ABSTRACT
This chapter focuses on the official switch from nonviolent responses to violent responses. It considers arguments about whether the official side should use violence against the attackers, and when violence should be considered. The chapter agrees that violence is more likely to be the least risky response to new terrorists. It cautions negotiators not to follow fashions or norms framed in terms of the rights and wrongs of violence, but to prefer semantic frames of risk. The chapter we notes that the choice to assault becomes more justifiable with any of the following three trends: The hostages' location is discovered, the risks of assault decline, and the risks of not assaulting increase. It reviews the arguments about when to assault. It reviews reasons to assault as soon as possible, without any necessary negotiations. The chapter shows an instrumental hostage-taker with reconcilable demands–an assault should be postponed in favor of negotiations.
