Firstly, it must obtain what is understood in game theory to be a state of ‘Perfect Information’. This signifies a situation in which the player(s), when making any decision, is perfectly aware of all the events that have previously occurred, and any relevant events which may take place in the future. If we understand security to include Ullman’s natural threat concept, then by definition, a party may only qualify for absolute security once it is entirely aware of both the potential human and natural threats, and has eliminated any possibility of the supernatural. To attain absolute security in a given epoch, the party in question must first obtain this necessary scenario of ‘Perfection Information’. To preserve this situation indefinitely, one must acquire full knowledge of all future events which may affect this position.

Secondly, and just as unlikely, a position must be reached in which, using ‘Perfect Information’, all threats can be rendered inconsequential. Likewise, for indefinite preservation of this position, infinite supremacy must be obtained. Only at a point of universal information and universal supremacy can absolute security be achieved at any given moment. It may be noted here that a situation of ‘perceived absolute security’ is also possible; a party may be under the illusion that it understands the scope of all potential threats, and has the ability to neutralise them, but this fails to fulfil the aforementioned criteria for actual absolutism.

In reality, given the current human condition, this situation is practically implausible. As Stephen Hawking once said, “the past, like the future, is indefinite and exists only as a spectrum of possibilities”. As a human race, we find it hard to predict next week’s weather, let alone plan for it. How then, is a subsection of humanity expected to understand all potential threats, let alone future possibilities, and then create a situation in which these are eliminated? Given the limits of human capacity, we may conclude that absolute security is currently unattainable.

The Secure Utopia

From an idealistic perspective, we may consider a utopic scenario in which we find a fundamentally universal commonality on the values which we are to secure. We, in essence, extinguish the plurality of subjective values. This determines a consensus which would make all man-made threats impossible, as there is no dispute between parties. In practicality this level of conformity stops nothing short of world domination by a single propagating ideal. Given a timeless component, this would create a situation of sustainable objective security against the human agent.

This however, is virtually impossible to imagine in practicality given the current context of humanity. Schneider notes in his critique of Waltz that this idealism is impossible without absolute equality. Only under equality will humans be content with shared values, and those who benefit from inequality often prefer to secure their subjective position rather than pursue universal security at the expense of their superiority. As George Orwell put it, they prefer a ‘perpetual war for perpetual peace’ than any move towards this idealism of true security.

Even if you could create a common consensus on value however, you are still faced with the currently insurmountable issue of biodiversity. It is impossible to imagine a situation in which subjectivity is eliminated indefinitely from the human condition. Nevertheless, it is important to work towards this ideal of commonality, to at least attempt to find ‘a new formula for sharing the world with others’. The benefits of this successful ideal are too great to overlook.

Realistic Security

Whilst we search for this theoretical ideal however, we must concurrently retreat to a realistic perspective to prevent our values from being extinguished. Baldwin observes that the essentially contested and subjective nature of the security concept forces many commentators down the path of nihilism. As we have demonstrated, objective security as the prevention of the human agent is, for now, a practically unattainable ambition. That does not mean however, that we should deem all concepts of security valueless. Instead we may look to manufacture degrees of security which, although remaining subjective, may be compared for practical policymaking. In this scenario individual parties will look to maximise and maintain their own security, by pursuing policies deemed subjectively advantageous.

Conclusions

To sum up our conclusions therefore, we may state that the subjective nature of security means it is currently only universally attainable as a theoretical ideal. However, a valuable degree of security, using the information available, is currently attainable for subjective parties. With this analysis we may take a two-fold approach. On the one hand, it is important to maintain a search towards this theoretical utopia and attempt to find its practical roots in a universal value. On the other hand, whilst we look to do this, we must maintain our particular security policies to protect ourselves, as far as possible, in the current world of subjective plurality.