Reply post 1: Briana

Dear Briana, thank you for an informative post highlighting the benefits of an all-hazards perspective as opposed to a terrorism-only approach. I agree with you that an all-hazards approach is better as it enables homeland security and emergency management to focus on hazards that have a higher probability of occurrence. I believe that an all-hazards approach does not mean that planning is done for every eventuality. Instead, it means that emergency and security managers must assign priorities to eventualities and thus decide which ones should be given resources. Prioritization is necessary as it prevents the allocation of limited resources on every eventuality, thus assuring limited success (Canton, 2013). Issues of the magnitude of effects, community vulnerability, and the likelihood of occurrence are essential considerations in resource planning. In addition to the benefits provided, an all-hazards approach is not only beneficial but also possible to execute with minimal costs and resources. The core functions in disaster management such as sheltering, evacuation, and warning are common and necessary in most disasters. As such, emergency management and homeland security have baseline capability to deal with both anticipated and unexpected disasters. Organizations can also share common plans and distribute costs, thus making the plan more economical (Gregory, 2015).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Reply Post 2: Richard

First Quandary

Dear Richard, I enjoyed reading your post and also gained insight into the need for homeland security and emergency management to focus on terrorism alone. However, I disagree with your view that terrorism takes different forms and should thus be dealt with alone. Evidence has shown that most Americans are not at risk of terrorist attacks, but are at a high risk of eventualities that are mostly ignored (Friedman, 2009). Also, there is evidence that despite plans by terrorists to cause mass casualties with every attack, they have mostly failed (Friedman, 2009). As such, more deaths are experienced due to other eventualities than from acts of terrorism. It is, therefore, clear that over-concentration on terrorism creates fear among Americans and exaggerates the risk of attack. The solution to this is to adopt an all-hazards perspective as this allows emergency and security managers to focus some of the resources and energy to other eventualities with a higher risk of occurrence.

Second Quandary

The post was informative on the process of response to natural disasters and the importance of the different processes involved. In addition to the procedures described, I would love to add the methods used by various agencies in reducing the impact of crises and disasters. These methods include the provision of relief, enhancement of preparation for the future, supporting victims of such eventualities, providing assistance in mitigation, reconstruction, and recovery, and developing stronger community responses to disasters among others. This makes the crisis bearable and also proves to the victims that they are not alone.

References

Canton, L. (2013). "All-Hazards" Doesn't Mean "Plan for Everything." Retrieved from https://www.govtech.com/em/emergency-blogs/managing-crisis/Allhazards-Doesnt-Mean-Plan-for-Everything.html

Friedman, B. (2009). Think Again: Homeland Security. Retrieved from https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/22/think-again-homeland-security/

Gregory, P. A. (2015). Reassessing the Effectiveness of All-Hazards Planning in Emergency Management. Inquiries Journal, 7(06).

Labrador, R. (2018). U.S. Disaster Relief at Home and Abroad. Retrieved from https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-disaster-relief-home-and-abroad