Paul Monk picks up a good line of argument on The Strategist by inviting your attention to insurance rather than threat. But in an ideal world who would buy insurance without the presence of threat? Looks like an egg and hen situation. Current literature about threat is skin deep and strategic threat methodology compartmentalised after the Cold War. Absolute war looks outdated today but convergent security and asymmetrical warfare are surely the other sides of the threat coin. Obviously more effort is needed to catalyse threat paradigm shift.