Showing papers on "Homeland security published in 2000"

Meeting the Homeland Security Challenge: A Principled Strategy for a Balanced and Practical Response

Abstract: Authors’ Note: The following article was written before the events of September 11. As devastating as that day was, we have chosen not to revise the article. Rather, we believe that the very nature of those attacks only reinforces our basic arguments. The events of the 11 were not, despite the militaristic tones used by numerous commentators, recognizably military in nature. To the contrary, these attacks were almost certainly carried out by a non-state actor and used unarguably non-military means. We do not question the potential for state-sponsorship or complicity in the events of the 11, nor do we dispute the potential necessity and appropriateness of a forceful military response against any state found to have knowingly harbored or actively aided those responsible. However, the fact remains that these attacks exploited security weaknesses in a key component of our national economy, the air travel system. Moreover, other critical components of the national transportation system and economic infrastructure are equally vulnerable. Accordingly, an effective Homeland Security regime will necessarily involve significantly improved domestic security provisions implemented by government and the private sector. Those provisions must be built on a solid legal foundation and must be implemented so as to be effective and acceptable, both economically and societally. As Thomas Friedman put it in his New York Times column on 13 September, “We...have to fight in a way that is effective without destroying the very open society we are trying to protect...We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules, and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. It won’t be easy. It will require our best strategists, our most creative diplomats and our bravest soldiers.” In that spirit, we offer our thoughts. Semper Paratus.

An Analysis of Current United States Homeland Defense Policies.

Abstract: : For the first time in many years the United States must re-consider its homeland defense policies Gone are the days when deterrence was the only policy required The emergence of the United States as the sole remaining world superpower has forced it to become more involved in international affairs This involvement results in the alienation of other nations and non-state actors who are unable to directly challenge the United States and its policies Technological advances coupled with rapid globalization provide these potential enemies a myriad of capabilities to either directly attack the United States homeland or to use the threat of attack to shape its policies Among the capabilities potential enemies may use are terrorism, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, WMD, and cyber attacks These capabilities are inexpensive, readily available; difficult to detect prior to an attack, and nearly impossible to assign responsibility for the attack once they are employed The United States currently has or is in the process of developing numerous policies and programs in an effort to counter these threats But to date the result has been the creation of a myriad of laws, policies and programs that fail; to assign an overall lead agency; are fragmented; that fail to address all the potential threats Critical to this development of a homeland defense policy for the United States is the determination of what roll the armed forces should play Some officials want the armed forces to create a command charged with overall responsibility for homeland defense But this idea dismays many senior military leaders who want to focus on war fighting and many civilians who are concerned that giving the mission to the armed forces might undermine the concept of civilian rule The end result is that currently the United States has no overarching policy to ensure the protection of its homeland and its citizens

Active Duty And Reserve Component Roles In America's Homeland Defense

Abstract: : This paper examines all aspects of homeland defense of the United States. First it provides a historical perspective on the Homeland Defense mission and identifies future threats. Each major threat area is then examined to determine what our response should be against that threat, to include identifying specific missions. Each mission is assessed for its compatibility with Active Duty Forces and with Reserve Component Forces using the criteria of trust of the American people, availability of personnel and equipment and the ability to adequately perform the mission. The similarities of the Active and Reserve capabilities along with their differences are compared to make an argument for the role each should play in providing a strong homeland defense for the United States of America. This paper finally recommends that the National Guard take the lead role in specific homeland defense missions, with follow on forces from the Reserve and Active Duty military services. The special relationship enjoyed with the civilian community by the reserve components should be used to leverage military support to civil authorities.

Homeland Defense and Response to Weapons of Mass Destruction: Are National Guard Civil Support Teams a Necessary Asset or Duplication of Effort

Abstract: : The 1995 Oklahoma City bombing maximized America's awareness of its vulnerability to terrorist activities, and erased the nation's sense of security that terrorist attacks could not occur within the United States. As a result, the possibility of such bombings, to include weapons of mass destruction (WMD), could no longer be ignored. In May 1998, the president issued presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 62, which established policy and assigned responsibilities for responding to homeland attacks. It directed the Department of Justice (FBI) to assume the lead for such circumstances and it also identified the National Guard as playing an important role in this program. The National Guard established Civil Support Teams in each of the ten FEMA regions to assist state and local first responders in a WMD incident. In May 1999, a US General Accounting Office report on federal government efforts to combat terrorism indicated that the role of National Guard Civil Support Teams remained unclear and there is significant redundancy in response capabilities. This paper examines whether there is a continued need for the National Guard Civil Support Teams, and explains how they fit into Federal, State, and local response plans.

Jane's facility security handbook

Abstract: Comprehensive yet easy-to-use guidebook designed to help you prepare for and manage disasters of all kinds Written by an international team of experts from law enforcement, emergency management, counter-terrorism, risk management and security, this unique guide is an essential tool for anyone responsible for facility management, from risk managers to security directors to emergency responders The handbook uses a simple five-phase methodology with chapters covering each critical element of disaster management It also provides a number of useful quick reference guides, including a Glossary of Security Terms and Acronyms, and an overview of the US Department of Homeland Security's National Incident Management System (NIMS)

Papers from the Conference on Homeland Protection

Abstract: : On April 11-13, 2000, the U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute sponsored a major conference that examined what the Department of Defense must do "to insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence . . ., given the increasing contemporary threats to the U.S. homeland. This book highlights the issues and themes that ran through the conference. As such, it is not a comprehensive record of the proceedings. It is organized as an anthology of the best of a series of outstanding conference presentations, revised in light of the discussions that took place there. Finally, the anthology is complemented by an overview and four specific recommendations. Those recommendations look to the future and place emphasis on the transformation strategy that conference participants considered essential to safeguard the American homeland now and into the future.

Strategic View of Where the Army is: Homeland Defense and Issues of Civil-Military Relations

Abstract: There is a proper understanding within the U.S. Army that the military must minimize its involvement in domestic affairs. Yet, the armed forces have been called on more and more to provide direct aid and support in domestic crises that range from HURRICANE ANDREW to the terrorist bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building. Quick, efficient, and effective responses in these and other cases have generated calls for the armed forces to take the lead in confronting the complex issues of contemporary homeland defense. The argument for this “easy fix” is straight-forward—if not quite correct. That is, the military knows how to plan for and conduct crises operations, and the federal armed forces are not hamstrung by “artificial” legal constraints, boundaries, or jurisdictions. Nevertheless, under the Rule of Law—except under the legal concept of “Necessity”—there are indeed constraints on military involvement in domestic affairs. The armed forces are not a panacea that can circumvent the American Federal Constitution.

Bioterrorism: Homeland Defense: The Next Steps. An Executive Summary of the RAND Symposium

Abstract: : An objective of the Symposium was to bring together federal, state, and county officials and experts from the private sector to focus on homeland defenses against bioterrorism as may be needed in Los Angeles County. It is recognized that for any such defenses to be effective, they must be coordinated between relevant agencies within each level of government The speakers and the participants selected for the Symposium, thus, represent a variety of agencies at all levels of government (See the RAND web site for a listing of the participants.)