WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION: CASE STUDY In

Prior to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on America, there were three other terrorist attacks using weapons of mass destruction (WMD): the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center by Muslim extremists, the 1995 sarin nerve gassing by the Aum Shinnkyo sect on Tokyo subway commuters and the 1995 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City by a domestic radical right group. In response, government at all levels significantly increased preparations for future such attacks. In January 1997, then Secretary of Defense (SecDef) William Cohen described terrorist-inspired WMD attacks "the greatest threat any of us will face in coming years" (USAWC, 2000, September, p. 99). According to Stanton (2001, February), the federal government since 1995 has spent many billions of dollars on countermeasures and substantially reorganized to meet such threats (p. 10). Nevertheless, Stanton says that "experts believe that little has been done to make the American public feel any more confident than it was five years ago in the nation's ability to cope with terrorist attacks" (p. 10). Vise (2000, December 15) said the presidential Gilmore Commission concluded recently that "the United States has no coherent national strategy for combating terrorism" (p. A8). The adequacy or inadequacy of the current national effort to combat and respond to WMD threats can only be ascertained by the results of such attacks in the fut

. . .
nd Discussion of Consequence Management Operations and Procedures. CJCSI Mission of DOD Forces (2000, September 30) defines consequence management as "the United States Government interagency assistance to protect public health and safety, restore essential government services, and provide emergency relief to governments, businesses, and individuals affected by the consequences of a WMD incident" (p. 118). This is in the first instance the primary responsibility of local and state government. In the hypothetical case, local authorities take the lead in providing health and medical support to victims, evacuating the arena, addressing the public and organizing local hospitals and decontamination authorities to contain the consequences of the attack. Under PDD-39, FEMA is the LFA for consequence management. According to FEMA (1997, February 7) in case of a domestic WMD incident, "FEMA and the FBI will initiate consequence management and crisis management concurrently" (p. 144). Seiple (1997, Autumn) describes consequence management as "an almost indescribably complex task," involving "managing mass casualties and collecting evidence from a potentially contaminated site," which overburdened local authorities lack the resources and exp
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
September FBI, United Government, Mass Destruction, Gilmore Commission, FEMA FBI, Management Operations, National Guard, MASCA DOD, Public Law, Department Justice, consequence management, weapons mass destruction, weapons mass, mass destruction, 2000 september, federal agencies, crisis management, wmd incident, federal response, civil authorities, military assistance, military assistance civil, assistance civil authorities, federal response plan, using weapons mass,
Approximate Word count = 1858
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page)

More Essays on WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION: CASE STUDY In