Contemporary indicators of security. An attempt to measure the level of security.
 
More details
Hide details
1
Military University of Technology, Poland
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Radosław Bielawski   

Military University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland
Submission date: 2021-06-13
Acceptance date: 2021-07-05
Publication date: 2021-07-23
 
Przegląd Nauk o Obronności 2020;(10):78–93
 
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Objectives:
The subject of consideration in this article are contemporary indicators of security, which allow to determine its level in quantifiable values.

Methods:
For the purposes of this research, the following research methods were applied: analysis, synthesis, generalisation and inference.

Results:
This paper is a review of selected powermetric studies on security, which were divided into global studies estimating state power such as: Global Firepower Report, 2021 Measuring National and Power Index of the power of states and their indicators - area-specific studies, which prove to be increasingly useful due to growing cyber threats or threats related to the current COVID-19 pandemic. The so-called doomsday clock was selected as an indicator of international security, in which individual hours define the level of security, with midnight indicating the annihilation of humanity. In addition to models for estimating security and state power, on the basis of the results of the studies cited, the paper also mentions possible directions for further development of threats and recommendations in this regard.

Conclusions:
The research results presented in the analysed studies are useful for estimating various types of security indicators, both in terms of state security, as well as various other aspects of security, including health, soft power or cyber security. Security indicators can be used by analysts, politicians, decision-makers, and other entities involved in security management as a source of knowledge and measurable values determining the level of security and threats. They also help to indicate weaknesses in security systems in order to quickly diagnose and eliminate them.

 
REFERENCES (24)
1.
2019 Global Health Security Index (2021). Available at: https://www.ghsindex.org/.
 
2.
Arak, P. et al. (2018) State Power Index/Indeks Mocy Państw. Available at: http://ineuropa.pl/2018.
 
3.
Bielawski, R. et al. (2020) ‘Geopolitical Strategy of the Russian Federation in Relation to the Epicenter of the Visegrad Group on the Example of Poland in the COVID-19 Pandemic’, EUROPEAN RESEARCH STUDIES JOURNAL, XXIII (Special Issue 3), pp. 27–32. doi: 10.35808/ersj/1850.
 
4.
Boyce, M. R. et al. (2021) ‘Global Fund contributions to health security in ten countries, 2014–20: mapping synergies between vertical disease programmes and capacities for preventing, detecting, and responding to public health emergencies’, The Lancet Global Health, 9(2), pp. e181–e188. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30420-4.
 
5.
Doomsday Clock ticks closer to disaster (2020) physicsworld. Available at: https://physicsworld.com/a/doo....
 
6.
Global Cybersecurity Index (GCI) (2018). Geneva: International Telecommunication Union.
 
7.
Global Firepower 2021 (2021). Available at: https://www.globalfirepower.co....
 
8.
Jonathan, M. (2019) The soft power 30. A Global Ranking of Soft Power. Available at: https://softpower30.com/wp-con....
 
9.
Malinowski, P. (2020) ‘Hypersonic Weapon as a New Challenge for the Anti-aircraft Defense Command and Control System’, Safety & Defense, 6(2), pp. 89–99. doi: 10.37105/sd.87.
 
10.
Marklund, C. (2020) ‘Soft Power’, International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Elsevier, pp. 291–296. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-102295-5.10706-1.
 
11.
Marton, P. (2020) ‘Health Security’, The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Global Security Studies. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 1–8. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-74336-3_539-2.
 
12.
Masys, A. J., Izurieta, R. and Reina Ortiz, M. (eds) (2020) Global Health Security. Cham: Springer International Publishing (Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications). doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-23491-1.
 
13.
Mazarr, M. J. et al. (2016) Understanding the Current International Order. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. doi: 10.7249/RR1598.
 
14.
Mecklin, J. (2021) ‘This is your COVID wake-up call: It is 100 seconds to midnight 2021 Doomsday Clock Statement’, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Available at: https://thebulletin.org/doomsd....
 
15.
Muller, J. E. et al. (2020) ‘COVID-19, nuclear war, and global warming: lessons for our vulnerable world’, The Lancet, 395(10242), pp. 1967–1968. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31379-9.
 
16.
Mutschler, M. et al. (2020) Global Militarisation Index 2020. Edited by S. Heinke. Bonn: Bonn International Center for Conversion GmbH.
 
17.
Nye, J. S. (2011) The Future of Power. PublicAffairs.
 
18.
Ohnesorge, H. W. (2020) Soft Power. Cham: Springer International Publishing (Global Power Shift). doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-29922-4.
 
19.
Soft Power 30 (2021). Available at: https://softpower30.com.
 
20.
Szymanski, F. M. et al. (2020) ‘Will the COVID-19 Pandemic Change National Security and Healthcare in the Spectrum of Cardiovascular Disease?’, Current Problems in Cardiology. doi: 10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2020.100645.
 
21.
Treverton, G. et al. (2005) Measuring National Power, Measuring National Power. RAND Corporation. doi: 10.7249/CF215.
 
22.
USC Center on Public Diplomacy (2021). Available at: https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org....
 
23.
Uysal, N. et al. (2019) ‘Turkey’s Twitter public diplomacy: Towards a “new” cult of personality’, Public Relations Review, 45(5), p. 101837. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101837.
 
24.
Zhang, G. (2017) Reconstruction of Soft Power to Form Cultural Soft Power. Research Outline for China’s Cultural Soft Power, pp. 43–44. doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-3398-8_3.
 
eISSN:2719-6763
ISSN:2450-6869