potential. Invoked once after the , 2001, attacks, it facilitated allied support in , reinforcing the pact's credibility despite varying member contributions. U.S.-led alliances integrate deterrence across domains, incorporating diplomatic, economic, and military levers to counter peer competitors like and , with exercises and basing agreements enhancing interoperability. In practice, alliances mitigate asymmetric threats by extending deterrence credibly, as seen in NATO's post-2014 enhanced forward presence in , which includes multinational battlegroups to signal rapid reinforcement against Russian incursions. Yet, challenges persist, including burden-sharing disparities—where some allies underinvest in defense spending—and doubts over extended guarantees amid like hypersonics that compress response times. Effective alliances demand sustained investment in capabilities and resolve, as deterrence erodes when adversaries perceive disunity or hesitancy, underscoring the causal link between alliance cohesion and strategic stability.

Intelligence and Surveillance Mechanisms

Intelligence and surveillance mechanisms form a core component of national security strategies, enabling states to gather, analyze, and act on information about potential threats from foreign adversaries, non-state actors, and internal risks. These systems prioritize the collection of actionable through diverse modalities, including sources, electronic intercepts, and , to provide decision-makers with foresight into hostile intentions and capabilities. Effective requires integration across agencies, robust analytical frameworks, and technological to process volumes while minimizing errors from incomplete or biased inputs. Key intelligence disciplines encompass (HUMINT), which relies on clandestine human sources for insights into adversary plans; (SIGINT), involving interception of communications and electronic emissions; and (MASINT), focusing on physical signatures like chemical or nuclear traces. (GEOINT) utilizes satellite and aerial imagery for terrain and movement analysis, while (OSINT) aggregates publicly available data. These mechanisms support efforts to detect and neutralize , as outlined in strategies emphasizing protection against foreign intelligence threats through proactive disruption and resilience-building. Surveillance technologies amplify these capabilities, deploying tools such as cyber monitoring for network intrusions, unmanned aerial systems for real-time tracking, and bulk from global communications. In national security contexts, foreign-focused aids in preempting attacks by identifying patterns in terrorist financing or militant recruitment, though domestic applications demand stricter legal boundaries to avoid overreach. Empirical assessments indicate that while enhances , its deterrent effect on is comparatively limited versus conventional , with studies showing minimal displacement of attacks due to adaptive terrorist tactics. Strategic deployment involves balancing collection with analysis to produce timely assessments, often coordinated through centralized bodies that fuse inputs from , diplomatic, and channels. Challenges include technological proliferation enabling adversaries to evade detection via or , necessitating investments in for . Oversight frameworks, such as those mandating safeguards in intelligence operations, aim to align with legal norms while preserving operational efficacy against evolving threats like .

Implementation in Major Powers

United States

The maintains a comprehensive national security apparatus centered on preserving , deterring aggression from peer competitors like and , countering non-state threats such as , and addressing hybrid risks including cyber intrusions and vulnerabilities. This framework integrates military projection, intelligence gathering, alliance commitments, and domestic protective measures, guided by executive directives and statutory authorities. As of 2025, under the Trump administration, priorities emphasize economic resilience against adversarial trade practices, enhanced border enforcement to mitigate internal threats, and technological superiority to counter emerging risks. Central to implementation is the Department of Defense (DoD), which oversees the world's most capable military forces, with a fiscal year 2025 budget request of approximately $850 billion, representing about 3.5% of GDP and enabling global through 11 aircraft carriers, over 1.3 million active-duty personnel, and advanced nuclear deterrence via the triad of land-, sea-, and air-based systems. The DoD's strategy focuses on integrated deterrence against peer states, including modernization of hypersonic weapons, space-based assets, and multi-domain operations to address China's military buildup in the and Russia's actions in . Domestic policy frameworks incorporate industrial base revitalization to reduce reliance on foreign critical minerals, as evidenced by Section 232 actions imposing tariffs on imports threatening supply chains for defense technologies. The U.S. Intelligence Community (IC), comprising 18 organizations coordinated by the Office of the (ODNI), executes surveillance and analysis to preempt threats, with key elements including the for human intelligence, the for signals intelligence, and the for military-specific insights. Post-9/11 reforms under the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 enhanced IC integration, enabling operations like the disruption of Iranian nuclear activities and monitoring of Russian tactics. Recent directives, such as National Security Presidential Memorandum-2 issued in February 2025, reinforce interagency coordination for countering foreign influence operations and domestic extremism networks. Deterrence relies heavily on alliances and partnerships, with serving as the cornerstone for transatlantic security, where U.S. commitments under Article 5 have deterred direct aggression since 1949, bolstered by over 100,000 U.S. troops stationed in as of 2025. In the Indo-Pacific, the U.S. implements layered deterrence through the (Quad)—involving the U.S., , , and —for joint exercises and technology sharing, and the pact with and the , which facilitates nuclear-powered submarine transfers to by the early 2030s to counter Chinese naval expansion. These mechanisms extend U.S. reach without formal obligations in the latter cases, prioritizing interoperability over expansive mutual defense pacts. Homeland security implementation falls primarily under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), established in 2002 to unify efforts against , border incursions, and cyber threats, managing agencies like U.S. Customs and Border Protection for immigration enforcement and the for defense. Executive actions in January 2025 directed enhanced vetting of aliens posing national security risks, including expedited removals of those linked to , reflecting a causal emphasis on physical barriers and legal enforcement to prevent internal destabilization from uncontrolled migration. A September 2025 memorandum further outlined strategies to dismantle domestic networks, integrating DHS intelligence with FBI to address ideologically motivated threats.

China

China's national security framework, centralized under the (CCP) since the establishment of the National Security Commission in 2013, integrates political, , economic, and technological dimensions under a "holistic" approach championed by . The Commission, chaired by Xi with vice chairs including Premier and Chairman , coordinates policy across agencies to prioritize regime stability—termed "political security"—as the core of national security, encompassing 11 domains such as homeland, , cultural, and societal security. This structure reflects Xi's 2014 articulation of comprehensive security, formalized in the 2015 National Security Law, which mandates all organizations, citizens, and foreigners in to safeguard state interests, including through intelligence reporting and security reviews of investments and data flows. Domestically, implementation emphasizes internal control via expansive surveillance and legal mechanisms. The Ministry of State Security (MSS) and Ministry of Public Security (MPS) oversee political surveillance, tracking "key persons" through phone tracking, DNA databases, and facial recognition systems deployed nationwide, with intensified application in for monitoring ethnic minorities. The , integrated with data from over 600 million cameras by 2023, enforces compliance by restricting travel and opportunities for those deemed threats, while the 2021 Data Security Law and 2023 updates require localization of critical data and government oversight of exports. These measures, justified as protecting , have enabled mass detentions—estimated at over 1 million since 2017—and suppression of , as internal documents reveal tech firms like those in aiding system development. Militarily, advances (PLA) modernization to assert territorial claims, with defense spending reaching approximately $296 billion in 2024 and nuclear warheads expanding to 600 by mid-2025, projected to exceed 1,000 by 2030. Focus areas include hypersonic missiles, aircraft carriers (three operational by 2025), and anti-access/area-denial capabilities targeting and the , where artificial island bases enhance projection. The 2025 National Security White Paper underscores integration of , leveraging civilian tech for defense, amid preparations for potential conflict by 2027. In and externally, strategy treats digital space as sovereign territory, per the 2015 National Cyberspace Security Strategy and 2023 Cybersecurity Law revisions, mandating critical infrastructure protection and promoting indigenous tech like amid U.S. restrictions. Beijing exports surveillance tools via partnerships, while the —launched 2022—seeks influence through non-interference pacts, though U.S. assessments highlight offensive cyber operations by PLA units like APT41 for and IP theft. This paradigm prioritizes CCP control over liberal norms, with implementation yielding rapid capability gains but raising global tensions.

Russia

Russia's national security framework, as outlined in the 2021 National Security Strategy signed by President on July 2, emphasizes protecting sovereignty against external threats including expansion, information warfare, and economic pressures, while prioritizing internal stability through defense modernization and countering extremism. The strategy identifies the and its allies as primary adversaries attempting to undermine Russia's influence via buildup near its borders and support for regime change operations, framing national security as requiring a balanced approach across , informational, and technological domains. Implementation involves integrating these principles into state policy, with a focus on achieving strategic parity through nuclear deterrence and conventional force enhancements amid ongoing geopolitical confrontations. Militarily, Russia implements its security doctrine via hybrid and conventional operations, exemplified by the February 24, 2022, special military operation in , which official statements describe as a preemptive measure to neutralize NATO's eastward encroachment and prevent the deployment of offensive weapons near Russian borders. By 2023, Russian forces adapted defensively in , combining maneuver tactics with fortified positions to counter Ukrainian counteroffensives, revealing doctrinal shifts toward and drone integration despite initial logistical shortcomings. Expenditures on defense reached approximately 6.7% of GDP in 2024, funding reconstitution efforts including expanded production of and missiles to sustain operations projected into 2026. Internally, the executes core functions in , border protection, and suppressing domestic threats like and , as mandated by federal law establishing it as the primary agency for implementing national security policy. The FSB has intensified operations against perceived foreign-backed subversion, including arrests related to and information sabotage, particularly since the conflict escalated cross-border activities. Nuclear deterrence remains pivotal, with the November 19, 2024, update to the Basic Principles of State Policy on Nuclear Deterrence lowering thresholds by authorizing responses to conventional attacks on Russian territory or annexed regions like , and treating aggression by non-nuclear states supported by nuclear powers as a joint assault. This revision, previewed by Putin on September 25, 2024, underscores reliance on Russia's approximately 5,580 warheads for coercion and escalation dominance, amid Western arms provisions to . Internationally, Russia bolsters security through alliances like the and partnerships with , countering isolation from Western sanctions via economic diversification and hybrid tools such as cyber operations attributed to state actors.

India

India's national security framework emphasizes credible deterrence, military modernization, and amid persistent threats from Pakistan-sponsored and Chinese border encroachments. Although lacking a publicly released formal National Security document as of 2025, the country's approach integrates policies through institutions like the National Security Advisory Board and , prioritizing , internal stability, and regional influence in the . Chief of Defence Staff stated in May 2025 that it is "incorrect" to claim India has no such , highlighting operational doctrines shaped by two-front war contingencies and asymmetric threats. Efforts to codify a comprehensive , initiated in 2018 under National Security Advisor , neared completion by September 2025, focusing on integrated theater commands and defense self-reliance. The , with over 1.4 million active personnel, rank fourth globally in military strength per the 2025 Global Firepower Index, underscoring capabilities in manpower, equipment, and logistics despite budgetary constraints. Key enhancements include the October 2025 approval of 790 billion rupees ($9 billion) for missile systems and other acquisitions to bolster air defense and precision strike options. Nuclear doctrine maintains a "" policy against nuclear-armed states, committing to only in response to nuclear attack on or forces anywhere, while pledging non-use against non-nuclear states; this supports a credible minimum deterrent estimated at 160-170 warheads. infrastructure development, such as roads and airfields along the (LAC) with , has accelerated since the 2020 Galwan clash, enabling rapid troop mobilization. External threats dominate, with Pakistan-linked terrorism persisting as a core challenge; a April 2025 attack in , Indian-administered , killing 25 civilians, triggered cross-border tensions and underscored Islamabad's support for groups like . India responded with surgical strikes, as in the 2019 precedent, asserting rights without escalating to full conflict. Against , disputes along the 3,488 km LAC led to disengagement talks resuming ambitiously since June 2025, including troop pullbacks and patrols in friction areas like Depsang and Demchok, alongside symbolic gestures like direct flights restarting in October 2025. However, mutual mistrust endures, with Beijing's infrastructure buildup in and India's ati-vishisht border deployments reflecting unresolved territorial claims from 1962. Strategic partnerships balance traditional ties with —supplier of 60% of arms imports—with deepening Quad engagements alongside the , , and to counterbalance Chinese assertiveness in the . The Quad, revived in 2017, focuses on , supply chain resilience, and joint exercises like Malabar, though India avoids formal alliances to preserve strategic flexibility. Domestically, counter-insurgency operations have reduced Naxalite violence in by 70% since 2010 peaks, per government data, via integrated civil-military efforts. Cyber and space domains see investments in agencies like the and , addressing hybrid threats amid rising digital dependencies.

European Union

The 's approach to national security is constrained by its supranational structure, where member states retain sovereignty over defense and foreign policy, leading to implementation through intergovernmental mechanisms like the (CSDP). Adopted in 2009 as part of the , the CSDP enables civilian and military missions but lacks unified command or dedicated forces, resulting in over 30 operations since inception, primarily in and the , with limited scale compared to national militaries. The 2022 Strategic Compass outlines priorities including crisis response, resilience against hybrid threats, capability investment, and partnerships, targeting enhanced readiness by 2030 through rapid deployment capacities of up to 5,000 troops. Defense cooperation is advanced via (PESCO), launched in 2017 with 47 projects across 26 member states as of 2025, focusing on areas like cyber rapid response teams, maritime surveillance, and to address capability gaps. The (EDA) coordinates research and procurement, while the European Defence Fund (EDF) allocates €8 billion from 2021-2027 for joint development, emphasizing technological edge in drones, AI-enabled systems, and cyber defenses. In cybersecurity, the EU Cyber Defence Policy, updated in 2025, promotes mutual assistance and investments via ENISA, responding to incidents like the 2022 ransomware attacks on , though member states' varying digital maturity hinders unified action. measures, including the 2023 strategy and 2024 FDI screening regulation, aim to mitigate risks from dependencies on non-EU suppliers in semiconductors and rare earths, with screening mechanisms covering 27 member states by 2025. Implementation faces structural challenges, including fragmented national priorities—evident in France's push for versus Eastern members' reliance—and insufficient funding, with EU-level defense spending under 2% of collective GDP despite post-2022 commitments to raise national targets to 2%. PESCO projects have delivered prototypes, such as cyber teams operational in exercises by 2024, but critics note slow and overlap with efforts, limiting deterrence against state actors like or . Internal security via the April 2025 ProtectEU strategy targets and through enhancements and border reinforcements, yet enforcement varies due to opt-outs and migration disputes, underscoring causal tensions between integration and sovereignty. Overall, while regulatory tools like the AI Act indirectly bolster security by classifying high-risk tech, the EU's emphasis on and norms over hard military capabilities leaves gaps in addressing emerging threats like hypersonic weapons or biotech risks.

Key Debates and Trade-Offs

Sovereignty Versus Global Interdependence

National in entails a state's exclusive to govern its , resources, and defense decisions without external interference, enabling rapid, unilateral responses to threats. Global interdependence, conversely, fosters mutual reliance through , , and institutions, aiming to amplify security via shared burdens and deterrence. These approaches clash when international commitments limit sovereign actions, such as alliance obligations constraining or pacts exposing critical industries to foreign leverage. National security and are mutually reinforcing, as diminished control over domestic capabilities erodes a state's defensive posture. Alliances exemplify interdependence's potential benefits, with NATO's collective defense under Article 5 credited for deterring direct attacks on members since 1949, as no adversary has tested the alliance's resolve despite tensions and subsequent provocations. This pooling of resources has preserved across diverse members, though effectiveness relies on credible commitments and burden-sharing, which have varied historically. However, introduces exploitable asymmetries, as outlined in analyses of "weaponized interdependence," where global networks enable through chokepoints rather than outright denial of access. For instance, states with market power can selectively restrict flows to punish rivals, turning trade ties into security liabilities. China's dominance in rare earth elements—accounting for 70% of global mining and 90% of processing in 2025—illustrates such risks, as these materials are essential for defense technologies like missiles and electronics, allowing Beijing to wield influence in disputes or trade frictions. Europe's pre-2022 reliance on Russian natural gas, which supplied 45% of EU imports in 2021, failed to deter Moscow's invasion of , prompting a swift reduction to 15% by 2023 via LNG terminals and pipelines from and the U.S., at the cost of higher energy prices and industrial disruptions. In response, the U.S. has asserted sovereignty through targeted measures, including 25% tariffs on and 10% on aluminum imports under Section 232 of the Expansion Act in 2018, justified by threats to domestic production critical for armored vehicles and . The of 2022 allocated $52 billion to onshore semiconductor manufacturing, driven by national security imperatives to counter vulnerabilities from Taiwan's 90% share of advanced chips and potential Chinese blockades, prohibiting funded firms from expanding in . These policies signal a shift toward "friend-shoring" and , prioritizing resilient supply chains over full , though they entail trade-offs like elevated costs and slower innovation diffusion. Empirical evidence from supply disruptions during the underscores interdependence's fragility, as global just-in-time manufacturing amplified shortages in medical and defense goods, reinforcing arguments for sovereign redundancies in strategic sectors.

Security Measures and Individual Liberties

The tension between national security measures and individual liberties arises from the need to mitigate threats such as while safeguarding rights like , free speech, and . Post-September 11, 2001, policies like the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 expanded government surveillance authorities, including roving wiretaps, access to business records, and enhanced intelligence sharing, which the U.S. Department of Justice credited with enabling to disrupt terrorist plots and financing networks. The reported that these tools contributed to steady progress in efforts by improving monitoring of suspect communications without requiring in certain cases. However, critics, including analyses from the , argue that bulk data collection under such provisions led to overreach, with government reviews indicating that excessive surveillance sometimes hindered effective threat detection by overwhelming analysts with irrelevant information. Edward Snowden's 2013 disclosures revealed the scope of programs under Section 215 of the and Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, which involved bulk collection of telephony metadata and upstream of international communications, affecting millions of Americans' data incidentally. A U.S. House Intelligence Committee review found that most documents leaked by Snowden pertained to military and defense operations rather than domestic privacy intrusions, and that the programs had prevented specific attacks, such as a 2010 plot targeting a Washington, D.C., metro station. These revelations prompted reforms like the of 2015, which curtailed bulk metadata collection by shifting storage to telecom providers, though Section 702 persists with annual reauthorizations and minimal oversight changes as of 2023. Empirical studies, such as those examining public attitudes, show that heightened threat perceptions—measured via surveys post-major incidents—correlate with greater willingness to accept expansions, with citizens prioritizing security gains over abstract liberty concerns in discrete choice experiments. Debates persist on whether inherent trade-offs exist, with research challenging the zero-sum paradigm by demonstrating that targeted, judicially overseen measures can enhance without proportional erosions, provided executive discretion is checked to avoid toward overcollection. Instances of abuse, including FBI queries of Section 702 data exceeding legal bounds by over 3 million instances in 2019-2020 as reported in declassified compliance audits, underscore risks of into non-terrorism areas like routine criminal probes. No large-scale domestic terrorist attacks have occurred on U.S. since , attributable in part to enhanced capabilities, yet causal attribution remains contested due to confounding factors like improved international cooperation. In authoritarian contexts, such as China's integration of with systems, security measures have demonstrably suppressed dissent, illustrating how unchecked powers amplify liberty costs beyond empirical security benefits. Ongoing policy reviews emphasize proportionality: measures must demonstrably avert threats without enabling indefinite or warrantless access, as unchecked expansions risk normalizing state overreach that undermines the very freedoms national ostensibly protects.

Immigration Policies and Internal Cohesion

Immigration policies shape national security by influencing the degree of internal cohesion, as rapid influxes from culturally dissimilar populations can erode social trust and foster parallel societies, thereby complicating unified responses to external threats. Empirical research indicates that ethnic diversity, often driven by , correlates with reduced interpersonal trust and in the short term, even as long-term assimilation may rebuild . This "hunkering down" effect, observed across U.S. communities, weakens the social bonds essential for collective defense and internal stability, as fragmented societies exhibit lower cooperation in crises. In , the 2015-2016 influx of over 1 million asylum seekers, predominantly from the , demonstrated negative impacts on social cohesion in regions with preexisting immigration concerns, including heightened perceptions of cultural threat and reduced intergroup trust. Such policies, characterized by lax border controls and limited vetting, have contributed to the formation of enclaves with low integration rates, where imported norms clash with host values, elevating risks of honor-based and grooming gangs, as seen in the UK with over 1,400 victims identified in alone between 1997 and 2013, predominantly involving Pakistani-origin perpetrators. Lax enforcement has also strained resources, with foreign nationals comprising nearly 50% of inmates in as of 2024, despite representing about 15% of the population. From a national security perspective, unvetted mass facilitates diffusion, as migrants from conflict zones serve as conduits for radical ideologies and networks. A cross-national found that higher immigration levels from Muslim-majority countries predict increased terrorist attacks in , with a 1% rise in the immigrant share linked to a 0.31% increase in attacks. In the , between 2015 and 2023, jihadist accounted for the majority of fatalities, with perpetrators often second-generation immigrants or recent arrivals radicalized in host countries, underscoring failures in assimilation policies. U.S. data similarly reveals vulnerabilities, with U.S. Customs and Border Protection apprehending over 2.4 million migrants at the southern border in 2023, including individuals on terrorist watchlists, heightening risks of internal threats amid overwhelmed vetting systems. Effective policies prioritizing skilled, culturally compatible immigration and mandatory assimilation—such as language requirements and civic education—bolster cohesion by preserving shared values and reducing friction. In contrast, open-border approaches exacerbate divisions, as evidenced by rising populist backlashes and security incidents, which divert resources from external defenses to domestic containment. While some studies claim neutral or positive net effects on cohesion, these often overlook subgroup disparities and rely on aggregate data that mask elevated risks from low-skilled or ideologically incompatible inflows, a tendency attributable to institutional preferences for optimistic narratives over granular causal analysis.

Prioritizing Hard Power Over Soft Influences

Hard power, encompassing military capabilities and , enables states to compel or deter adversaries through , whereas soft influences rely on cultural appeal, diplomatic persuasion, and ideological attraction to shape behavior without force. In national security debates, prioritizing emphasizes allocating resources to maintain credible threats of retaliation, as often proves insufficient against revisionist actors willing to use force. For instance, , who coined "soft power," has acknowledged that it functions best as a complement to , not a replacement, particularly in high-stakes confrontations where deterrence hinges on perceived resolve and capability. Historical evidence underscores hard power's primacy for deterrence. During the Cold War, the ' nuclear arsenal and conventional forces deterred direct Soviet aggression against allies, preventing escalation despite ideological and cultural efforts on both sides; this balance maintained relative stability for over four decades until the USSR's collapse in 1991. In contrast, pre-World War II appeasement policies toward , which emphasized diplomatic concessions over military buildup, failed to prevent invasion, as Britain's limited hard power in 1938 undermined deterrence and emboldened expansionism. Post-independence India illustrates 's limits without hard backing: despite global admiration for its democratic ideals and non-aligned diplomacy, its military weakness invited the 1962 , where China's hard power superiority led to territorial losses. Contemporary cases reinforce this prioritization amid rising threats. Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine disregarded Western initiatives like economic aid and cultural exchanges, proceeding only after perceiving 's deterrence as untested; in response, enhanced commitments, including U.S. arms deliveries totaling over $50 billion by mid-2023, have prevented further advances into territory. China's military modernization, with defense spending reaching $292 billion in 2023—surpassing investments like the —has enabled assertive actions in the , where diplomatic attraction has yielded limited compliance from neighbors. Empirical analyses of and great-power competition indicate yields faster incident reductions and deterrence effects, while 's long-term gains require underlying coercive credibility to avoid exploitation. Over-reliance on soft influences risks eroding security, as seen in the U.S. post-2001 focus on , where initial military successes in and gave way to instability after drawdowns reduced projection. Trade-offs exist, with excessive hard power emphasis potentially alienating allies and inflating costs—U.S. defense budgets averaged $800 billion annually from 2020-2024, dwarfing State Department funding—but data from great-power eras show underinvestment in readiness correlates with higher conflict risks, as in the interwar period's failures. Proponents argue that not only deters but amplifies soft influence by signaling resolve, aligning with causal mechanisms where adversaries weigh costs over affinities. In an era of peer competitors, strategies like the U.S. 2018 National Security Strategy explicitly prioritize competition over diffuse soft efforts, reflecting lessons that unbacked attraction invites aggression.

References

  1. https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-90000-national-security
  2. https://www.directives.doe.gov/terms_definitions/national-security
  3. https://www.epa.gov/national-security/national-security-defined
  4. https://www.ice.gov/about-ice/hsi/investigate/terrorism-national-security-threats
  5. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/national-security-act
  6. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/ic-legal-reference-book/national-security-act-of-1947
  7. https://afsa.org/usaid-critical-national-security-tool
  8. https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Biden-Harris-Administrations-National-Security-Strategy-10.2022.pdf
  9. https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/nss/nss2006.pdf
  10. https://federalism.org/encyclopedia/no-topic/national-security/
  11. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/how-everything-became-national-security-drezner
  12. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Leviathan-by-Hobbes
  13. https://ersj.eu/journal/3891/download/Security%2Bin%2Bthe%2BPhilosophical%2BThought%2Bof%2BThomas%2BHobbes.pdf
  14. https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/national-security-versus-global-security
  15. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/NSC68
  16. https://tnsr.org/2023/09/understanding-national-security-strategies-through-time/
  17. https://history.defense.gov/Historical-Sources/National-Security-Strategy/
  18. https://securityanddefence.pl/Violation-of-territorial-integrity-as-a-tool-for-waging-long-term-hybrid-warfare%2C174507%2C0%2C2.html
  19. https://www.diplomaticourier.com/posts/the-necessity-of-territorial-integrity
  20. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1161/RAND_MR1161.pdf
  21. https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.php?country_id=united-states-of-america
  22. https://ftp.spaceneedle.com/libweb/mL1DCD/600892/the_military_balance_2025.pdf
  23. https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2025/unprecedented-rise-global-military-expenditure-european-and-middle-east-spending-surges
  24. https://breakingdefense.com/2025/08/the-army-must-accelerate-counterspace-investments/
  25. https://www.csis.org/analysis/dods-shifting-homeland-defense-mission-could-undermine-militarys-lethality
  26. https://tnsr.org/2025/06/legal-deterrence-by-denial-strategic-initiative-and-international-law-in-the-gray-zone/
  27. https://politicalscience.stanford.edu/events/closing-pandoras-box-territorial-integrity-norm-and-deterrence-territorial-revisionism
  28. https://www.usglc.org/media/2025/06/Econ-Security-Report-DIGITAL.pdf
  29. https://www.iai.it/en/pubblicazioni/c05/economic-security-national-security-unacknowledged-deja-vu
  30. https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/WP/2025/English/wpiea2025102-print-pdf.ashx
  31. https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/Books/economic-security.pdf
  32. https://uscriticalmaterials.com/us-dependence-on-china-for-rare-earth-elements-sparks-security-concerns/
  33. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-china-trade-spat-could-leave-us-weeks-away-from-rare-earths-crisis-but-top-defense-contractors-downplay-risk-090034036.html
  34. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/22/us/politics/china-trump-rare-earths.html
  35. https://councilonstrategicrisks.org/2025/05/30/the-devil-is-in-the-details-minerals-batteries-and-us-dependence-on-chinese-imports/
  36. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2025/06/oecd-supply-chain-resilience-review_9930d256/94e3a8ea-en.pdf
  37. https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2025/eb_25-02
  38. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-are-economic-sanctions
  39. https://www.cfr.org/article/rise-economic-security
  40. https://warontherocks.com/2025/10/supply-chains-are-critical-infrastructure-its-time-u-s-policy-caught-up/
  41. https://www.congress.gov/committee-report/119th-congress/senate-report/16/1
  42. https://warontherocks.com/2025/04/a-federal-critical-mineral-processing-initiative-securing-u-s-mineral-independence-from-china/
  43. https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2025/08/29/critical-minerals-and-critical-security-u-s-military-dependence-on-chinas-rare-earths/
  44. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-brief/critical-minerals-in-crisis-stress-testing-us-supply-chains-against-shocks/
  45. https://www.csis.org/analysis/consequences-chinas-new-rare-earths-export-restrictions
  46. https://globalaffairs.org/commentary-and-analysis/blogs/can-us-reduce-its-dependence-china-critical-minerals
  47. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-10/24_0930_ia_24-320-ia-publication-2025-hta-final-30sep24-508.pdf
  48. https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ATA-2025-Unclassified-Report.pdf
  49. https://www.cisa.gov/topics/cyber-threats-and-advisories/nation-state-cyber-actors/china
  50. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-107600
  51. https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Report-Efforts-to-Combat-Disinformation-of-Foreign-Adversaries-006070-Accessible-07.15.202.pdf
  52. https://energy.sustainability-directory.com/question/what-are-the-risks-of-energy-dependence-on-single-nations/
  53. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49208.htm
  54. https://www.energy.gov/topics/energy-security
  55. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/imports-and-exports.php
  56. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65524
  57. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65445
  58. https://www.energy.gov/eere/energy-independence-and-security
  59. https://www.cfr.org/article/china-united-states-and-critical-chokepoint-minerals
  60. https://westerncaucus.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=3040
  61. https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/case-you-missed-it-energy-security-national-security
  62. https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-releases-march-2025-monthly-update
  63. https://homeland.house.gov/2024/11/22/startling-stats-factsheet-fy2025-begins-with-over-140000-border-encounters-nationwide-worsening-public-safety-crisis-under-biden-harris-administration/
  64. https://www.newsweek.com/terrorist-watchlist-migrants-us-border-patrol-released-1934847
  65. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166046220303252
  66. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/immigration-diversity-and-social-cohesion/
  67. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/59323/1/CEP_Bell_Fasani_Machin_Crime-and-immigration_2013.pdf
  68. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/282394/1/cesifo1_wp10706.pdf
  69. https://budget.house.gov/download/the-cost-of-illegal-immigration-to-taxpayers
  70. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61464
  71. https://manhattan.institute/article/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-2025-update
  72. https://www.csis.org/analysis/ideological-security-national-security
  73. https://phys.org/news/2025-09-national-identity-affect-willingness-defend.html
  74. https://www.grip.org/wp-content/uploads/2003/05/THE-CLASH-OF-CIVILIZATIONS_1993_Huntington.pdf
  75. http://www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu/courses/geog347/articles/clash_civilizations.pdf
  76. https://digitalcommons.aaru.edu.jo/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=fjss
  77. https://ijor.co.uk/ijor/article/view/7921/4192
  78. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0147176725000975
  79. https://media.defense.gov/2025/May/01/2003702343/-1/-1/1/VIEW%2520-%2520CHEN%2520DISCLAIMER.PDF
  80. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09662839.2025.2540091
  81. https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/2404286/1-introduction/
  82. https://www.potomacinstitute.org/index.php/gcp-articles/us-national-security-in-a-new-era-of-intense-global-competition
  83. https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-military-10-charts
  84. https://media.defense.gov/2024/Dec/18/2003615520/-1/-1/0/MILITARY-AND-SECURITY-DEVELOPMENTS-INVOLVING-THE-PEOPLES-REPUBLIC-OF-CHINA-2024.PDF
  85. https://www.orfonline.org/research/mapping-the-recent-trends-in-china-s-military-modernisation-2025
  86. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA4107-1.html
  87. https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2025/10/21/us-china-now-in-a-very-different-kind-of-trade-war-experts-warn
  88. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/breaking-down-global-military-spending-by-country-in-2024/
  89. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/115204.htm
  90. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-brief/issue-brief-a-nato-strategy-for-countering-russia/
  91. https://www.ndc.nato.int/russias-updated-national-security-strategy/
  92. https://www.sipri.org/publications/2025/sipri-fact-sheets/trends-world-military-expenditure-2024
  93. https://publications.armywarcollege.edu/News/Display/Article/4129357/adapting-us-defense-strategy-to-great-power-competition/
  94. https://www.heritage.org/military-strength/assessing-threats-us-vital-interests/non-state-actors
  95. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA324-1.html
  96. https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa23-158a
  97. https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/01/1159246
  98. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_156338.htm
  99. https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2021/11/30/hybrid-warfare-new-threats-complexity-and-trust-as-the-antidote/index.html
  100. https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2024/04/26/russias-hybrid-war-against-the-west/index.html
  101. https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2025/05/05/fortifying-the-baltic-sea-natos-defence-and-deterrence-strategy-for-hybrid-threats/index.html
  102. https://www.csis.org/analysis/future-hybrid-warfare
  103. https://twosixtech.com/wp-content/uploads/National-Security-Digital-Age-April-2025-1.pdf
  104. https://ash.harvard.edu/articles/weaponized-ai-a-new-era-of-threats/
  105. https://reports.nscai.gov/final-report/table-of-contents/
  106. https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA3691-4.html
  107. https://www.cisa.gov/quantum
  108. https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2024/08/nist-releases-first-3-finalized-post-quantum-encryption-standards
  109. http://subramanyam.house.gov/media/press-releases/representatives-subramanyam-and-mcguire-lead-bipartisan-legislation-safeguard
  110. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-106648
  111. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/10/mitigating-risks-from-gene-editing-and-synthetic-biology-global-governance-priorities?lang=en
  112. https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/ai-and-the-evolution-of-biological-national-security-risks
  113. https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/201402-Sofaer.pdf
  114. https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-handbook-policymakers/2009/9/hb111-47.pdf
  115. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/white_papers/2005/WP127.pdf
  116. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-the-us-needs-a-total-defense-strategy-based-on-resilience/
  117. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-is-deterrence-and-what-is-its-role-in-u-s-national-defense/
  118. https://www.ciris.info/learningcenter/deterrence-theory/
  119. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PE200/PE295/RAND_PE295.pdf
  120. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/u-s-nuclear-and-extended-deterrence-considerations-and-challenges/
  121. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/04/perspectives-nuclear-deterrence-21st-century-0/nuclear-deterrence-destabilized
  122. https://www.polytechnique-insights.com/en/columns/geopolitics/how-effective-is-nuclear-deterrence-today/
  123. https://www.csis.org/analysis/future-alliances-and-extended-nuclear-deterrence
  124. https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3859346/pentagon-official-alliances-are-key-to-us-nuclear-deterrence-advantage/
  125. https://www.fpri.org/article/2022/12/article-5-for-the-next-decade-of-nato/
  126. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
  127. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/nato-article-5-and-911
  128. https://www.dsca.mil/Press-Media/Article-Display/Article/3993061/allies-partners-central-to-us-integrated-deterrence-effort
  129. https://www.cnas.org/publications/commentary/sharper-integrated-deterrence
  130. https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2020/06/08/nuclear-deterrence-today/index.html
  131. https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/military-balance/2025/03/us-allies-question-extended-deterrence-guarantees-but-have-few-options/
  132. https://cepa.org/article/willfully-vague-why-natos-article-5-is-so-misunderstood/
  133. https://www.japcc.org/chapters/deterrence-and-collective-defence/
  134. https://www.intelligence.gov/mission
  135. https://www.dni.gov/files/NCSC/documents/features/NCSC_CI_Strategy-pages-20240730.pdf
  136. https://www.nsa.gov/Signals-Intelligence/Overview/
  137. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/what-we-do/members-of-the-ic
  138. https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/126011896.pdf
  139. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10242694.2011.650481
  140. https://www.intelligence.gov/templates/intelgov-template/custom-sections/the-nis-at-a-glance/nis-2023/pdf/nis-2019.pdf
  141. https://freedomonlinecoalition.com/guiding-principles-on-government-use-of-surveillance-technologies/
  142. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/organization-of-the-national-security-council-and-subcommittees/
  143. https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/04/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-declares-national-emergency-to-increase-our-competitive-edge-protect-our-sovereignty-and-strengthen-our-national-and-economic-security/
  144. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61017
  145. https://www.fitchratings.com/research/corporate-finance/2025-us-defense-budget-overview-enhancing-deterrence-modernizing-multi-domain-defense-16-04-2025
  146. https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/04/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-ensures-national-security-and-economic-resilience-through-section-232-actions-on-processed-critical-minerals-and-derivative-products/
  147. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/national-security-presidential-memorandum-nspm-2/
  148. https://www.csis.org/analysis/improving-cooperation-allies-and-partners-asia
  149. https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF12113/IF12113.3.pdf
  150. https://www.dhs.gov/about-dhs
  151. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-united-states-from-foreign-terrorists-and-othernational-security-and-public-safety-threats/
  152. https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/09/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-develops-new-strategy-to-counter-domestic-terrorism-and-organized-political-violence/
  153. https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2015/07/chinas-national-security-commission?lang=en
  154. https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/2015nsl/
  155. https://merics.org/en/report/comprehensive-national-security-unleashed-how-xis-approach-shapes-chinas-policies-home-and
  156. https://www.prcleader.org/post/piercing-the-veil-of-secrecy-the-surveillance-role-of-china-s-mss-and-mps
  157. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/21/world/asia/china-surveillance-investigation.html
  158. https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2025/silicon-valley-enabled-brutal-mass-detention-and-surveillance-in-china-internal-documents-show/
  159. https://thediplomat.com/2025/05/chinas-2025-national-security-white-paper-holistic-security-amid-rising-global-tensions/
  160. https://www.usito.org/news/china-publishes-first-national-cybersecurity-strategy
  161. https://www.csis.org/programs/strategic-technologies-program/resources/china-cyber-outlook/chinas-emerging-cyber
  162. https://irregularwarfare.org/articles/eroding-global-stability-the-cybersecurity-strategies-of-china-russia-north-korea-and-iran/
  163. https://www.ndc.nato.int/download/russias-updated-national-security-strategy/
  164. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/10/assessing-russian-military-adaptation-in-2023?lang=en
  165. https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/russian-military-objectives-and-capacity-ukraine-through-2024
  166. http://government.ru/en/department/113/
  167. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372050402_The_role_of_the_FSB_in_ensuring_national_security
  168. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/75598
  169. https://www.csis.org/analysis/why-russia-changing-its-nuclear-doctrine-now
  170. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/russias-fsb-malign-cyber-activity-factsheet/russias-fsb-malign-activity-factsheet
  171. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/incorrect-to-say-india-doesnt-have-a-national-security-strategy-cds/article69607234.ece
  172. https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2025/Sep/30/comprehensive-security-doctrine-on-its-final-leg
  173. https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.php?country_id=india
  174. https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-clears-arms-proposals-worth-9-bln-boost-military-power-2025-10-23/
  175. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/5/10/could-india-pakistan-use-nuclear-weapons-heres-what-their-doctrines-say
  176. https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-led-recent-crisis-between-india-and-pakistan
  177. https://warontherocks.com/2025/09/the-limits-of-rapprochement-between-india-and-china/
  178. https://sg.news.yahoo.com/india-china-resume-direct-flights-053433597.html
  179. https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/quad
  180. https://www.hudson.org/security-alliances/indias-evolving-role-quad-aparna-pande
  181. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/strategic-compass/
  182. https://pesco.europa.eu/
  183. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/cyber-defence/
  184. https://www.csis.org/analysis/solving-europes-defense-dilemma-overcoming-challenges-european-defense-cooperation
  185. https://www.startinsight.eu/en/europes-defense-conundrum-why-pesco-and-other-initiatives-always-fall-short/
  186. https://commission.europa.eu/news-and-media/news/commission-presents-european-internal-security-strategy-2025-04-01_en
  187. https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/the-interdependence-national-security-and-national-sovereignty
  188. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_133127.htm
  189. https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/nato-75-curb-celebrations-focus-looming-security-challenges
  190. https://direct.mit.edu/isec/article/44/1/42/12237/Weaponized-Interdependence-How-Global-Economic
  191. https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-new-rare-earth-and-magnet-restrictions-threaten-us-defense-supply-chains
  192. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-dependence-imported-fossil-fuels
  193. https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/232-steel
  194. https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/does-the-chips-and-science-act-argue-for-industrial-policy/
  195. https://www.cfr.org/article/economic-security-trade-offs-abound
  196. https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/balancing-global-interdependence-and-self-reliance
  197. https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/archive.htm
  198. https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/usa-patriot-act
  199. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/rolling-back-post-911-surveillance-state
  200. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/07/edward-snowden-10-years-surveillance-revelations
  201. https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/snowden_report_highlights.pdf
  202. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/political-science/articles/10.3389/fpos.2022.1006711/full
  203. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/is-there-a-tradeoff-between-security-and-liberty-executive-bias-privacy-protections-and-terrorism-prevention/C0BC419BDFEAF9E36A344BE18D616F30
  204. https://www.venice.coe.int/sacjf/2006_08_moz%2520maputo/hamilton_delicate_balance.htm
  205. https://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/publications/downside-diversity
  206. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X23000463
  207. https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/mass-immigration-can-cause-enormous-shifts-in-local-culture-national-identity-and-community-cohesion-geoff-russ-for-inside-policy/
  208. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/684679
  209. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/terrorism-eu-facts-figures/
  210. https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics/criminal-alien-statistics
  211. https://www.aeaweb.org/research/chart/incarceration-immigrants-us-born
  212. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/immigration-us-national-security-since-911
  213. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty-research/policycast/professor-joe-nye-coined-term-soft-power-he-says-americas-decline-under
  214. https://education.cfr.org/learn/reading/what-soft-power
  215. https://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/academy/index.php?en_hard-vs-soft-power_review
  216. https://www.fpri.org/article/2020/09/the-problem-with-soft-power/
  217. https://tnsr.org/2021/04/u-s-national-security-strategy-lessons-learned/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.