Political Science · Ch 5 — Security in the Contemporary World
Traditional Security and Cooperation
Traditional Security and Cooperation
Traditional security is not only about preparing for war — it also accepts that cooperation can limit violence. This cooperation works on two fronts: the ends of war (why countries fight) and the means of war (how they fight).
Limits on the ends of war
There is now near-universal agreement that a country should go to war only for the right reasons. The two main legitimate reasons are self-defence and protecting other people from genocide. War fought for conquest, revenge, or economic gain is no longer considered acceptable.
Limits on the means of war
Even when war is justified, the way it is fought must be restrained. Armies must avoid killing or hurting non-combatants (civilians), as well as unarmed soldiers and those who have surrendered. Excessive violence is forbidden. Force should be used only after all peaceful alternatives have been exhausted.
Beyond these rules of war, traditional security thinking recognises three major forms of cooperation: disarmament, arms control, and confidence building.
Disarmament
Disarmament means that all states agree to give up certain categories of weapons entirely. Two landmark treaties illustrate this:
- Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), 1972 — banned the production and possession of biological weapons. More than 155 states joined.
- Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), 1997 — banned chemical weapons. 193 states joined, including all the great powers.
Both the US and the Soviet Union signed these treaties, but they refused to give up nuclear weapons — the third type of weapon of mass destruction. Instead, they pursued arms control.
Arms Control
Arms control does not abolish weapons; it regulates their acquisition or development. Key examples from the Cold War:
- Anti-ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, 1972 — stopped the US and Soviet Union from using ballistic missiles as a defensive shield to launch a nuclear attack. It allowed each side a very limited number of defensive systems but banned large-scale production.
- Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty II (SALT II) and Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) — further limited strategic nuclear weapons.
The most important arms control treaty is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968. It regulated the acquisition of nuclear weapons by creating two categories:
| Category | Rule |
|---|---|
| Countries that had tested and manufactured nuclear weapons before 1967 | Allowed to keep their weapons |
| Countries that had not done so | Required to give up the right to acquire them |
The NPT did not abolish nuclear weapons. It only limited the number of countries that could have them.
Confidence Building …
The cartoon is a parody of a government terror-alert system. It shows a vertical meter labelled "Terror Meter," with a sliding indicator that can be moved up or down. The meter has five colour-coded levels, from bottom to top: Low, Guarded, Elevated, High, and Severe. The indicator is currently set at Elevated.
Below the meter is a caption that reads: "Whether Elevated or Under Attack, the Department of Homeland Security Terror Meter takes the uncertainty out of staying informed of the level of terror in our nation. Move the Terror Indicator to the current threat level, which corresponds to how terrified the American people are of the threat of terror attacks. Terror is all around us, and can strike at anytime. Thanks to the Terror Meter, you will never have to wonder how terrified you should be. Proceed with caution."
The humour is dark and satirical. The meter does not measure actual intelligence about terrorist plots — it measures how terrified the American people are. The suggestion is that the government is managing public fear rather than providing objective security information. The phrase "you will never have to wonder how terrified you should be" mocks the idea that fear can be prescribed or standardised. The final instruction, "Proceed with caution," is deliberately vague and unhelpful. …
The figure is a satirical illustration of a fictional "Department of Homeland Security Terror Meter." It is designed to look like a household appliance or a simple gauge, with a vertical scale running from "Low" at the bottom to "Severe" at the top. The meter has a movable indicator needle that can be set to one of several colour-coded threat levels: Low, Guarded, Elevated, High, and Severe. The text on the meter itself reads: “Whether Elevated or Under Attack, the Department of Homeland Security Terror Meter takes the uncertainty out of staying informed of the level of terror in our nation. Move the Terror Indicator to the current threat level, which corresponds to how terrified the American people are of the threat of terror attacks. Terror is all around us, and can strike at anytime. Thanks to the Terror Meter, you will never have to wonder how terrified you should be. Proceed with caution.”
The image is a parody of the real U.S. Homeland Security Advisory System (the colour-coded threat scale used after 9/11). It mocks the idea that a government can or should tell citizens exactly how afraid to feel. The meter’s instructions are deliberately absurd: they suggest that the level of terror is measured not by actual intelligence or risk, but by “how terrified the American people are.” This turns security into a subjective, almost theatrical exercise — a way to manage public emotion rather than to prevent violence.
What the figure teaches is a critique of traditional security thinking. In the textbook section you read, traditional security focuses on military force, arms control, and cooperation between states to limit violence. The Terror Meter, by contrast, shows a different kind of security concern: the securitisation of everyday life after 9/11, where the state tries to control fear itself. The meter implies that the threat is constant (“Terror is all around us”) and that citizens need a government-issued device to know how to feel. This satirises the idea that security can be reduced to a simple, colour-coded scale — and that the state’s job is to manage public anxiety rather than to address the root causes of violence. …