Having read this, I remembered that pickpockets were active at public hangings of other pickpockets. The logic here is the if you make it more personally risky to attack nation A, then bad actors will attack nation B instead. Given that criminal behaviour is driven mostly by economics rather than an appreciation of personal risk it would be a more effective strategy to make it more costly to attack nation A. When it comes to nation-state attacks, neither the economics nor personal risks have significant effects…:
[…] In its report, the panel said doing so would deter malicious actors from targeting Australia and that a key priority is increasing transparency on the government’s investigative activity with more frequent attribution and consequences applied where appropriate.