Strategic National Risk Assessment

Strategic National Risk Assessment

Compare and contrast the deductions about the national-level threats and hazards as listed by the DHS in the SNRA against the findings you made in Week 5's analysis of the WTAs. As always, assume what is listed first is the greatest risk [also called "most dangerous"] and probability [also called "most likely"] and the last is least

The Strategic National Risk Assessment (SNRA) is designed to provide the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with the tools it needs to effectively deal with various challenges. The threats and hazards are illustrating the overall scope of the problems and the probability that they will occur at some point in the future. They are classified into different categories called most dangerous and likely.

The most dangerous threats are areas where there is an immediate risk to the U.S. homeland and different national interests. A few of the most notable include:

Natural: This is when natural disasters have the possibility of causing tremendous amounts of damage. Some of the different areas that fall into this category are: tsunamis, earthquakes, floods, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes and wildfire.

Humans: These are events created by specific actions from human such as: terrorism and cyber attacks.

These categories are listed as the most dangerous because there is always the high probability of them occurring at any point in time. When they do, this will cause tremendous amounts of damage to specific regions of the country or the entire nation. This will depend upon the severity of disruption and the lasting impact it is having.

Those events which are considered to be most likely are something that could happen. Yet, the probability of them occurring is much lower. A few examples of this include: sun bursts from outer space, pandemics, radiological substance release, biological food contamination and dam failure. The difference between these areas is the most dangerous category has higher chances of occurring. When they do, the damage has the potential to cause severe disruptions to local and national economies. While the most likely, will create similar impacts. However, the odds these incidents occurring are larger in scope. This means that there is more of an emphasis placed on them in comparison with the other category.

Given the "Natural" events that have occurred across America since 2006 [i.e. post-Katrina], are the ranking of riskiest/most dangerous events in the "Natural" threats and hazards in the table on p2 logical? Why or why not?

The rankings are logical to a certain extent. This is because, there is a focus on different events and the probability that they will happen. Inside the table, different threats are listed to illustrate the chances of them occurring with a detailed description. This helps to inform the public and the officials about potential threats. It is at this point, when they can use the information to understand the overall scope of the threat and most effectively deal with it.

However, at the same time, there is not a categorization of these threats or further elaboration as to how this will impact the local and national economy. In this aspect, these ideas are illogical, by failing to take into account these changes and how they are influencing long-term decision making.

As a result, the table provides some useful information about dangerous natural events. This helps everyone to realize the likelihood of them occurring and the necessity to be prepared for them. However, the problem is that it is providing limited amounts of information in achieving these objectives.