Anthony. Whilst I agree with your words, for me the bigger issue I would call the tyranny of categorisation. We categorise threats to our society and then organise ourselves to deal with those categorised threats.. Not necessarily the real threat.. Because a threat actor does not categorise as we do... In fact they exploit us at the, that is our, interfaces because that is a weakness in our response.... It seems to be harder to provide ubiquitous defence and deterrence than it is to be a ubiquitous threat... Or is it just a characteristic of the assymetric nature of the engagement. For discussion!!
Excellent point ... Whilst I hold to the distinct character of national security threats, I agree with both the 'weak seams' observation, and the attention that needs to be paid to the way that adversaries understand the threat landscape. The nexus that exists between hostile states and organised crime being a case in point.
Great stuff Anthony..
Anthony. Whilst I agree with your words, for me the bigger issue I would call the tyranny of categorisation. We categorise threats to our society and then organise ourselves to deal with those categorised threats.. Not necessarily the real threat.. Because a threat actor does not categorise as we do... In fact they exploit us at the, that is our, interfaces because that is a weakness in our response.... It seems to be harder to provide ubiquitous defence and deterrence than it is to be a ubiquitous threat... Or is it just a characteristic of the assymetric nature of the engagement. For discussion!!
Excellent point ... Whilst I hold to the distinct character of national security threats, I agree with both the 'weak seams' observation, and the attention that needs to be paid to the way that adversaries understand the threat landscape. The nexus that exists between hostile states and organised crime being a case in point.