Terrorist attacks have been committed against the critical infrastructure
Teri
Terrorist attacks have been committed against the critical infrastructure, key assets, and or key resources of the United States by an adversarial actor and or adversarial nation-state actor numerous times throughout the history of the United States (Bennett, 2018). Terrorist attacks that have been committed against the critical infrastructure, key assets, and or key resources of a specifically targeted country by an adversarial actor and or adversarial nation-state actor typically include the utilization of one or more of the following weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (Bennett, 2018). Bioterrorism is a specific type of biological warfare sometimes committed by an adversarial actor and or adversarial nation-state actor against a specifically targeted population and is defined as the intentional release of bacteria, fungi, toxins, or viruses by an adversarial actor and or adversarial nation-state actor with the deliberate and specifically purposed intention to cause mass panic, mass casualties, and or economic disruption within a specifically targeted population (Rathjen & Shahbodaghi, 2021). The National Biosurveillance Integration Center (NBIC) is a collaboration of 14 federal governmental agencies under the jurisdiction of the United States government that have been specifically tasked by the United States government to collect, analyze, and interpret data collected from a variety of available sources in order to determine whether there are known and or foreseeable biothreats to the health and safety of the animal, human, and or plant populations in specific geographic locales located in the United States that can be attributed to a specific adversarial actor and or nation-state actor (United States Department of Homeland Security [DHS], 2022). NBIC also develops and implements an evidence-based risk management plan to safeguard specifically targeted populations from known and or foreseeable biothreats resulting from acts of bioterrorism committed by an adversarial actor and or adversarial nation-state actor (DHS, 2022). It is important to recognize that terrorist attacks committed against the critical infrastructure, key assets, and or key resources of the United States by an adversarial actor and or adversarial nation-state actor are not the only known and or foreseeable mechanisms by which the critical infrastructure, key assets, and or key resources of the United States could either be damaged or destroyed (Bennett, 2018). Bennett (2018) stated that there are three distinct categories of destructive events that could either damage or destroy the critical infrastructure, key assets, and or key resources of the United States: accidental, natural, and intentional. An evidence-based risk assessment and risk management plan that only addressed the known and or foreseeable risks of acts of terrorism that may or may not be committed against the critical infrastructure, key assets, and or key resources of the United States would inadequately protect the critical infrastructure, key assets, and or key resources of the United States from other known and or foreseeable acts of potential harm (Bennett, 2018). This discussion provides an overview of the importance of considering potential acts of terrorism as a component of an evidence-based risk assessment and risk management plan, the difficulties in considering potential acts of terrorism as a component of an evidence-based risk assessment and risk management plan, and the importance of considering an all-hazards approach to the development and implementation of an evidence-based risk assessment and risk management plan that best protects the critical infrastructure, key assets, and key resources of the United States.
The United States government generally considers the likelihood of a terrorist attack that may be committed against the critical infrastructure, key assets, and or key resources of the United States when developing and implementing an adequately conducted risk assessment and risk management plan designed to protect all of these resources from known and or foreseeable acts of harm resulting from terrorist attacks (Bennett, 2018). Importantly, Bennett (2018) listed over 100 acts of terrorism committed by an adversarial actor and or adversarial nation-state actor against specifically targeted governments and or individuals located in countries throughout the world. It is only prudent that the United States government adequately considers known and or foreseeable threats to the critical infrastructure, key assets, and or key resources of the United States that may occur as a result of specifically purposed acts of terrorism in order to protect the essential services and population of the United States from known and or foreseeable harm (Bennett, 2018). It would not be prudent for the United States to develop and implement a risk assessment and risk management plan that was exclusively focused on potential acts of terrorism that may or may not be committed against the critical infrastructure, key assets, and or key resources of the United States (Bennett, 2018). This would not help adequately protect the critical infrastructure, key assets, and or key resources of the United States from acts of harm that may occur from other potential sources of harm such as natural disasters or adversarial manmade events (Bennett, 2018). It would be more prudent for the United States government to develop and implement an evidence-based risk assessment and risk management plan that provided appropriate consideration for known and or foreseeable acts of harm to the critical infrastructure, key assets, and key resources of the United States such as terrorism, natural disasters, and adversarial manmade events that are equally deserving of attention in the development and implementation of a risk assessment and risk management plan specifically designed to best protect all of the resources under the jurisdiction of the United States (Bennett, 2018). An all-hazards approach to the adequate assessment of known and or foreseeable acts of harm with the potential to either damage or destroy the critical infrastructure, key assets, and or key resources of the United States would adequately consider the risks associated with acts of terrorism and also adequately consider the risks associated with other adversarial events such as natural disasters and adversarial manmade events (Bennett, 2018). The United States government would likely have a difficult time explaining to the population of the United States why only terrorism was considered in a risk assessment and risk management plan specifically designed to protect the critical infrastructure, key assets, and key resources of the United States and why scant attention was afforded to other potential acts of harm caused by natural disasters and adversarial manmade events that also have the potential to adversely affect the availability and functionality of the critical infrastructure, key assets, and key resources of the United States (Bennett, 2018).
Bennett (2018) stated that it can be difficult to adequately assess the known and or foreseeable risks to the critical infrastructure, key assets, and key resources of the United States that may be facilitated by acts of terrorism committed against the United States. Contemporary terrorist groups typically organize their available personnel and resources much differently in contemporary times than was the case in the past (Bennett, 2018). Many contemporary terrorist groups have developed a sort of diffused business model for their terrorism-focused goals that some terrorist groups believe best concentrates their organizational resources in specifically desired countries (Bennett, 2018). Bennett (2018) stated that the lead office for a specific terrorist group is typically located in a country considered friendly to the terrorist goals of a specific terrorist group. Bennett also stated that the satellite offices associated with a specific terrorist group are typically located in countries throughout the world and also adhere to the organizational philosophy of a specific terrorist group, but often independently plan and execute specifically desired terrorist missions. Bennett (2018) also stated that in the past that terrorist groups generally planned specifically purposed attacks well in advance of the intended attacks and used an array of available resources to successfully execute specifically purposed attacks against specifically targeted governments, corporate entities, and or individuals. However, contemporary terrorist attacks are typically conducted on a smaller scale, with less strategically focused planning, and typically use only available resources (Bennett, 2018). The globally dispersed and more stealth-like terrorist groups in contemporary times requires the collaborative efforts of law enforcement agencies located in the United States and in countries throughout the world in order to adequately monitor and sanction the organizational efforts and resources of specific terrorist groups (Bennett, 2018).
Christian Worldview
God has always sanctioned His errant children living in countries throughout the world commensurate with the sinful nature represented by specific children (NIV Study Bible, 2011, Ps 5:5). Acts of terrorism committed by an adversarial actor and or adversarial nation-state actor in both ancient times and in contemporary times are actually a secular corruption of God’s divine right to spiritually discipline His errant children living in countries throughout the world (NIV Study Bible, 2011, Ps 5:5). God has never targeted the innocent, needed to secure necessary resources, or needed to issue a press release claiming responsibility for his divinely inspired actions (NIV Study Bible, 2011, Ps 5:5).
WORD COUNT: 1,389
References
Bennett, B. (2018). Understanding, assessing, and responding to terrorism: Protecting critical infrastructure and personnel (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
NIV Study Bible (K. Barker, Ed.). (2011). Zondervan.
Rathjen, N., & Shahbodaghi, S. (2021). Bioterrorism. American Family Physician, 104(4), 1-16.
United States Department of Homeland Security. (2022). The National Biosurveillance Integration Center fact sheet. https://www.dhs.gov/publication/nbic-one-pager
1 hour ago
Kristopher
Based on the Read items thus far, how do terrorism and risk analysis and risk management correlate (relate or intertwine)? How/why is terrorism difficult to examine in a risk analysis (if it is)? Should terrorism be our primary focus? Why or why not? How does or should risk analysis work from an all-hazards perspective? Can/should terrorism and all other hazards be combined in a risk analysis?
According to the week 6 learn material for the class, all terrorists are criminals, but not all criminals are terrorists (Liberty University, 2022). Using this mindset, we can understand terrorism correlates to risk management in that a specific mindset needs to be addressed and analyzed – the criminal. According to Aven (2018), risk analysis is a science that relies upon statistics, psychology, social sciences, and engineering to measure and resolve perceived and actual risk. Since criminal activity is a combination of human factors, risk analysis is necessary to address terrorism. Given the unique dynamic terrorism hold by definition, action, and cause – a particular format of analysis and is needed to combat the issue.
In the book titled the failure of risk management: why it’s broken and how to fix it, the author Hubbard (2020) mentions that best practices are often risk management methods used in a catch-all mentality and attributed to failure. Risk management should be the practice of implementing ideas from risk management and tweaking actions such as countermeasures instead of completely ignoring failure (Hubbard, 2020). So terrorism as a social problem is intertwined with risk analysis and risk assessment. When referring to critical infrastructure, terrorism as an act perpetuates a constant fear of risk. As such, risk analysis and risk management correlate with each other.
While difficult to accomplish, a risk analysis can be completed on terrorism. As described before, terrorism is difficult to define, given its relative ideology and general unpredictability. While we may refer to a coup against North Korean government officials by Korean citizens as freedom fighters, others within the country and government may see the act as terrorism. Additionally, even more people may view the act as nothing more than insurgents. While terrorism may be definitionally arbitrary, the violent and damaging byproducts of terrorism are universally recognized. Because damage can be inflicted in a handful of ways, terrorism can be analyzed in a manner to catch the majority of violent acts and prepare for them.
In the United States, acts of terrorism are quite small when compared to other damaging incidents such as natural disasters, random criminal activity, and accidents. An argument could be made that because of the aggressive mitigation techniques implemented by various US agencies, successful terrorist attacks are small. However, simply because the overall percentage of terrorism against critical infrastructure is small does not mean the topic needs to be minimized. Potential acts of terrorism should still be a primary focus when conducting a risk analysis. Given that a successful terrorist act has the potential to do a great deal of damage, a risk analysis needs to include the potential.
Adini et al. (2012) state an all-hazards approach is one in which the main focus is planning for an all-inclusive disaster. By planning for a worst-case incident, the idea is preparation is also there for anything smaller. An all-hazards approach also benefits from a better allocation of time and money during an assessment since the focus of analysis is over a broad scope (Pursiainen, 2018). It seems an all-hazards approach is a safe way to ensure a vast amount of options are explored during an assessment. However, a more detailed risk assessment does allow for a more thorough involvement of all assets. Terrorism very much can be included in a risk assessment. Given terrorism will inflict damage or harm, the manner of which it will happen is the unknown. Terrorism, therefore, should be included in risk assessments. “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:34-35, The Holy Bible, English Standard Version).
References
Adini, B., Goldberg, A., Cohen, R., Laor, D., & Bar-Dayan, Y. (2012). Evidence-based support for the all-hazards approach to emergency preparedness. Israel journal of health policy research, 1(1), 1-7.
Aven, T. (2018). An emerging new risk analysis science: Foundations and implications. Risk Analysis, 38(5), 876-888.
Hubbard, D. W. (2020). The failure of risk management: Why it’s broken and how to fix it. John Wiley & Sons.
Liberty University (2002). Watch: Terrorism Analysis. Learn Material – Week 6. Retrieved from URL: http://www.liberty.edu
Pursiainen, C. (2018). Critical infrastructure resilience: A Nordic model in the making. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 27, 632-641.
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version: containing the Old and New Testament. (2021
Answer preview to terrorist attacks have been committed against the critical infrastructure
APA
633 words