Preparedness differences in disaster management for terrorist incidents post-9/11

Terrorist Management

Differences Between Disaster Management and Terrorist Incidents

September 11th 2001 is a day that opened the eyes of the American people to the truth that American has foreign enemies. It also opened the people's eyes to their unpreparedness for terrorist attacks. For decades the United States has prided itself on preparations for natural disasters such as tornados, hurricanes, and earthquakes, but little to no protocols had been set in place for terrorist disasters, at least none that the American people knew about. This paper will discuss the differences between natural disaster management and terrorist disaster management, evaluate pre-September 11th protocols, and quantify how prepared the United States was for September 11th.

When preparing for a natural disaster, the plan is always straight forward; however, plans for a manmade disaster are much more complex. The primary factor that makes natural disaster management simpler is that once the disaster happens, the aftermath is predictable (Pelling, 2007). If it was an earthquake, there will be aftershocks, but those will not be as severe as the original earthquake. When a terrorist attack happens, there is always the challenge of predicating and eliminating after threats. For instance, after the planes crashed into the Pentagon and Trade Towers, there was still the threat of the fourth airplane traveling to the White House. These threats can be very unpredictable, causing responders to be on high alert.

Prior to September 11th, the United States was ill-prepared for any form of high casualty foreign terrorist attack. In fact, for the most part, prior terrorist attacks had been internal, resulting from American citizens. What was known and established was the predictable conduct of countries before they enter into a conflict with another country. It is well established that prior to attacking another country, an aggressor nation will decrease the amount of communication with that country in both complexity and frequency (Suedfeld 2002). As a general rule, once this begins to happen, the United States goes on full alert and takes steps to ensure the safety of its boarders and citizens.