The terrorist attacks on September 11 changed America forever. The attacks led to President Bush creating the Department of Homeland Security which tried to centralize the federal response to all terrorist threats. However, local police, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians will still be the first to arrive at the scene of an attack. These first responders face a unique and increasingly dangerous task when reacting to a terrorist attack on US soil.
International terrorism has greatly impacted the role of first responders throughout the U.S., not only in terms of large scale events like the attacks on 9/11, but the role of the first responder has needed to adapt to the widely varying methods of attacks that have been employed. First responders may face threats from biological, chemical, and radiological weapons of mass destruction. First responder heroes of 9/11 are still dealing with injuries, illness, and even still dying from the effects of that terrorist attack. (ODMP, 2017). First
On august 6th 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, and 3 days later, they dropped another on the city of Nagasaki. The new weapons completely decimated the cities, and killed tens of thousands of people. Japan announced they would surrender to the allies a few days later on august 15. The United States justified their using of the bombs as a means to end the war without an invasion of Japan that would have resulted in thousands of more deaths on each side. While the Japanese did surrender shortly after the bombings, there is ample evidence to suggest that their surrender was imminent, and the use of the atomic bomb only accelerated peace. Through this essay, I will critically analyze justifications on the usage of the bombings, and potential results on this devastating new weapon.
The 9/11 terrorist attacks irrevocably and dramatically transformed the landscape of national security and risk, marking the beginning of the nebulous and never-ending War on Terror. Western governments frequently cite terrorism to rationalize legislation that restricts the privacy and democratic freedoms of its citizenry as anti-terror, increasing unaccountable government power. This rhetoric includes that governments must eliminate all risk of terror, it being such an existential threat that we, as citizens, can and must do everything to fight “them”, including throwing out privacy and the freedom of the press. Our lives are both augmented and restrained by the advent of ‘big data’ that, when paired the ongoing mass, indiscriminate surveillance, strips individuals of their right to privacy. Governments have capitalized on the corporate practice of collecting massive amounts of data on individuals, which has increased in both scale and scope as surveillance technology has become more sophisticated and more difficult to evade. The result is that we live under a global Panopticon in the knowledge that at any point, our online lives and communications can be exposed and subject to scrutiny. Other democratic freedoms jettisoned in the fight include the transparency and accountability in public administration and, relatedly, a free, independent and pluralistic media. The same anti-terror rhetoric and legislation is used to spy on, prosecute, and imprison journalists and
section of track and bridged the gap with wire to disable the electronic warning system.
Earlier this morning, terrorist released lethal chemical agents in Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York City. This terrorist attack has killed hundreds and it also has injured thousands. As an intelligence analyst with the Department of Homeland Security, I will be developing a background paper discussing the National Response Plan (NRP) and the roles DHS agencies play in the response.
It is always a scary prospect of someone or a group using something like a weapon of mass destruction on our home soil. It should be a high priority to be prepared in case of the unimaginable and our country needs to face the reality of our modern times with those who are out there that want to cause us harm and take proper steps to prevent or stop this. Some of these ways are creating government acts in order to help different agencies allocate resources or stockpile in case of emergencies or educating agencies on the realization of the possibility of an attack and help with training their employees.
During World War I, chemical warfare was utilized as a Weapon of Mass Destruction to commit large scale attacks against oncoming forces. Wartime scientists used chemicals such as chlorine, phosgene and mustard gas to cause blindness, asphyxiation, and death (Fitzgerald, G 2008). During these attacks, over 1.3 million people suffered chemically induced injuries and more than 90,000 killed by chemical weapons. The devastation caused by chemical warfare led to the gathering of 160 nations to sign treaties banning the use of lethal chemical armaments. On both a national and local level, emergency managers work to evaluate the potential of terrorist attacks of all magnitudes and means.
Chapter six of the textbook, Biosecurity and Bioterrorism Containing and Preventing Biological Threats, by Jeffrey R. Ryan, goes into extensive detail on the different ways to respond to a potential or active bioterrorist attract. To better explain, there are many different types of responders. For instance, there are the first responders, as well as community response organizations (Ryan, 2016, p. 136). In addition, there are many divergent levels of first responders that are called to a scene of an intentional or unintentional release of a chemical or biological hazardous substance. These levels are listed in the textbook as first responder awareness level, first
I agree with your assessment of the risk to first responders. The imagination of terrorists planning an attack is left to security experts’ best guesses and imagination. There is an unprecedented risk consider the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). As you have stated in your discussion, this “increases risk for first responders” highlights the necessity to accurately identity the risk prior to mitigating the hazard in order to ensure the first responders are adequately protected. As you discussed
In the article “Know the Smells and Warning Bells of WMD”, the author, John Linstrom’s principal point is that the fire departments should better prepare to respond to incidents involving weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Historically, explosive or WMD incidents were handled by law enforcement, while fire assumed a support role, but with increased terroristic occurrences, firefighters have been finding themselves in situations where they have been first on scene. Mr. Linstrom stresses that firefighters need to be mindful of the threat of explosives and WMD’s when responding to incidents (Linstrom, 2004). Firefighters need to familiarize themselves with terrorist tactics and beware of potential high-risk
Biological/Chemical weapons are the type of weapons that should not be used in a time of war. When using these weapons there capable of killing most of the people that are in the area where the weapon has been used. These weapons are capable of killing thousand possible millions, in other word any living organism that is in the area. There also the possibility of killing people that aren't even in the war they might just be in the area.
This article, from the Los Angeles Times, discusses the recent terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California. The shooting began at 11 A.M at a convention building at the Inland Regional Center. Employees of the county health department were attending a holiday party when two shooters walked in and began shooting. Fourteen people were killed, and an additional seventeen were injured. The suspect then fled in a black SUV with Utah plates, and were later pursued and killed by local police. The suspects were identified as Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, a married Muslim couple who were thought to self radicalize before meeting one another. After meeting one another, police think they may have been a part of a group similar to ISIS. Farook
Since the events of September 11, 2001, the American Public has been fascinated with what has become known as the “Global War on Terror.” Public support of the War on Terror has fluctuated since the invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, with support significantly dropping as the wars continued. This waning support has caused many to question the effectiveness of the War on Terror in the Middle East. By examining research conducted both prior to and after the September 11 attacks and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, this paper demonstrates that overall participation in organized terror activities has increased overtime; therefore, the “War on Terror” has had minimal success in reducing the number of violent terror attacks and political violence groups in the Middle East. This paper will begin by defining terrorism and “War on Terror”, as both terms are disputed by scholars. Afterwards, two other major points found in literature will be discussed—growth of organized terror organizations and impact that the War on Terror has had on these organizations. Next, the paper will discuss insurgency, which is another common type of political violence that occurs in the Middle East. Afterwards, the paper will discuss the shortcomings in the U.S. approach to counterinsurgency and two ways that the war on terror has failed to stop insurgency. The U.S. role in the War on Terror will then be analyzed through the use of drones in counterterrorism and the ways in
Weapons of mass destruction are divided into biological, chemical, and nuclear devices (Porteus 1). The uses of weapons of mass destruction can range from the silent threat of a poison gas attack to a cataclysmic nuclear explosion (Porteus 1). Biological terrorism can include anything