STUDIES ON SECURITY: STUDY 4. „THE CHALLENGE-RISK-DANGER-THREAT“ RELATIONSHIP

  These Studies on Security contain only the results of my scientific views, research, analyses and models. In other words, they provide a SUMMARY of my MAJOR contributions to the Science of Security.
  
  STUDY 4. „THE CHALLENGE-RISK-DANGER-THREAT“ RELATIONSHIP
  
  „THE CHALLENGE-RISK-DANGER-THREAT“ RELATIONSHIP studies and presents the integrative linkage between these four basic categories in the Science of Security, between these four fundamental general and abstract concepts.

  
  The following monograph of mine is devoted to a detailed analysis of this Relationship:
  Николай Слатински. Сигурността – животът на Мрежата. София: Военно издателство, 2014.
  [Nikolay Slatinski. Sigurnostta – zhivotut na Mrezhata. Sofia: Voenno iztadelstvo, 2014].
  Nikolay Slatinski. Security – the Life of the Network. Sofia: Military publishing house, 2014 (in Bulgarian)
  
  In the Bulgarian Science of Security, among scientists and university professors there is complete disagreement, absolute heterogeneity, total divergency, general difference in approaches, principles, concepts, terms, ideas and theories.
  It is extremely important to have in the Science of Security in our country a convention for the used concepts, a conception for the used criteria, a coalition for the used approaches and coordination for the used models. We need to agree on what is meant by each term. Otherwise, one will imply one thing for one concept, another will imply another thing for the same concept, or will imply the same thing for another concept.
  In the Science of Security in Bulgaria, this is a leading problem. Until 1989, our Science of Security spoke with a Soviet accent. After 1989, it began to speak with an American accent. Therefore, when a concept is taken from the „American security language“, it is reflexively or habitually translated into the „Russian security language“ and from there it is translated into the „Bulgarian security language“. That's why, the concepts in the Science of Security in our country are taken and used in „American“, thought and analyzed in „Russian“, and spoken and written in „Bulgarian“.
  So for example, in colloquial speech, in university lectures, in expert analyzes and in scientific literature, the concepts „challenge“, „risk“, „danger“ and „threat“ are used arbitrarily, mostly interchangeably. To these are also added in the same context „problem“, „difficulty“, „critical factor“ and other concepts, used as they come, starting with something that can be of very serious destructive potential and ending up with something, which simply prevents us from being happy enough or at least calm.
  What is important is not only that there is a linguistic ambiguity and a blurred use of key concepts, but also that each of these basic concepts is associated with different strategy and different policy to counter it, with different model and different approach to deal with it or to minimize the consequences of the materialization of the destructive potential that the given (prone to negative impact) concept initially contains within itself.
  This requires clear definitions of the four fundamental concepts. These definitions will allow us to distinguish them clearly enough from each other. Through them, the chaos of all possible (mis)uses will be avoided and the understanding of the concepts will be arranged in a way that corresponds also to the views about them in the modern Science of Security. Clarification of the essence of these concepts will enable us in our next Studies to link them to „The Four Types of Security“ Classification and to „The Three Waves of Security“ Model, discussed in previous Studies.
  If we systematize the concepts of challenge, risk and danger and threat according to the degree of: (1) generality; (2) uncertainty; (3) dependence on a given subject (subjectivity); (4) connectedness with insecurity; (5) immediacy of destructiveness; and (6) time for response; the following, to one degree or another descriptive, definitions can be formulated, which we will give below.
  But before that, let us clarify that by „system“ in these definitions we will understand a state, a corporation, a society, a community (group) of individuals, an individual.
  
  ● Challenge has the highest degree of generality and of uncertainty, as well as the lowest degree of dependence on a given entity and of connectedness with insecurity, and the least immediacy of destructiveness and the largest time for response.
  We will give the following comprehensive definition of challenge:
  • Challenge is a trend, a process, a phenomenon, an event or an action, that in relation to the system has an objective character and the effects (consequences) of which depend on the response that will be given to it. If the response is correct (adequate), then the benefits (positive consequences) of the challenge are maximized and the damages (negative consequences) are minimized, but if the response is incorrect (inadequate), then the benefits (positive consequences) of the challenge are minimized and the damages (negative consequences) are maximized.
  For a more operational use of the fundamental concept of challenge, the following shortened definition can be used:
  •• Challenge is a trend or an action, that in relation to the system has an objective character and the consequences of which depend on the response that will be given to it. If the response is correct, then its benefits are maximized and damages are minimized, but if the response is incorrect, then benefits are minimized and damages are maximized.
  To challenges are given responses.
  When responding to challenges, the system should seek to avert, even before they appear, the first signs of potential destructive consequences of still distant in time possible alternative developments of processes and to build skills (capabilities) for forecasting. These skills (capabilities) will enable the system to effectively perform comprehensive and reliable foresight. On the basis of such a comprehensive and reliable foresight, based on strategic design, scenario planning and long-term behavior, the probability will be significantly increased that responses which the system gives to possible challenges are correct (adequate).
  The key word for challenges is FORECASTING.
  
  ● Risk has a lower degree of generality and of uncertainty, as well as a higher degree of dependence on a given entity and of connectedness with insecurity, and a greater immediacy of destructiveness and a less time for response than challenge.
  We will give the following comprehensive definition of risk:
  • Risk is a trend, a process, a phenomenon, an event or an action, realized in the conditions of uncertainty, which, with a probability that is subject to assessment, is able, taking advantage of the weaknesses and strengths of the system and despite (or as a result of) the activities undertaken in relation to it, to produce an effect, the result of which affects the objectives of the system. In this way, risk can be defined as an occurring under conditions of uncertainty effect on the objectives of the system.
  For a more operational use of the fundamental concept of risk, the following shortened definition can be used:
  •• Risk is a process or an action, realized in the conditions of uncertainty, which is able, taking advantage of the weaknesses and strengths of the system and with the activities undertaken in relation to it, to produce an effect that affects the objectives of the system. Risk is an effect of uncertainty on the objectives of the system.
  Risks are managed.
  With a certain degree of conditionality, it can be said that a risk is a materialized (realized) challenge.
  When managing risks, the system should seek to reduce at a very early stage likely serious harmful (significantly damaging) effects of possible alternative developments of the processes and to build skills (capabilities) for early warning. These skills (capabilities) will allow the system to perform effective proactive action.
  The key word for risks is EARLY WARNING.
  It is quite natural that in the Risk Society (in the Wave of risk) the main theoretical and practical efforts are directed with increasing energy, frequency and depth to the study and management of risks. Riskology is perhaps the most dynamically and intensively (but we would say contradictory) developing area of the modern Science of Security.
  
  ● Danger has a lower degree of community and of uncertainty, as well as a higher degree of dependence on a given entity and of connectedness with insecurity, and a greater immediacy of destructiveness and with a less time for response than challenge and risk.
  We will give the following comprehensive definition of danger:
  • Danger is a trend, a process, a phenomenon, an event or an action, the objective development of which could have a negative impact on the system. In the case of danger, there is an element of temporal uncertainty (hypotheticality) related to the moment of its realization, and also there is no immediate causer of it (or it is present very conditionally, coded, disguised). When the time for realization of this danger gets a certain concreteness and the entity causing it comes to the fore, then danger turns into threat [1].
  For a more operational use of the fundamental concept of danger, the following shortened definition can be used:
  •• Danger is a phenomenon or an action, the objective development of which could have a negative impact on the system. In the case of danger, there is an element of temporal uncertainty related to the moment of its realization, and also there is no immediate causer of it.
  With a certain degree of conditionality, it can be said that a danger is a materialized (realized) risk.
  Dangers are controlled.
  When controlling dangers, the system should seek to suppress preemptively negative impacts on it and to build skills (capabilities) for prevention. These skills (capabilities) will allow the system to perform effective active action.
  The key word for dangers is PREVENTION.
  
  ● Threat has a lower degree of community and of uncertainty, as well as a higher degree of dependence on a given entity and of connectedness with insecurity, and a greater immediacy of destructiveness and with a less time for response than challenge, risk and danger.
  We will give the following comprehensive definition of threat:
  • Threat is a trend, a process, a phenomenon, an event or an action that represents a real or highly possible encroachment on the system. Threat is always (or almost always) directly subjectivized (that is, there is a certain subject from which it originates) and concretized as regards the time of its realization. Threat can be purposeful (pursuing with a direct, self-serving intention the achievement of a specific destructive result) or indirect (diverting the attention because it seeks a hidden negative effect as a by-product of its realization) [2].
  For a more operational use of the fundamental concept of threat, the following shortened definition can be used:
  •• Threat is an event or an action that represents a possible encroachment on the system. In the case of threat, there is a certain subject from whom it originates and it is concretized as regards the time of its realization. Threat can be purposeful (pursuing a specific destructive result) or indirect (seeking a hidden negative result) [2].
  With a certain degree of conditionality, it can be said that a danger is a materialized (realized) risk.
  Threats are neutralized.
  When neutralizing threats, the system should seek to overcome in a timely manner direct encroachments on it and to build skills (capabilities) for reacting. These skills (capabilities) will allow the system to perform an effective reactive action.
  The key word for threats is REACTING.
  
  To make it easier to remember the arrangement of these concepts according to the chosen criteria and to distinguish them, it is convenient to use the acronym, with a small addition of „e“ and „i“ for euphony, „CreDiT“ (Challenge–Risk–Danger–Threat).

   Table 1. Systematization of the main characteristics of the relation „CreDiT“ – 1
  To summarize (see Table 2) the connections (dependencies) in „The Challenge–Risk–Hazard–Threat“ Relationship (i.e. „CreDiT“) as follows:
  
  Threat – Reacting:
  → In reacting, our behavior and our approach to the problem are reactive.
  We act when there is a problem.
  It could be said that we are reacting and are reactive to what happened yesterday.
  
  Danger – Prevention:
  → In prevention, our behavior and our approach to the problem are active.
  We act when the problem is small in order to prevent it from becoming a big problem.
  It could be said that we act preemptively and we are active to what is happening today.
  
  Risk – Early warning:
  → In early warning, our behavior and our approach to the problem are pro-active.
  We act before the problem appears, because if it appears even as a small problem, it will very quickly become a big problem.
  It could be said that we have to increasingly build skills (capabilities) for early warning and we are proactive to what will happen tomorrow.
  
  Challenge – Forecasting:
  → In forecasting, our behavior and approach to the problem is aimed at foresight.
  We act even before the occurrence of conditions that contribute to the appearance of the problem and so that there is not even the slightest possibility this problem to appear.
  It could be said that we have to increasingly build skills (capabilities) for forecasting and we should foresight and take measures to what may happen the day after tomorrow.

   Table 2. Systematization of the main characteristics of the relation „CreDiT“ – 2
  
  Finally, let's clarify the difference between forecasting and foresight.
  Forecasting is more of a process, and foresight is more of a result of a process.
  Forecasting is more of a means and foresight is more of an end.
  A relatively correct forecasting of a process would lead to a relatively correct foresight of what will happen as a result of that process.
  It is for this reason that it has been argued above that the social system should seek to „build skills (capabilities) for forecasting [that will enable it] to effectively perform comprehensive and reliable foresight… based on strategic design, scenario planning and long-term behavior”.
  Analyzing the differences between forecasting and foresight gives us the opportunity to clarify which of the two concepts is more of a process and which is more of an end state; which is more of a means and which is more of an end; which is more primary and which is more secondary; which is more the things that do and which is more the thing that is done; which more answers the question How? and which more answers the question What?
  
  
  References:
  1. Търкаланов, Юрий. Разузнавателният анализ. София: Албатрос, 2003, с. 57.
Turkalanov, Yuri. Razuznavatelniat analiz. Sofia: Albatros, s. 57. (in Bulgarian)
   (Turkalanov, Yuri. Intelligence analysis).
  2. Ibid., pp. 57 – 58.
  
  
  
  Brief explanation:
  The texts of my Studies have been translated into English by me. They have not been read and edited by a native English speaker, nor by a professional translator. Therefore, all errors and ambiguities caused by the quality of the translation are solely mine. But I have been guided by the thought that the purpose of these Studies is to give information about my contributions to the Science of Security by presenting them in a brief exposition, and not to demonstrate excellent English, which, unfortunately, I cannot boast of.
  
  
  26.11.2022 г.