Quick correction. You mistake the effects of terrorism to only be immediate-damage-related. Terrorism is an existential threat in a democracy because the goal is to create wide swings in public opinion to make the democracy do things which are harmful to it.
I agree. But political, psychological implications considered, Britain is not under a serious threat from terrorism. Neither is France, Germany, Canada, Japan or virtually anyone else.
The US is more susceptible to terrorism largely because of its rhetoric. They could for example, get drawn into or prolong a war. But that's not the same kind of threat that even dwarfs like N. Korea or Iran present. Terrorism fast hits a brick wall. If attacks become common in The States (eg 5 per year) long term, they will get used to it. Just like gang violence. You could theoretically just ignore it & the US would still be the US. The same could not ba said of the Cold War War II, or any other 'real' war.
Think about your use of the word serious. Wars are fought until one side decides to stop fighting. Laws are made because people are emotional creatures. I'm not going to get long-winded, but there are plenty of examples of small losses of lives leading to major policy changes, loss of freedom, change of ruling party, decisions to either engage or disengage large military forces etc. Terrorism is an emotional warfare, not one in which you count up the damage on a balance sheet.
The outcomes I mention are extremely serious. Outcomes that are easily existentially important to the state.
Comments
Quick correction. You mistake the effects of terrorism to only be immediate-damage-related. Terrorism is an existential threat in a democracy because the goal is to create wide swings in public opinion to make the democracy do things which are harmful to it.
I agree. But political, psychological implications considered, Britain is not under a serious threat from terrorism. Neither is France, Germany, Canada, Japan or virtually anyone else.
The US is more susceptible to terrorism largely because of its rhetoric. They could for example, get drawn into or prolong a war. But that's not the same kind of threat that even dwarfs like N. Korea or Iran present. Terrorism fast hits a brick wall. If attacks become common in The States (eg 5 per year) long term, they will get used to it. Just like gang violence. You could theoretically just ignore it & the US would still be the US. The same could not ba said of the Cold War War II, or any other 'real' war.
Think about your use of the word serious. Wars are fought until one side decides to stop fighting. Laws are made because people are emotional creatures. I'm not going to get long-winded, but there are plenty of examples of small losses of lives leading to major policy changes, loss of freedom, change of ruling party, decisions to either engage or disengage large military forces etc. Terrorism is an emotional warfare, not one in which you count up the damage on a balance sheet.
The outcomes I mention are extremely serious. Outcomes that are easily existentially important to the state.