This paper examines the possibilities and tools for quantifying the similarity of situations and developments, especially in relation to the outbreak of armed conflict. In previous works, the author has discussed structural similarity and descriptive similarity, plausibility. In the case of descriptive similarity, descriptions of events in situations and sets of statements have been used. Their numerical assessments of similarity are based on an assessment of the similarity of the respective situations and developments. This numerical estimate is based on the concept of the so-called descriptive similarity coefficient and the calculation prescript. In the investigation of descriptive similarity of situations and developments, they are viewed as algebraic systems in which the goal is to relate similarity to plausibility. It turned out that in the case of the security developments examined, there were very few allegations from descriptions found in public sources that reflected the real causes of the armed conflicts that had erupted. Probably partly because historical approaches have different views and the real reasons are contained in non-public databases. This explains why the searched common part was not found. As we did not find intersection among the allegations selected and observed and from the descriptions of the military attacks, we had to look for something else to replace it. For this purpose, the associators and, through them, the associations of descriptions (as relevant sets of claims) have been used below. Figuratively speaking, associators are statements from different descriptions that could be equated with each other – associations are a set of descriptions that are linked to each other by statements from different associators. We are trying to find a threshold above which it would be sensible to “hear warning signs”. The author’s relevant experience since working in the respective services has also been helpful.