In a response to the perceived threat of terrorism, security measures in many of the world’s major cities have been increased significantly in recent years. Do the benefits of having increased security outweigh the drawbacks?

In recent days, the security level in mega-cities around the world has been boosted up dramatically over the years as a way to reduce the threat of terrorism. I believe the disadvantages of this phenomenon are far off outweigh the advantages due to its cost of maintenance and effectiveness. On the one hand, the benefits of applying new security measures such as deploying more armed police officers on the street or imposing stricter laws are foreseeable. Citizens then could be ensured a safer environment in which they can perform day to day activities such as shopping and working. For example, in Thailand, the criminal rate in major cities is extremely low over the years due to its maximum security level and appropriate policies, zero bomb terrorism was recorded. On the second hand, the drawbacks of this phenomenon are undeniably high in terms of the expenditure for maintaining these measurements, one of which can be named as budgeting for the police department. For instance, according to the New York Times, NYD( New York City Department), manually, spend more than a half of their cities budget on training new officers and constructing new military camps, and this would significantly add a burden on the social welfare as well as the economic scale. As a result, businesses of all forms could heavily be taxed and the city dwellers have to suffer. In conclusion, the threat of terrorism in major cities around the world is avoidable in favor of applying the appropriate method. I think the focus should be shifted since the downsides were more worth considerable than the upsides.