Extending Terrorism Insurance

The first mission in the National Planning Framework is known as the National Prevention Framework. While the other frameworks focus on natural disasters and other hazards, the National Prevention Framework is the only framework that focuses solely on the prevention against acts of terrorism on U.S. soil (National Prevention Framework, 2013). The roles and responsibilities involved in the prevention of terrorism do not exclusively fall on the government, but rather a concerted effort by various local, state, tribal, territorial, Federal, non-profit and private sector entities. For this reason, it is important to understand the responsibilities of each entity, from the smallest role to the largest.

“The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established the federal United States Department of Homeland Security. Its stated mission is to secure the nation against terrorist attacks, to protect against and respond to threats and to ensure safe and secure borders” (Andrew, C., & Walter, F., 2013). “In addition to reducing the nation’s vulnerability to terrorism, the act was also created minimize the damage and facilitate recovery from any attacks that may occur” (Homeland Security, Department of, 2017). Many people want protection from dangerous situations, but what’s the cost of protection.

A complex phenomenon, terrorism rarely has a “one size fits all” solution. Rather, “effective responses to terrorism may need to take into account, and to some degree be individually configured to respond to, the evolving goals, strategies, tactics and operating environment of different terrorist groups” (Perl, 2007, p. i). Indeed, taking an individual approach to measuring effectiveness could be both time consuming and confusing. However, by taking a look at the problem as a whole, some commonalities do exist. For example, in his CRS report, Perl (2007) notes that the impact on society, “[b]oth material and psychological impact beyond a critical threshold, such as disruption of the banking system, or establishment of such pervasive fear that key civil liberties or moral principles underlying the national identity are set aside by the government in the interests of security” (p. 8), could possibly be used as a measure of effectiveness. How quickly we recover from a terrorist attack (measured in days) or our reaction to it (i.e. restrictive or oppressive policy) could be an indicator of how effective our counterterrorism strategy is. For example, a robust counterterrorism strategy may result in limited, small scale attacks that require mere days to recover from, the Boston Marathon for example, as opposed to the complex, large scale attacks we

The Economic consequences of terrorism (Lenain, P (2002) stated that Private businesses suffered profound destruction of assets that was calculated in national accounts to amass to $14billion, state and federal government enterprises suffered a loss in the region of $2billion, what was also astounding to read was that the rescue and clean-up costs totaled to an amount of at least $11billion.

Ernest Hemingway and William Faulkner are considered to be two of the greatest writers of the 20th century. Although they were great writers, both Hemingway and Faulkner developed their stories in different ways. Each used their own specific style to get their point across. There are clear and distinct differences between their styles of writing yet their styles also share similarities. These similarities and differences can be seen in the very well known Barn Burning and A Rose for Emily by William Faulkner and A Farewell to Arms and Hills like White Elephants by Ernest Hemingway. Both the writers are able to write great stories using utterly different techniques because there is more than one effective way to write.

As terrorist activity increases, insecurity within societies also increases with governments responding by increasing spending on counterterrorism enforcement, national security agencies and the military. This section compares the losses from direct terrorism activity to the costs borne by government in containing and mitigating the potential for terrorist violence.

This is the consequences of the attacks or crisis. Who truly takes the worst end of them. Is it the government or is it the lower class people of the nation? Why would the government or higher class people take any true loss with these issues, when they have more money and ways to take care of themselves. That’s why these programs should focus more on what happens to the people who end up suffering the worst from these events. 90% of people involved in these are not protected like the top 10% of our nation is. They suffer with the real issues loss of jobs, money, health care, homes over there head. How is someone supposed to survive after losing everything they own and are barely meeting ends meet. The consequences we face as a nation need to be handled as a

The DHS is making progress despite other challenges in applying risk management principles to guide its allocation decision in its operations and resources. The most challenges are improving the practice of risk management while overcoming the political obstacles to risk based resource allocation. There were votes taken to where there was a tie on the consensus between improving risk communication and political obstacles to improve strategic thinking about how to manage homeland security risks. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has distributed in 2002 estimated about $20 billion in federal funding through various grant programs between private and public sectors for equipment, planning, and training for improvements of the nation’s capabilities to respond to terrorist attacks, natural, and accidental disasters (GAO, Oct 2008). In the year 2006 fiscal year, the process of assessments introduced threat, vulnerability, and consequences in the assessing risk of terrorist attacks. In addition, of the allocation process for the fiscal year of 2007 DHS defined risk as three times of vulnerability and consequences, which apply to the three-step risk based on allocation methodology to where it incorporates analyses of risk and effectiveness, to select eligible urban areas and allocate UASI AND SHSP funds (GAO,

With the new President in office, one of his goals should be to enforce stricter immigration laws. Terrorism is a big problem in the United States. He should decrease the risks of terrorism in the United States by imposing more background checks by working with organizations like UNHCR and more thorough questioning when interviewing.

Most private sector corporations use a risk management process aimed at preventing a drop in demands for their product, hence the loss of money. Our government uses an approach aimed at preventing disasters both man-made and natural. Initially, the sole purpose of homeland security was to prevent terrorist attacks. Terrorist groups have evolved over time and so has DHS to meet the challenges of today that include disasters such as hurricane Katrina. However, terrorist groups do continue to plot against us and therefore the prevention of terrorism remains atop the priority list.

The government is responsible for providing the leadership in emergency planning and preparedness for disasters which includes terrorist attacks. Including the government, the private sector also has a responsibility to protect their assets from crimes and disasters. The government protects the high risk targets like landmarks and targets; the private sectors provide extra security for shopping malls, oil refineries, and utility plants. The American businesses do a good job at protecting people and assets from crime and disasters, but what is their plan for terrorist attacks.

After the attack on September 11, 2001, America became much more aware of the necessity to enhance security within the country. The tragedy that struck America’s heart continues to affect the lives of citizens today because the memory will never disappear. The United States decided to take action and strengthen security of the nation to prevent any terrorist attacks in the future. Some citizens continue to argue about the huge expense of the current security, but it clearly protects the country as a whole. As an individual, security has a purpose throughout everyday lives’ because it ensures each citizens’ safety. America is safer now than before 9/11 because of new federal agencies to enforce safety against terrorists and the money spent towards higher levels of security.

Terrorism is considered insurable until the insurmountable loss of the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Prior to 9/11, terrorism did not consider a risk by insurance companies and was covered in most standard all-risks commercial and homeowners policies’ that covered property and contents damages. However, the extreme event of September 11 accumulated a loss of approximately $40 billion and the magnitude of this loss was too large for the insurance industry to handle and therefore the government agreed to share the loss. As a result, the US Congress passed the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act in 2002, with both the insurers and the federal government sharing the risk.

The United States and other nations in the world are subjected to constant terrorist threats. The 9/11 catastrophe was one of the most significant in the United States as it led massive infrastructural destruction and the loss of several lives. The disaster was also elemental for the United States because it demonstrated that terrorism was one of the biggest concerns that needed attention. Besides the United States, the terrorists have operated in various countries across the globe leading to numerous deaths and loss of lives (Mathieu, 2010). As a result, the United States in collaboration with other countries have adopted strategies to assist in mitigating the issue.

The efforts directed to the maintenance and increase of homeland security has significantly influenced the debate over federal-state relations, in which cooperation between the federal government and the state governments has increased in order to ensure security and protection against potential threats, such as terrorism. There have been numerous instances in American history of attempts to develop and increase and homeland security as a response to a certain occasion, such as the attacks on 9/11. Efforts directed to increasing homeland security often present a proposed cooperation between the two levels of government, in which both attempt to enact and enforce procedures and decisions that are directed to addressing a particular problem. However, this cooperation is often concluded with a