IntroductionThe Nash Equilibrium assumes that countries can reach the state of equilibrium only when none of them stands out in any special way. This, along with the fact that some countries consciously make other countries poorer on their own path to developmentnonetheless giving them compensation exceeding the suffered loss (the Kaldor-Hicks Efficiency)-still results in more dynamic development in the benefiting countries than in the losing countries. This leads to discrepancies in the dynamics of different countries' development, and provides one of the explanations for the existence of social unrest. However, the existence of threats resulting from differences in the level of development between countries is one of many causes that bears upon the issue of security, with regard to individual states as well as regions, and in fact the entire world.All people intuitively understand the issue of security; moreover, most people agree on the importance of the problem. Security is the basic need of individuals, social groups - in fact, of any subject, including a nation. (For the purposes of this article, we will refer to all of these subjects as the beneficiaries of security.) It is associated with the certainty of existence, possession, functioning, and development. The problem is that security is not a state that can simply be achieved once and then sustained forever; rather, it requires constant actions to be taken in order to provide an acceptable level of security.* 1 Security depends on many factors in both the external and the internal environment. The analysis of these factors requires a constant control, and any conclusions that are drawn constitute a basis for actions which themselves must also be controlled. The control also takes into account the effects of actions taken and performed. It should be noted that when discussing control one can have in mind a variety of aspects (Figure 1). The most simplified definition of control assumes that this is the process of comparing the required state and the real state.There is a tight bond between control and planning, since control enables one to measure progress toward the achievement of specific goals and permits the optional adjustment of the initial plan. I have attempted in this essay to explain the problem of controlling the obtained result. The simplified definition of control has been applied here, however, with a broader scope that flows from the applied methodology, which is based on the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) concept. It stems from the attempt to present the pos- sibilities of BSC application in the control of strategy implementation in the bodies of government administration following the example of the national security strategy. Thus, the thesis is based on one of the most popular tools that is used in the planning, implementation, and control of strategy: the Balanced Scorecard. It investigates the process of strategic management from the cause-effect perspective, and deals with the correlation between the chosen strategy and certain actions with indications of how to control their results through the use of carefully chosen quantitative and qualitative indicators. However, the scorecard does not force the employees and organizational bodies to strictly follow the plan set in advance. Thus it is treated as a system of communication, information exchange, and learning, and not as a system of control.2 3 The thesis, however, uses the tool in order to show the control possibilities available that will help achieve the strategic goals of the national security strategy.National Security StrategyStrategy cannot be limited to the general view of the executive. In the classic meaning, it is treated as the method by which the set strategic goals are realized.4 Having said that, it is worth emphasizing that strategic goals, in case of the national security strategy, must first of all focus on satisfying the needs of beneficiaries in the realm of security. …