9-11 not a treat to national security?

[kimvia]

so, my political science professor said that 9-11 was not a threat to national security. He defines national security as:

A-National Security Definition- What is needed to protect us and the resources we need from abroad to maintain our lifestyle.
1- It's NOT an abstract concept- it grows out of concrete circumstances.
2- In the most general terms, national security may be defined as the ABSENCE of a real or apparent threat to a people's fundamental values which are political, ideological, economic, cultural and civilizational.
i. Why mention apparent threat- we consider a treat what we FEEL is a threat. Because if something happens, later they will be more nervous and will be careful.
ii. Fundamental values
1) Political- territory of the US, physical aspect of the country, survival of the people.
2) Economic- trusting economic stuff so you feel secure and buy buy buy
3) Ideological- political system, how it works, ideas that mould it.
4) Cultural- if you can control what people hear and read, you can control them.
5) Civilizational- having your own culture- tv radio magazines etc.

I don't understand how that can be true according to this definition. What do YOU think?

[primus diddy]

I can't make any sense out of that definition. By that criteria 9/11 was most certainly a national security threat. Try to explain his logic more thoroughly.

[noise94]

:confused: I don't really understand how it couldn't have been.

[BrittneyNicole]

I don't get how he could not see 9/11 as a national security threat? Doesn't everyone?

[Phin]

I couldn't really interpret his definition... but 9/11 was definitely a threat to national security.. our nation wasn't secure when we were bombed...

[Kryptonite]

A professor may have a nice little rough outline, but that won't outline every situation, and it never will. 9/11 was certainly a threat to national security.

[Mithridates]

How many people die yearly of terrorism. Then compare how many die of cancer or heart disease.

Then look at how much we put into preventing both.

[TakeTheLeap]

Wow, that guy sounds like my old Political Science professor. He's right, everyone else is wrong. Period. End of sentence.

I definitely don't understand how 9/11, which shook up the entire country, couldn't be considered a threat to national security.

[sushi_error]

No one can deny that 9/11 was NOT a threat to American security or the security of the rest of the international community.

You had a non-state, transnational actor attacking another country, going against any United Nations protocol (yes, I know that non-state organizations are not a part of the UN, but you get the point).

In my opinion, your political science professor has only contradicted himself on various levels based on his own definition of the word 'national security'. You need to have him elaborate more, especially on the 'fundamental values' part.