In today’s ever-changing world, public security<\/strong> has become an indispensable asset for ensuring the overall well-being<\/strong> of society and protecting all its members. Public security is classified as a non-rival good; its individual enjoyment does not diminish the ability of others to benefit from it. Furthermore, it is non-excludable<\/strong>, meaning that no one can be denied its benefits. This unique nature makes the provision of public security challenging, as it benefits both those who contribute to its financing and those who do not\u2014leading to the well-known problem of the "free rider"<\/strong>, a market failure that necessitates governmental provision.<\/p>\n Public security encompasses a range of dimensions\u2014citizen security<\/strong>, national defense<\/strong>, and the prevention of disasters<\/strong>, such as fires or natural catastrophes. Unlike tangible goods, like a road, public security is an intangible<\/strong> or immaterial<\/strong> asset, complicating its quantification. Even more intricate is that public security relies on other intangible public goods, such as the quality of democracy<\/strong>, the rule of law<\/strong>, social cohesion<\/strong>, and a prevailing culture of peace.<\/p>\n In this context, while the value of security may be difficult to compute, as a society, we recognize that investments in areas like education<\/strong>, healthcare<\/strong>, and environmental protection<\/strong> lose effectiveness if basic security standards are not in place. A vivid example of this reality can be observed in Ukraine<\/strong>, a nation currently facing invasion from a dictatorial regime intent on dismantling its social fabric and stifling its aspirations of becoming a democratic European state.<\/p>\n Ukraine also highlights the critical role of defense<\/strong> as a component of overall security. Defense functions as a fundamental public good necessary for a country’s security and stability. It embodies the protection of the populace, territory, and the assets that uphold societal models against external threats. Investing in modern armed forces is crucial to guaranteeing democratic coexistence, as deterrence<\/strong> remains vital for maintaining peace.<\/p>\n The pertinent question is whether Europe<\/strong> and Spain<\/strong> are investing adequately to create a deterrent capacity that ensures peace. Can current expenditures effectively neutralize threats or risks within the realm of defense responsibility? <\/p>\n The answer to these questions differs markedly from responses applicable to tangible public goods like roads. While we can estimate usage for public infrastructure, measuring an external threat is far more complex due to its reliance on various external factors. Analyzing the geopolitical landscape becomes essential, demanding a global perspective.<\/p>\n The degree of risk or threat is inherently subjective and ever-changing, and it is never zero. As of 2025, the principal threat to our way of life stems from Russia<\/strong>‘s actions, but other issues, like arms buildups in our neighborhood, should not be ignored. <\/p>\n Additionally, the withdrawal of military support and democratic guarantees from the United States<\/strong> increases the vulnerability of democracies that historically relied on American capabilities for deterrence. This shift has necessitated Canada<\/strong> to bolster its own defense spending, a stark change for a nation that has typically relied on its friendly relations with the U.S.<\/p>\n Is there, then, an optimal defense spending<\/strong> level? The answer is no. Optimal spending hinges on the circumstances of each moment. In a democratic context, defense spending acts as a vaccine<\/strong>\u2014a deterrent measure that is influenced by the intangible nature of the threat. It serves as a form of insurance against potential risks, similar to how vaccines protect us from viruses, often provoking denial<\/strong> and irrational rejection<\/strong>.<\/p>\n As threats increase, propelled by advancements in technology, automation in armaments, and increasingly authoritarian conflicts, the optimal defense expenditure must adapt. This expenditure does not need to detract from resources allocated to education or healthcare; it often requires additional funding\u2014be it 2%, 5%, or even 25% of GDP, should the situation demand it. Ukrainian citizens can attest to the necessity of this financial commitment. <\/p>\n Ultimately, the optimal investment in defense is the level that ensures, in hindsight\u2014after a crisis or conflict\u2014you won’t regret not having spent more beforehand. The lessons from today\u2019s geopolitical landscape emphasize that security is a collective responsibility, with every nation needing to assess and respond to its own security needs proactively.<\/p>\nDimensions of Public Security<\/h2>\n
The Role of Defense in Security<\/h2>\n
Assessing Threats and Investments<\/h2>\n