Abstract: In the presented work, the subject of research is one of the main categories of the conceptual apparatus of such a new direction of theoretical thought as the science of safety - the concept of «threat». Despite the obvious simplicity of this term and its widespread use in everyday life and legal practice, disputes about its substantive basis do not stop in the scientific community. Insufficient elaboration of the main categories of safety theory leads to numerous ambiguous interpretations of its fundamental terms, which do not allow forming a strictly defined theoretical basis. Therefore, in this article, using the example of the analysis of publications published in scientific journals and on the «AGA-Sofia»s website, the most obvious shortcomings of existing approaches to the interpretation of the concept of «threat» and its main characteristics are revealed.
The solution of the tasks set in the work is based on the application of methods of logical analysis, laws of terminology and methodological principles of philosophy. The paper draws attention to the fact that, unlike the general case, when a threat is formulated as the intention (possibility) of causing any harm to someone / something (the object of the threat) on the part of someone/something (the source of the threat), in technical disciplines, the threat is presented as the possibility of harmful consequences as a result of object–object/subject relations (the impact of something on someone/something). Among the identified shortcomings in the interpretation of the characteristics of the threat, it is emphasized that it does not necessarily have to be manifested. If the threat is real, it can be both explicit and hidden. In addition, its potential form is legitimate, due to the two-dimensionality of the universal «possibility». At the same time, the author draws attention to the grossest methodological miscalculation made by some researchers - the threat cannot be a phenomenon, since it represents only the possibility of harmful consequences of any phenomenon. The article draws attention to the fallacy of attempts by some authors to extend the scope of the definition of «threat» to the concepts of «blackmail» and «ultimatum», as well as to the possibility of perception responses when harm is caused as a result of the threat. The inaccuracies allowed by researchers in defining the term «threat source» are analyzed, and the validity of the use of certain terms closely related to the concept of threat, such as «threat to the safety of the object», «threat to interests», «threat of unauthorized access» is justified.