A Rubber Band and National Security: Not as Different as You May Think

In many ways, I understand that if something is a threat to any portion of the nation, whether it be a minority or a majority it can be seen as a breach of national security. I believe this definition of “national security” to be greatly malleable and able to be twisted from the majority of security threatening issues that may occur across the country, on a multitude of scales. Off of this, the readings display the malleability of how issues of national security can be personal, national, and international, shrinking while also expanding. Within the context of the 2001 National Security Strategy, Clinton writes, “transnational threats include terrorism, drug, and migrant smuggling, and other international crime. The rise in the frequency and intensity of these threats makes it incumbent upon U.S. and foreign law enforcement and judicial authorities to cooperate innovatively.” This further exemplifies how national security required different forces to regulate it, depending on what scale the issue lies on. By having the idea that national security can be stretched from local to global, media has had a play in this change.
I see there is a gray area between an international, national, or a personal issue under the umbrella of national security. With technological advancements, many issues that I see as originally personal many years ago, have evolved into national issues due to the spreading of news and increasing political involvement. For example, in the ’80s, AIDS was seen as a personal epidemic that required isolation and quarantine for the gay community. Activists were only those affected and despite the research conducted, the issue remained only applicable to a small percentage. However, years later, it is seen as a national security issue that reaches the entire globe, with it being understood as an epidemic affecting all. Although HIV/AIDS does not have a cure, since being categorized as a national security issue, greater acknowledgment and research have been conducted. I find that it is important that there is this loose definition to permit the broad expanse of issues, from health to economics, to receive the attention and help that is allocated for national security matters.
However, there are still a few exceptions. For example, countless scenarios are in underprivileged neighborhoods and towns that are not publicized as a personal or national threat, when they could very easily be categorized into one or the other. These issues, such as racial and inequality based segregation or crimes, are not yet recognized at the level of a national security breach for the American people. It is because of this dynamic, that I see the societal hierarchy that unjustly formulates and integrates itself into issues of national security.
Along this thread, I was thinking of the word “malleable” and other items that society categorizes as such. While an item such as putty or a rubber band can be stretched and condensed, there remains a limit. Nothing can stretch or shrink infinitely. While I define national security as being malleable, I wonder what the limitations are and how that changes points made in this post.