`` Disaster response in America traditionally has been handled by State and local governments, with the Federal government playing a supporting role. Limits on the Federal government's role in disaster response are deeply rooted in American tradition. State and local governments öwho know the unique requirements of their citizens and geography and are best positioned to respond to incidents in their own jurisdictions öwill always play a large role in disaster response. The Federal government's supporting role respects these practical points and the sovereignty of the States as well as the power of governors to direct activities and coordinate efforts within their States.'' The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned The White House (2006) Introduction Events such as the attacks of September 11, 2001 and Hurricane Katrina have raised basic questions concerning the spatial logic of domestic security in the United States: How should the government respond to a complex field of threats ösuch as natural disasters, terrorism, and pandemic disease öacross national space? And what are the obligations of the government to individuals and communities in anticipating and responding to potentially catastrophic events? In its Lessons Learned report on Hurricane Katrina, released in early 2006, the White House situated these questions in what it called an `American tradition' of disaster response. In this paper we critically examine this American tradition by tracing the historical emergence of an organizational framework and set of practices for approaching emergencies that we call `distributed preparedness'. Distributed preparedness provides Distributed preparedness: the spatial logic of domestic security in the United States Stephen J Collier Graduate Program in International Affairs, The New School University, 66 West 12th Street, New York, NY 10011, USA; e-mail: CollierS@newschool.edu Andrew Lakoff Department of Sociology, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0533, USA; e-mail: alakoff@ucsd.edu Received 11 June 2006; in revised form 7 December 2006 Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 2008, volume 26, pages 7 ^ 28 Abstract. This paper examines the genealogy of domestic security in the United States through an analysis of post-World War II civil defense. Specifically, we describe the development of an organiza- tional framework and set of techniques for approaching security threats that we call `distributed preparedness'. Distributed preparedness was initially articulated in civil defense programs in the early stages of the Cold War, when US government planners began to conceptualize the nation as a possible target of nuclear attack. These planners assumed that the enemy would focus its attacks on urban and industrial centers that were essential to US war-fighting capability. Distributed preparedness provided techniques for mapping national space as a field of potential targets, and grafted this map of vulnerabilities onto the structure of territorial administration in the United States. It presented a new model of coordinated planning for catastrophic threats, one that sought to limit federal intervention in local life and to preserve the characteristic features of American federalism. Over the course of the Cold War, distributed preparedness extended to new domains, and following 9/11 it has moved to the center of security discussions in the US. DOI:10.1068/d446t