The current pandemic has caused widespread death and filled hospitals to capacity, resembling wartime conditions with triage wards. People now prepare for trips to the grocery store as if they are entering a battle, wearing masks and gloves. In Europe, which has faced terrorism in the past, this pandemic brings back haunting memories. However, the fear of the virus is unique because it is invisible, widespread, and unpredictable. Unlike terrorism, this threat comes from nature and not human actions or ideology. And it requires a significantly different reaction. When faced with a terrorist attack, individuals may flee in terror but then come together in solidarity and resistance. However, once the new coronavirus lockdown is lifted, people will cautiously emerge into the open like moles from their underground homes. According to Peter R Neumann, a professor at King's College London and founder of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation, individuals tend to fear terrorism more than everyday risks such as driving or falling in the bathtub, even though the latter are statistically more deadly. This is because terrorism is unpredictable and beyond their control. Neumann explained that while terrorism involves killing people, its main goal is to manipulate our beliefs and interests. The coronavirus is particularly terrifying because it cannot be controlled or stopped with traditional methods like surveillance or persuasion. Unlike human or ideological enemies, the virus is unpredictable and uncontrollable, causing widespread fear. This natural disaster has already claimed more lives than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and is expected to continue taking many more. Expert Thomas Hegghammer noted that people are usually more afraid of man-made threats, but the coronavirus poses a unique and unprecedented challenge. Julianne Smith, a former security adviser to former Vice President Joe Biden and now at the German Marshall Fund, noted that terrorism and the pandemic both have a profound impact on society and individuals. The unpredictability of both threats creates a sense of helplessness and invades personal life, as people worry about attending crowded events. Joshua A Geltzer, former senior director for counterterrorism on the National Security Council and now a professor of law at Georgetown, pointed out that the randomness of terrorism and the virus contributes to their terrifying nature. "It has the ability to make individuals consider, 'It could happen to me.' However, defeating the virus requires a shift in mentality, according to Geltzer. While an event like the bomb at the Boston Marathon directly impacts individuals and makes them question attending the next year, the virus necessitates a collective mindset to prevent spreading and overwhelming the healthcare system. This situation calls for a different kind of solidarity. Following the terrorist attacks of Sept 11, President George W Bush encouraged Americans to continue with their daily activities despite the fear. Similarly, after the attacks in France in 2015, President François Hollande led demonstrations of public resilience and defiance." In light of the virus, many societies were unprepared, so resilience now means staying home rather than traveling, according to Geltzer and Carrie F. Cordero. It is challenging for governments to shift from urging calm during times of terrorism to instilling fear to promote the common good. This enemy requires people to stay put rather than mobilize. While security responses to terrorism may evoke patriotic and visceral reactions, the response to the virus, such as staying at home or producing protective gear, may not seem as exciting. It is not common to hear people cheering "USA! USA!" in support of home schooling. Adapting security structures to address threats that do not necessarily require increased military spending or heightened surveillance will be challenging for governments. Analysts who focused on softer threats like health and climate change were often viewed as less important, but that perception is changing. The idea of security is evolving to include departments of health security and virologists employed by intelligence agencies. As new threats emerge, such as economic collapse, rising debt, and social unrest, our concept of security will continue to shift. Many are concerned about the impact of the current low oil prices on Arab and Persian Gulf countries, particularly in terms of paying salaries for civil servants and the military, as well as managing subsidies on bread. Even the Islamic State group has cautioned its followers against traveling to areas affected by the epidemic. Hegghammer, who experienced the terrorist attacks in Norway in July 2011, emphasizes the collective solidarity and sense of communal work, known as "dugnad," that emerged in response to the tragedy. This spirit of unity is now being seen again in Norway as individuals come together to help one another during the virus outbreak, with the government and opposition working closely together. The virus and the attacks by Breivik are being compared in the current debate in Norway. It is being done in a critical manner to point out the government's lack of preparedness in handling a major threat, both in the past and present. Similar to Norway, the United States will likely have a commission of inquiry to examine the government's failures and plan for the future. However, the US is divided unlike Norway, and the slow-rolling crisis of the virus affects different parts of society at different speeds. This lack of unity, combined with existing political polarization, may lead to indifference towards religion and law, and the rise of more reckless politicians. The delayed response from the White House ultimately undermines the current political leadership and practices of society, according to Schake. If the political consequences are significant enough, it could result in the decline of the imperial presidency and a resurgence of federal and congressional activism as intended by the Founding Fathers. While the virus may be politically divisive, it also serves as a reminder that free societies rely on civic responsibility norms.