Federal government consequence management planning for weapons of mass destruction incidents

Federal Government

I do not believe that the health component is adequately addressed in the planning for a WMD incident. This is because the Homeland Security Planning Scenarios are unrealistic in trying to envision threats to the homeland. These envisioned threats are "worst-case" scenarios, which are good to demonstrate good leadership. However, they are not good for making resourcing decisions which would include the heath component and health care funding. These worst-case scenarios maximize the threat only because that is the only way to get a large number of leaders together for a yearly national exercise. Since what homeland security anticipates is a long shot, the health component and health care funding are not adequately addressed in the planning for a WMD incident.

The basic objective that oversees the identification and quantification of hazards that can affect system, whether they are natural or derive from human activity is flawed. Furthermore, the objective does not adequately allow for consideration of terrorist threats to our infrastructure because it is hard to predict what nature is going to do and what we, as humans are going to do. Therefore, we cannot always be one hundred percent prepared to overcome our flaws due to the unpredictability of nature and human beings. From there, the basic objective of the identification and quantification of hazards that can affect system, whether they are natural or derive from human activity is flawed.

I do believe that the present approach to emergency management and planning requires a change to effectively confront the bioterrorist threats because I do not feel there is enough communication about what should take place if they occur. Given these facts, I do agree that the most important element of an emergency management and operations plan is communications. I also agree that communicating quickly and effectively across all levels to coordinate and management the response is a major priority. Therefore, it is known that our hazards and that a vulnerability analysis will benefit from establishing a strong communication system.

I do believe that when Germany was pulling out all the stops to locate the exact source of an outbreak of food poisoning blamed for 10 deaths, it was a bioterrorist attack because it totally caught everyone off guard. It was something that no one was prepared for and that is what terrorist attacks are, catching people off guard.

I do not believe that a span of management of three to five persons to be the most effective span of control during a response to a disaster. This is because it is a small number of people to assess a disaster. A disaster is a huge issue that requires a lot people to help and a small group will not have enough resources to communicate effectively. This recommended span of management results in too many leaders and not enough people to actually do the work being located on site at any one time in ICS and that is where it counts the most; people helping people, not leadership.