A threatened nation can react to uncertain dangers solely through administrative channels, to the truly embarrassing situation of perhaps overreacting.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
States can be deterred by the fear of retaliation; non-state organisations cannot by deterred at all.
It's a fact that people who are in a weakened position, whether physically or mentally, have this perception of the outer world as threatening. Everything that is unexpected or unknown is seen as a potential danger.
If you over-react to a crisis legislatively it generally ends in disaster.
In today's interdependent world, a threat to one becomes a menace to all. And no state can defeat these challenges and threats alone.
It is standard practice for corrupt leaders who are seeking a certain political outcome to hype or manipulate a terror threat or a threat of violent domestic subversion. While sometimes the threat is manufactured, frequently the hyped threat is based on a real danger.
During a large disaster, like Hurricane Katrina, warnings get hopelessly jumbled. The truth is that, for warnings to work, it's not enough for them to be delivered. They must also overcome that human tendency to pause; they must trigger a series of effective actions, mobilizing the informal networks that we depend on in a crisis.
I am above the weakness of seeking to establish a sequence of cause and effect, between the disaster and the atrocity.
This experience actually means the very opposite: the largest military power was unable to stop such a sensitive attack and will be unable to rule out such a possibility in the future. Precisely this is the background to the United States' military interventions.
In public relations, you live with the reality that not every disaster can be made to look like a misunderstood triumph.
How do you defend inaction in the face of crisis? How is that defensible for anybody?