Implications of NATO Book for the Big Problems of the Future

Twitter is a wonderful place where folks can let us know of important developments, such as that some folks were confused--thinking that sharknado was really SharkNATO:

#sharknado 2: coalitions and caveats http://t.co/ZmgZJVUs9B @smsaideman
— Adam Elkus (@Aelkus) September 19, 2013

So, of course, the key question is this: how would a North Atlantic Treaty Organization behave if its  membership (at least at the North Atlantic Council) entirely consisted of sharks?  Holy caveats, Batman!  If ferocious, man/Tara Reid-eating sharks were the ones at the bargaining table, deciding whether to give consensus support to a NATO operation, I would be of two minds:

• Sharks do not seem to be all that cooperative, compared to dolphins.  Multilateral cooperation might not be in their nature.
• However, initiatives going through the North Atlantic Council only stop if one of the members "breaks silence" which means voicing their opposition to the proposed policy.  And sharks tend to be very, very silent.  However, the folks they bite tend to scream.  So, again I am confused.  

More research is required--I might have to change my current grant application to focus on this important question.

All I can say for sure is that my co-author must be very, very pleased that this picture came out just after I sent the proofs back to the publisher.  This means I cannot insert a SharkNATO footnote to join the Avengers footnote.