Business Law All Hazards vs Terrorism Discussion

Topic: All Hazards vs. Terrorism?

After having read the text and any additional research you choose, explain what all hazards means. Assess how all hazards and terrorism relate or do not relate when viewed from an overall homeland security/emergency management perspective. Should 1 take precedence over the other when it comes to disaster management? Why or why not? Be sure to consider the 4 phases of emergency management when answering this prompt.

A Sample Answer For the Assignment: Business Law All Hazards vs Terrorism Discussion

Title: Business Law All Hazards vs Terrorism Discussion

Peer Response #1

The all-hazards approach is a concept that recognizes and identifies generic processes and capabilities needed to address most kinds of emergencies and disasters (Broder & Tucker, 2012). For example, preparing and responding to a natural gas explosion requires comparable activities and capabilities to prepare and respond to a terrorist bombing. The National Emergency Management System (NIMS) is assembled around the all-hazard approach, which identifies programs that can be versatile to an overall volume of potential disasters or terrorism events. The all-hazards approach is implemented within the four phases of emergency management. The all-hazard model implemented in mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery has its problems. Still, it provides both a unifying approach to dealing with hazards and disasters and utilizes common terminology for emergency managers and public officials (Waugh, 2004). One weakness within the all-hazard approach is the overgeneralization of response and recovery plans. A general plan may not be adequate or as effective as a specific plan tailored to a particular type of disaster.

Peer Response #2

All-hazards emergency management Assumes common sets of emergency preparedness and response procedures and practices are applicable in any locality and that an economy of scale is achieved by planning and preparing for disaster in generic terms rather than for each unique type. (Sylves, 2019, pp.415)

The all-hazards planning focuses on developing preparedness for emergencies or disasters. “All-hazards planning is a sound and proven concept, but it doesn’t mean that organizations must plan for every possible hazard. What it does mean is that organizations should consider all possible hazards as part of a risk analysis” (Banda, n.a., para 7)

“By doing a Threat, Hazard, Identification, and Risk Assessment (THIRA), you can identify the range of hazard and risk exposures that have impacted, or may impact, the area and the organization itself.” (Banda, n.a., para 9)

What the all-hazards approach can contribute to the effort to deal with terrorism in its many forms is a basic framework for structuring the emergency response, preparing for the response, and recovering from attacks, as well as developing appropriate measures to prevent or reduce the impact of the attacks – whatever form the attacks may take. (Waugh, 2014, pp 3)

Mitigation efforts can reduce the political benefits of terrorist violence and the psychological impact. Recovery planning can reduce the social and economic impact, as well. All-hazards planning does encourage a broader perspective on risks and how to deal with them and a broader foundation on which to build effective programs to manage hazards and disasters. (Waugh, 2014, pp 4)

The all-hazards approach and terrorism approach relate in many ways. With both approaches, you will still need the emergency response teams such as fire and police, and ambulance. There is still a need for possible evacuation and getting the word out to the general public. The all-hazards approach will take into account hazards that have been deemed as a risk. Both approaches can be altered or added to should there be a need for added support.

“Indeed, the requirements for evacuation for flood may differ significantly from those required for evacuation during a hazardous materials spill” (Waugh, 2014, pp 1)

The all-hazards approach should take precedence over planning for terrorism. The all-hazards approach considers a general plan focusing on recent and past events that are the most probable hazards. “The “all-hazards” plans can provide a basic framework for responding to a wide variety of disaster, but planners typically address the kinds of disasters that might be expected to occur.” (Waugh, 2014, pp 1) The All-Hazards plan can be adaptable to any disaster, man-made or natural; what is essential is that the basic plan is in place probable hazards.

Emergency managers need versatility within a plan in order to handle any incident, from a large disaster involving multiple agencies to a house fire. The all-hazards approach gives personal the versatility to quickly and effectively manage emergencies.

The bible verse that came to mind this week is, “Whoever dwells in the shelter of the Most High will rest in the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the LORD, “He is my refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust”” (New International Bible, 1978/2011, Psalm 91:1-2). God is our refuge, our safety net. It is comforting to know that he is there for us; all we have to do is trust in him.

The practices of emergency management and homeland security are commonly viewed as separate interests, but to the emergency manager, they both need ample attention in order to be successful. Emergency management leads many to believe its primary focus is events caused by natural or manmade disasters, while homeland security focuses on terrorism. The all-hazard model is well implemented throughout the disaster emergency realm. The all-hazard approach needs further attention beyond mitigation strategies and prevention. Waught (2004) states, “Even within the Homeland Security apparatus, minimal attention is being paid to matters beyond prevention of terrorism-related disasters” (p. 11). The all-hazard model must be worked into the other three emergency management phases when highlighting homeland security concerns. If the all-hazard approach is effectively implemented it will assist in the preparing for the response, and recovering from attacks as well as developing future mitigation measures to prevent or reduce the impact of the attacks.

Natural disasters and terrorist attacks may share similarities in how officials prepare a response. Waught (2005) provides the anecdote, “A bridge or building collapse, a fire, an explosion, a power outage, and even a flood might result from terrorist actions. Certainly, the responses to the World Trade Center towers and Pentagon attacks were much like responses to fires and structural failures” (p. 10). The primary difference between preparing and responding to a disaster and a terrorist attack is that people are the target. Terror organizations intend to cause damage and kill civilians and rescuers to gain publicity for their cause (Kanarian, 2010). Special attention must be exercised when responding to a suspected terrorist event as the response may be the intended target. For this reason, focus on homeland security should take precedence over other disaster management strategies.

Mitigation measures must include strategies built into the response and preparedness phases that address this fact alone. For example, before the Boston Marathon bombing, law enforcement, fire, and EMS personnel all received training in scenarios involving a dirty bomb and other mass casualty scenarios (Walls & Zimmer, 2013). This training provided Boston’s first responders with the skills to handle the chaos surrounding the events of the Boston Marathon bombing. A terror attack may require additional resources during the recovery phase. The mental anguish to victims, family members, first responders, and community members must be addressed. It is crucial to employ a holistic, trauma-informed approach, which includes diverse faith or spiritual healing practices, to support survivors and surviving family members in the long term (OVC, 2015).

The Bible shares with us in Job 11:18, “And you will feel secure, because there is hope; you will look around and take your rest in security.” The men and women of homeland security fields strive to provide a secure nation, so everyone can have the opportunity to have a feeling of hope. Hope is much easier to obtain when a person is in a safe and comforting place. During a disaster, people loo around them for help and have hope to get through what they are going through. As others help and God provides for us, we find security. Our God is greater, stronger, and higher than any other; he will continue to protect us and revive us so we can provide hope for so many people.