THREAT-BASED DEFENSE POLICIES: ASSESSING THEIR IMPACT AND EFFECTIVENESS

Main Article Content

Aris Sarjito

Abstract

Threat-based defense prioritizes policies specific threats to enhance national security and resource allocation. This research aims to assess the impact and effectiveness of such policies using qualitative methods and secondary data. The study employs secondary data sources, including government reports, strategic documents, and academic articles, to explore three key aspects: the effectiveness of threat-based defense policies, the critical factors influencing their successful implementation, and the potential drawbacks and unintended consequences. Findings indicate that threat-based policies improve national security by focusing resources on high-priority threats but can lead to threat inflation and the neglect of non-prioritized threats. Key factors for successful implementation include accurate intelligence, advanced technologies, and strong political and military leadership. However, unintended consequences such as strained international relations and escalating arms races highlight the complexity of these policies. The study concludes that while threat-based defense policies offer targeted improvements, they must be managed carefully to avoid negative outcomes. The findings emphasize the need for a balanced approach, integrating threat-based strategies with broader security measures to ensure comprehensive national defense.

Article Details

How to Cite
Sarjito, A. (2024). THREAT-BASED DEFENSE POLICIES: ASSESSING THEIR IMPACT AND EFFECTIVENESS. Journal of Administration Studies, 2(1), 1–17. Retrieved from http://asas-ins.com/index.php/jas/article/view/87
Section
Articles

References

Aljazeera. (2023, October 12). What is Israel’s Iron Dome defence system and is it effective? All to know. Aljazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/12/whats-the-israel-iron-dome-defence-system-and-is-it-effective-all-to-know

Atmore, L. Y. (2014). Fear factors in: political rhetoric, threat inflation, and the narrative of September 11. (Doctoral dissertation, master’s thesis, Naval Postgraduate School).

Bachmann, S. D., & Gunneriusson, H. (2014). Terrorism and cyber attacks as hybrid threats: Defining a comprehensive approach for countering 21st century threats to global risk and security. The Journal on Terrorism and Security Analysis.

Backman, S. (2023). Risk vs. threat-based cybersecurity: the case of the EU. European Security, 32(1), 85–103.

Bécue, A., Praça, I., & Gama, J. (2021). Artificial intelligence, cyber-threats and Industry 4.0: Challenges and opportunities. Artificial Intelligence Review, 54(5), 3849–3886.

Binnendijk, H., Hamilton, D. S., & Barry, C. L. (2016). Alliance revitalized: NATO for a new era. The Washington NATO Project, Johns Hopkins University.

Borum, R., Felker, J., Kern, S., Dennesen, K., & Feyes, T. (2015). Strategic cyber intelligence. Information & Computer Security, 23(3), 317–332.

Callahan, A. M. (n.d.). An assessment on Israel’s “Iron Dome” Defense System. Universidad de Navarra. Retrieved July 17, 2024, from https://www.unav.edu/web/global-affairs/detalle/-/blogs/an-assessment-on-israel-s-iron-dome-defense-system

Carlin, J. P. (2015). Detect, disrupt, deter: A whole-of-government approach to national security cyber threats. Harv. Nat’l Sec. J., 7, 391.

Chen, L., & Yang, H. (2023). The dynamic nature of cyber threats and its implications for defense policy. Journal of Cybersecurity Studies, 15(2), 85–102.

Christianson, J. (2016). Threat-Based and Capabilities-Based Strategies in a Complex World School of Advanced Military Studies. School of Advanced Military Studies.

Cohen, E. A. (2017). The big stick: the limits of soft power and the necessity of military force. Hachette UK.

Creswell, J. W. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches* (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Department of Defense. (2022). Department of Defense Cyber Strategy. https://www.defense.gov

Freier, N. P., Bado, C. M., Bolan, C. J., & Hume, R. S. (2017). At our own peril: DOD risk assessment in a post-primacy world.

Garcia, R., & Patel, S. (2023). Artificial intelligence in threat detection: Enhancing defense strategies through technology. Defense Technology Review, 28(3), 112–129.

GSA FedRAMP PMO. (2022). Threat-Based Risk Profiling Methodology Developed by: GSA FedRAMP PMO Threat-Based Risk Profiling Methodology White Paper Document Revision History.

Ikedinma, H. A. (2017). Impact of Military Spending on African Development. Ife Social Sciences Review, 25(1), 98–111.

Johnson, M., & Lee, S. (2023). Efficient defense spending through threat-based policies: A comparative analysis. International Security Quarterly, 34(1), 57–78.

Johnston, M. P. (2014). Secondary data analysis: A method of which the time has come. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 3(3), 619–626.

Lowenthal, M. M. (2022). Intelligence: From secrets to policy. CQ press.

Maddireddy, B. R., & Maddireddy, B. R. (2022). Cybersecurity Threat Landscape: Predictive Modelling Using Advanced AI Algorithms. International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technologies and Innovations, 1(2), 270–285.

Mahoney, R. T. (2010). Threat-based Response Patterns for Emergency Services: Developing Operational Plans, Policies, Leadership, and Procedures for a Terrorist Environment. Homeland Security Affairs, 6(3).

Mayer, M. (2014). Trends in US security policy.

Medahl, M. (2012). Significance of a Duty’s Direction: Claiming Priority Rather than Prioritizing Claims. J. Ethics & Soc. Phil., 7, viii.

Miller, T. (2022). The perils of threat inflation in defense policy. Strategic Studies Review, 19(4), 203–220.

Moran, T. H. (1990). The globalization of America’s defense industries: Managing the threat of foreign dependence. International Security, 15(1), 57–99.

NATO. (2023). NATO’s enhanced deterrence posture in Eastern Europe. NATO. https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2023/01/15/nato-enhanced-deterrence-posture

NATO. (2024, July 1). Deterrence and defence. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_133127.htm

Okromtchedlishvili, I. (2024). Building Resilience: Advancing Defense Acquisition Capabilities in Georgia. Journal of Defense Resources Management (JoDRM), 15(1), 5–34.

Rangaraju, S. (2023). Secure by intelligence: enhancing products with AI-driven security measures. EPH-International Journal of Science And Engineering, 9(3), 36–41.

Rayhan, A. (n.d.). Cybersecurity in the Digital Age: Assessing Threats and Strengthening Defenses.

Rosen, S. (2014). Strategic planning and management in defense systems acquisition.

Saeed, S., Suayyid, S. A., Al-Ghamdi, M. S., Al-Muhaisen, H., & Almuhaideb, A. M. (2023). A systematic literature review on cyber threat intelligence for organizational cybersecurity resilience. Sensors, 23(16), 7273.

Sarjito, A. (2024). Peran Intelijen Melalui Perumusan Kebijakan Pertahanan Negara dalam Perang Hibrida. PANDITA: Interdisciplinary Journal of Public Affairs, 7(1), 74–88.

Schmidt, J. M. (2015). Policy, planning, intelligence and foresight in government organizations. Foresight, 17(5), 489–511.

Treddenick, J. M. (1985). The arms race and military Keynesianism. Canadian Public Policy/Analyse de Politiques, 77–92.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2022). National Defense Strategy. U.S. Department of Defense. https://www.defense.gov/national-defense-strategy-2022

Van der Meer, S. (2015). Foreign Policy Responses to International Cyber-attacks. Some Lessons Learned, The Hague: Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations.

Vershbow, A. (2021, November 7). How NATO Can Help Ukraine Deter Russian Aggression. The National Interest. https://global.upenn.edu/perryworldhouse/news/how-nato-can-help-ukraine-deter-russian-aggression

Vyas, S., Hannay, J., Bolton, A., & Burnap, P. P. (2023). Automated cyber defence: A review. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:2303.04926.

Williams, R. (2022). The theoretical foundations of threat-based defense policies. Defense Policy Analysis, 17(3), 45–63.