Reflection: Security/ Sanity Week

This week was paired with a heightened sense of caution amongst the citizens. There was a plot thwarted to bomb the Metro system, a flight from Yemen carrying "suspicious" cargo escorted by fighter jets to JFK, and a slight sense of anxiety from the high influx of people for the Rally to Restore Sanity. These events have led some to be more cautious in their day to day activities across the country, but D.C. in particular.

This heightened caution relates to our class discussion on security. The question I raise from these events is; what is a greater security threat, the events themselves (the thwarted plot, the flight, the large quantity of people) or the response to these potential threats? My argument would be toward the latter. For although these security risks may be great, our society's response may trigger a amplification of threat. Take for example the Rally to Restore Sanity. In hindsight, there was no meaningful damage done to the citizens or to the area. However, if individuals became frightened by the influx of people, the overcrowding of the metro, or the crowd in general, there could have been mass hysteria. This could ultimately lead people to feel uncomfortable in their homes, stray away from stores, or possibly suspect other individuals as threats to individual security. The actions taken, such as preemptive self-defesne could result in damage to other individuals and their property.

My argument is not that society should let security risks go unattended, but rather asses the threat. This assessment an analysis of potential damages, financial costs of said damages, potential courses of action to avoid threat (including inaction), and weighing of importance in regards to other threats. If individual, groups, or society misinterpret a threat or neglect to properly analyze it, the consequences could be more dire then the original threat. Therefore, threat assessment is vital in ensuring security for all.