The Effects Of Military Involvement On U.s.

According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), there are many factors that will affect the direction of emergency management in the coming years. These can be classified as global challenges, global opportunities, national challenges, national opportunities, professional challenges, and professional opportunities. Global Challenges include some issues like global climate change, increasing population and population density, increasing resource scarcities, rising income inequality, and increasing risk aversion. Global Opportunities has to do with increased scientific understanding of the hazards and societal responses, as well as revolutionary technologies. National Challenges involves increasing urbanization and hazard exposure, interdependencies in infrastructure, continued emphasis on growth, rising costs of disaster recovery, increasing population diversity, terrorist threats, low priority of emergency management, legal liability, and intergovernmental tensions. Due to these factors that will affect the direction of emergency management in the coming years, there is need for us at emergency management division to adjust operational plans to meet these challenges and especially changes emanating from constant changes expected in technology and other threats we face.

In chapter 3, titled “Congress and the Agencies”, we learn of a few of the many laws, processes and agencies that have been created to better prepare the United States for a national emergency. Since the origins of the United States, the President has always been the lead on emergencies that required attention by the federal government, but the legislative and judicial branches of the government have become more and more involved in making sure that it is done constitutionally. One of the main reasons for this is because of the statutes that have been created because of the response to emergencies. These statutes have been separated into three separate categories.

The whole world observed as the administration responders appeared incapable to provide essential protection from the effects of nature. The deprived response results from a failure to accomplish a number of risk factors (Moynihan, 2009). The dangers of a major hurricane striking New Orleans had been measured, and there was sufficient warning of the threat of Katrina that announcements of emergency were made days in advance of landfall (Moynihan, 2009). Nonetheless, the responders were unsuccessful to change this information into a level of preparation suitable with the possibility of the approaching disaster. Federal responders failed to recognize the need to more actively engage (Moynihan, 2009). These improvements include improved ability to provide support to states and tribes ahead of a disaster; developed a national disaster recovery strategy to guide recovery efforts after major disasters and emergencies; and the Establishment of Incident Management Assistance Teams in which these full time, rapid response teams are able to deploy within two hours and arrive at an incident within 12 hours to support the local incident commander (FEMA,

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) would become the central point-of-contact within the national government in responding to incidents. Since formation in 1979, FEMA’s core missions were to enhance the government’s ability to survive a foreign attack, and to assist state and local authorities in disaster response (Carafano, 2005). And while the two core missions seem heterogenous in scope at times from an outside perspective, the biggest difference between the two tasks is duration. A man-made disaster may be over in a matter of minutes as compared to a hurricane lasting several days, but in both instances the road to recovery is long. In order to streamline response and recovery in either scenario, FEMA was reorganized with new directives to support comprehensive emergency management practices (CRS, 2006). Today, FEMA provides the standard approach and guidance that many local communities may not have due to funding, training, and

Hurricane Katrina caused a great deal of destruction, death, and human suffering. Research from this event brings to light the limitations of both the National Guard and active-duty forces response capabilities, and whether changes in the roles and responsibilities of the National Guard and active-duty forces during emergencies would enable them to respond better. It is likely that the primary responsibility for national disasters will continue to be handled by local and state officials. They have the best understanding of situations, have the capability to handle the case, and can respond quickly. Hurricane Katrina generated the need to examine the federal response and to make any changes that are needed for the preparation of National Guard and active-duty Army during major domestic emergencies. Both the National Guard and active duty Army are changing to smaller modular and interoperable combat and support brigades that can provide the foundation for an expedited force that can deploy units to threats quickly. The Army

The United States at this time was the target of a series of different natural disasters. Ranging from the “Ash Wednesday” storm which accounted for well over $300,000,000 in damages to an earthquake which measured 9.2 on the Richter scale and in turn resulted in multiple tsunamis that rolled down the pacific coast and resulted in over a hundred losses of life (Maria). These kind of disasters did not let up in the 60’s and 70’s as the United States was hammered with a series of massive earthquakes and hurricanes. Legislation recognized there needed to be a solution and so in response the Disaster Relief Act was created giving presidents more power in their declarations at the time of the disasters. Since the first government intervention in 1803 until 1970, more than one hundred federal agencies were in some manner involved in some aspect of responding to the emergencies when they took place. The overlap between state issued programs and federal installed policies was concerning. That is why in the year 1979, President Jimmy Carter signed into order the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA). As of present day, this is the program we all now look to in times of a disaster. They strive to support not only the citizens but also the first responders to ensure we can work together to improve, build and sustain our capability to recover from all hazards that are associated with these emergencies. FEMA does not work completely alone however, and in 2001 homeland security stepped up its role in dealing with disasters (Haddow). It was the terror attacks on September 11th that sparked their involvement and their coordination with FEMA made for quick and effective decisions during one of the United States’ time of greatest

This chapter provides an overview that describes the basic types of hazards threatening the United States and provides definitions for some basic terms such as hazards, emergencies, and disasters. The chapter also provides a brief history of emergency management in the federal government and a general description of the current emergency management system—including the basic functions performed by local emergency managers. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the all-hazards approach and its implications for local emergency management.

Editor’s Note: This Chapter is the continuation of an adaptation of a state plan for disaster preparation and response. In total, the original chapter comprises Chapters 1, 14, 16-18.

Wars have impacted the United States greatly on both beneficial and detrimental standards. Throughout the history of the United States this idea of war has played a significant role in the emergence of this prominent country. A politician’s standing policy on the concept of war has held great impact on the political spectrum, many voters hold strong views on war. Some argue we should enact a policy of isolationism, through this we can focus more on the issues within United States instead of other nations. On the other hand many claim being in war is beneficial because we can hold impact on surrounding countries and though wars recreate revenue and jobs

State and local responders formulate the concepts within the FRP around disasters and emergencies that can be handled “the Federal Government is called on to provide supplemental assistance when the consequences of a disaster exceed State and local capabilities” (p.11). If assistance is required by State, and local agencies, the Federal Government has the ability to deploy a wide range of assets to aid state and local efforts during the disaster. The Federal Government has a large contingency of support personnel, teams, operating facilities, specialized equipment, and assistance programs that allow for disaster operations. “The FRP describes the major components of the system, as well as the structure for coordinating Federal response and recovery actions necessary to address State-identified requirements and priorities”

For the last one hundred years, the United States has been part of numerous regional and global wars. Logically, its engagement in these wars had foundations on various reasons, and it employed numerous tactics to ensure that it emerged victorious in each instance. Besides, these wars had different implications, some of which are still significantly relevant to the contemporary society. Since its establishment as a superpower at the beginning of the twentieth century, the United States has engaged in some legitimate wars and employed incalculable armed intrusions (Rockoff 8). Some of the most famous wars America partook in the last century include World War I & II, the Korean War (1950 – 1953), the Vietnam

Finally, another reason could have been to distract Americans from all the troubles and the wars going on. When Apollo 11 landed in 1969 the vast majority of Americans forgot about the Vietnam War and watched in wonder as their country proved its place as the world superpower. Ironically, manned landings suddenly seemed to end about the same time that the United States ended its involvement in the war. In fact, the ending of the war was not "sudden", and was in no way related to the end of US involvement in Vietnam. The war was one of several federal budget items with which NASA had to compete; NASA's budget peaked in 1966, and fell by 42.3% by 1972. (Dunbar) This was the reason the final flights were cut, along with plans for even more ambitious

The 20th century entailed many ups and downs, such as the fall of the Standard Oil Company by President William Taft, creator of the first assembly line by Henry Ford, and the opening of the Panama Canal. Most importantly, the U.S. along with other allies entering World War I and II showed just how dominant the U.S. was, both domestically

U.S. military operations are becoming more and more dangerous our troops to return home safely. This brings up the question “ Should the U.S. end all overseas military operations?” To me I care that they get injured and that some don't return but I think that even if I wanted all the operations to end they really can’t unless they eliminate all overseas threats which is virtually impossible. I mean there are people that strongly think they should and that everybody should just make peace. In reality there are crazy people out there that just think they can take the whole world and just make it their own.

The burden of emergency management has grown great deal in the last few decades. We have seen an increase in natural disasters, a new threat of terrorism on our front door and an increase in manmade disasters. All of these have tested emergency management in a number of cities and towns across the nation. It is not always disasters that present problems for emergency managers. We have to look beyond our traditional view of emergency management of helping us during times of disasters and view what issues they consider may affect their emergency response. Issues that emergency management see that are moving into the critical area are issues of urbanization and hazard exposure, the rising costs of disaster recovery, and low priority of emergency management.