Quote Originally Posted by selil View Post
Currently that is the primary protection. Mutually assured destruction is inherently part of the equation when dealing with nation-state on nation-state. When terrorism enters the picture that becomes a bit of thorny issue.
Was how business, local and regional law enforcement, emergency services, heck just about any given group you look at seem absolutely chaotic under "normal" working conditions but let an emergency take place and all the sudden they can turn into a well oiled machine with all the directional paths well defined and each piece working solidly toward a task.

Maybe thats because they spend a lot more time on working out the how to's in relation how to deal with X condition should it happen then they do just working out their normal day to day relationships. Seems like the same should go for limited non-state actors response as well.

If they know that knocking out x,y, and Z may cause panic but it also will bring down the focus that comes with that scenario (meaning in short their gonna get a lot more effective and focused attention than they would otherwise) it should help to adjust their cost benefit analysis on what they want to achieve.

Example: If you take out a small portion of the grid there would be a lot more whining and disgruntlement among the populous then if you take down a big chunk of it. IF the big chunk was taken down there's gonna be a lot more screams to kill the #$@# who did it then there would be whining over why theres no power.

Rambling and almost nonsensical I know but not sure how to put it differently.

??