Shen: There is an ancient, often quoted rule of thumb. An attacker should have a three-to-one advantage over a defender.

It reflects the inherent advantage of the defense.

Except.

Except the rule is for a military assault against a fortified position.

What about a different scenario?

There is a lesson you can take from the Israeli supply chain attacks causing electronic devices to explode. From the assassination attempts against Donald Trump. From the general state of cybersecurity in the world.

It is something we learn in special forces. Audacity creates opportunities.

Who dares wins.

What is the attacker's advantage when the defender must try to defend all points, against all attack vectors, for all time? And the attacker need only win once?

One thousand to one? One million to one?

The perception that things are generally safe is incorrect. It is clear even presidential candidates with well-resourced security details do not have airtight security. What of lesser political leaders? Members of the media? Corporate leaders? What of critical infrastructure? Public gatherings?

Small cells and lone wolves have become increasingly enabled by technology. The advantage will only grow.

Empires have collapsed under the burden of trying to be everywhere at once.

The calculus must transition to not producing so many attackers.

Is there a way to encourage a more harmonious life in the West?

image located at https://x.com/Ragnorosis/status/1837094593730412584