Suchergebnisse

Security comes from Latin, secures which means free from danger, fear, and threats which consist of traditional and non-traditional security approaches. Defense is defined as the main instrument of a country to create national security. National defense is defined as a dynamic condition of a country that covers all aspects of national life to deal with threats. National security encompasses the security of the state, society and individuals. There are still several definitions from several experts regarding the concepts of security and defense to date. This article analyses the forms of contemporary threats related to security and defense and explains their similarities and differences in the study of national resilience aimed at realizing a national security system and development of the national security system in other countries. This article uses a descriptive qualitative research design through literature study and interviews. This article explains that the forms of threats that occur in Indonesia include problems at the border area, SARA intolerance, inequality in bureaucratic reform, not optimal law enforcement, and transnational crime. Similarities and differences in the concepts of security and defense can be seen from the regulations, the concepts used, the institutions and the constitution. This article shows that national resilience is influenced by national defense and security. The safe condition of a country is inseparable from the security and defense factors alone but is synergized with each other factors such as economic, political, legal, social, cultural, ideological, geographic, demographic and natural resources.Keywords: defense, national security, national resilience, security

Security is one of the foundations on which a stable and cohesive society is built. It is this security that allows citizens to go about their daily lives with freedom and certainty,affording them the ability to make their own choices as to what they do. Yet it may be argued that security is a concept that is misunderstood and perceived in a myriad of ways by the various stratum of society. Since the tragic events of 9 September 2001, security has become a much used and abused term. Law and legislation have been changed and enacted to protectand control the community. Personal rights and freedoms have been given up, wars have been waged and it may be argued by some, police states have emerged out of democracy in the name and pursuit of security. In this period,the global community has witnessed massive growth of global security organisation and the rise and legitimization of its cousin the global private military company. Yet there is remarkably little consensus as to what security is, what constitutes the security domain and just how much freedom should be traded in a free and democratic culture in pursuit of this nebulous concept that is security. The purpose of this paper is to establish a roadmap for domain exploration which focuses attention on the complex and often contradictory nature of security. Notwithstanding scholarly difference and interpretation of the context of security, and the lack of a singularly acceptable definition of security and ignoring the argument that security is so broad as to lack meaning, the authors will assert that security is a legitimate and necessary construct, with specific concerns.This position is framed within the argument that the alternative of non-security(Manunta, 1998) is not acceptable in the context of a civilised world.This paper is presented in four parts, beginning with a discussion of the domain in general. In the second part the concept of security deviance will be discussed before finally proposing a way forward for domain research and discourse.Then, the structural relations, indicating the depth and embedded nature of security in a modern society, will be presented to articulate the opportunities for security deviance in a modern society.

It is argued that public support of a country's defense-industrial base is needed to compensate for the failure of the market to develop new technologies, to exploit market imperfections & preempt competition from other countries, & to avoid dependence on external or concentrated suppliers. The offensive & defensive tasks deriving from these objectives were relatively easy for the US to fulfill in the 1980s, but since then, an increasing portion of defense technology comes from the private commercial sector. Evidence from the 1990s & early 2000s shows that the private sector has no difficulty keeping pace with defense demands, but there are still issues related to defense industry strategy, especially in the offensive strategy of building up a large US defense conglomerate to compete against those in Europe, Japan, the People's Republic of China, & Russia. A defensive strategy of intervening to prevent foreign takeovers is also problematic. The future defense industry may be increasingly interpenetrated & integrated across industrial states. M. Pflum