The project would consist primarily of historical case studies. It would begin with a short exploratory period (~1-2 weeks) where participants identified the most instructive events to focus on. Each participant would then spend most of their project time investigating one or two case studies (~5-6 weeks), and writing their results into a research report (~1-2 weeks). The research would mostly consist of historical literature review: reading relevant books and articles, and reframing key information in relation to warning shots. A limited amount of primary source work could be possible if a neglected but particularly promising case study arises.

For each case study, the goal would be twofold:

1. Understand the communication strategies used in promoting and discussing the warning shot, and how they affected public perception of the event and political responses.

2. Identify the political, cultural, and institutional environments that determined whether the event generated meaningful and sustainable change.

Secondary goals for the project could include:

• Refine the definition of “warning shot.” For example, is an event a warning shot simply because it signals a larger risk, or only if it prompts a meaningful change?

• Develop a taxonomy of warning shots, for example distinguishing between technical demonstrations of capability, near misses, and real-world harms.

• Use the findings of the historical case studies to develop a set of evidence-based recommendations for communication strategy following future warning shots.

This project involves identifying historical warning shots: events that signal larger risks before their most severe consequences materialise. For example, the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima inspired an international disarmament movement seeking to prevent thermonuclear war. Instructive case-studies can be found among less destructive events as well, such as Three Mile Island, and Jacob Coxon’s recent resignation from Anthropic.

This project investigates why some warning shots successfully generate sustained attention and action, while others do not, and which factors determine their eventual impact. These might include the decisions made by key actors, the institutions and networks through which the response was coordinated, the credibility and framing of public communication, the existing political and cultural environment, and the strength of opposing interests. It is important to analyse action and change in relation to the culture and socioeconomic conditions of the day to ensure historical rigor and a fruitful set of recommendations for future warning shot response.