Reference no: EM132684082

1. The terrorist organizations are more likely to obtain and use a biological weapons (BW) than a nuclear weapon. Col Alfred F. Abramson III stated that both civilian and military sources foresee that over the next decade the threat from proliferation of BW will increase significantly (2012). In my opinion, BW are more dangerous than nuclear weapons because they can persist and spread through a population. BW are easy to hide and difficult to detect such as plague and anthrax. Biological weapons include any microorganism that can cause illness or death. These agents include viruses, bacteria, fungi, and toxins cultured from living organisms. They are invisible, odorless, tasteless, and can be spread silently likely go unnoticed (Abramson, 2012). Person may not experience symptoms immediately after being exposed to the agents and each agent has a different exposure period before infection. When use by terrorists it can be disseminate through a variety of means such as aerosol sprays or put into food or water. The devastating consequences of our current covid-19 pandemic for individuals, families, countries as whole offers vivid proof that microorganism could be just as destructive and terrifying; more so than the nuclear weapons. The threat of nuclear weapons by non-state actors remains low, it demands a considerable amount of time, skill sets, funding and specialized equipment or tools to handle these complex weapons (Abramson, 2012). BW possession by hostile states and terrorist groups represent one of the greatest security challenges facing the U.S. Homeland Security Enterprise (HSE). My prediction is that the modern BW can be so deadly that our immune system may response to them. From our current pandemic, developing a much more global governance of biosafety than exists at present is an urgent need for not just the U.S. government but for the international community.

2. The last major bioterrorism attack against the United States occurred in the chaotic weeks following 9/11; envelopes containing spores of Anthrax were sent around the country, killing five and sending more than a dozen into serious illness (Funk, 2018). While this was the last major attack of this kind, it certainly will not be the last, nor was it the first; the history of weaponizing biological agents stretches back to medieval times. There are four key factors in determining the effectiveness of a response to a biological attack. The first, speed of detection, deals with the government's ability to recognize an attack as such, and that it is not simply a natural outbreak of disease. The second, accuracy of identification, simply measures the accuracy with which investigators can identify what pathogen is in play. The third factor is the effectiveness of containing the contamination, while the fourth is neutralizing the effects of the pathogen (Abramson, 2012). In evaluating the possibility of terrorists using a biological weapon, it is impossible to ignore the current global pandemic. The United States has been ravaged by the effects of COVID-19, and containment measures have largely failed. It is highly likely that terrorists are also watching this pandemic unfold and taking notes. In terms of Abramson's four factors, the third factor has been a complete and abject failure. To a terrorist, this pandemic clearly proves that the United States is a soft target for a biological attack, and it would not be unreasonable to postulate that the time is right for just such an attack to be committed. The nation's public health system is staggering under the weight of the pandemic, and the American public is growing tired of quarantines, "safer at home orders", and other containment measures. The virus has spread to every state, and even through rarely-travelled small towns. Adding a bioweapon to the current situation would be utterly devastating. Comparing this to the possibility of a nuclear attack, it is clear that a bioweapon will ultimately cause more fear, casualties, and economic damage. A nuclear attack, while dramatic, will be largely contained to a specific geographic area. Even putting aside the difficulty associated with attaining suitable nuclear material, the benefits of using a biological weapon, particularly at the present time, vastly outweigh those of a nuclear device.

3. After the events of 9/11 began an evolution in the relationships between federal, state, and local homeland security, law enforcement, and intelligence organizations. At the federal level, the Office of the DNI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created. Law enforcement and intelligence became more integrated. Some law enforcement organizations were reorganized in manners more closely resembling intelligence agencies. The foreign intelligence community also saw fundamental reform. At the state level, the impact of these changes was even greater. State governments grew into leading roles in homeland security. Most states responded by bringing together existing public security, law enforcement, and emergency response capabilities and opening channels to other states. They also strengthened linkages with federal agencies and sought classified government intelligence to better inform their efforts to protect citizens. State and local law enforcement agencies investigate crime that could possibly be used as a foundation for terrorist activity. These agencies might conduct surveillance or collect information on suspicious activity in their communities. State and local officers also participate in federal task forces such as the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF). ACCOUNTABILITY There are task forces located in 104 cities in the United States, and there is at least one task force in each of the 56 FBI field offices. Seventy-one Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTFFs) have been created since the events of 9/11; however the first task force ever was established in New York City in 1980. There are appropriately 4,000 members nationwide, which is a four-fold increase since the events of 9/11. JTFF members come from over 500 state and local agencies and 55 federal agencies, including many components of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of State.The National Joint Terrorism Task Force (NJTTF) is responsible for the coordination all of the 104 regional tasks forces across the United States. There are several benefits to state and localities that set up a fusion center. They allow state and local agencies the ability to receive federal intelligence and other information from the rest of the national network. This sharing allows for improved situational awareness of threats and a mechanism to disseminate information within their jurisdiction. Additional funding in the forms of grants is available, and training and overall technical support can be garnered to state and local agencies to support fusion centers. There are numerous success stories associated with fusion centers in the United States. Their accomplishments span the entire country and involve the work of many national and international entities. The three examples that follow all occurred in the year 2014. I do think that state and local police should be involved in domestic intelligence operations as it relates to citizens within their jurisdiction because if they are in the loop it could help them work together with all the agencies and work together to bring them to justice. The local police agencies often time have the best knowledge about the area, they know the community and the everyday occurrences of the city, town or state. The downside of fusion centers is that they are not all created equal, The notion that "if you've seen one fusion center you've seen just one fusion center" has merit. No two fusion centers seem to have the same processes, products, priorities, or performance metrics. They are designed to serve their local customers, not federal consumers, and certainly not the intelligence community in Washington. While some are seen to serve their customers well, others (perhaps the majority, although that conclusion would require far more detailed research) are not.

4. For homeland security within their jurisdictions. most law enforcement agencies have been utilizing fusion centers. Fusion centers are great, because they now connect state and local homeland security and law enforcement and especially new intelligence organizations. with federal, community, and, in some cases, foreign intelligence services. While this is great to have a center that servers as a communication focal point, all the kinks haven't been worked out yet. Often times people don't know their roles within investigations, organizations, etc. The Fusion centers are nice, but at the same time, there needs to be a single integrated intelligence enterprise with well-defined lanes for everyone. This has been challenging for the IC, so imagine the state levels trying to figure it out. I do think that local police should be involved in domestic intelligence operations as it relates to citizens within their jurisdiction. I think of a situation where if there was intelligence of the Boston bombing about to take place, It would need a ton of coordination and for the FBI for example to be the only agencies trying to work with the intelligence they have received, it just might not be good enough. In regards to who I think should be the primary provider of Federal level domestic intelligence to state and local agencies, I think that the FBI should be the primary provider. I don't think that the Department of Homeland Security shouldn't be right there with them, but I think it makes more sense for the FBI due to the law enforcement and resources aspect of things.

5. Within the concept of homeland security, the organizations associated with it are responsible for protecting the critical infrastructure. Critical infrastructure in the United States is defined as systems, processes, technologies, facilities, assets, networks and services essential to the safety, health, security and economic well-being of Americans and the U.S. government. Any disaster or major disruption of the critical infrastructure could lead to extreme loss of life and significant harm to the public and economic safety. There are 16 critical infrastructure sectors all equally important to the success of a functioning government and society. In my opinion, the food and agriculture (FA) sector is one of the most important critical infrastructure sectors because of its' drastic positive and negative impacts in can have on a nation. There are three parts of the FA sector, production, processing and delivery. The goal of the FA sector is to ensure that each part or process in the chain is protected against a possible disruption in the food supply. Any disruption would pose serious threats to the economy, safety and welfare of the nation through shortages or potential diseases. This sector is extremely important because of the risk associated with the production and processing. Due to the veracity of this sectors' implications, a national food and agriculture sector-specific plan has been developed in accordance with national infrastructure protection plan to ensure the organizations and companies involved in the FA sector adhere to specific guidelines to continue to keep the food supply of the nation safe.

6. Critical infrastructure and key resources are defined as "assets of the United States essential to the nation's security, public health and safety, economic vitality, and way of life" (DHS.gov, CIKR, paragraph 1). These are things like buildings, transportation systems, places of large gatherings such as malls and stadiums, and all the components that make up cyber networks. These things are deemed as critical infrastructure because they are essential to maintaining the security of our nation and maintaining our economy. there are a variety of things that can threaten our critical infrastructure. I feel the most common threat is weather and natural disasters. At some point in time, all of the 6 above mentioned sectors of critical infrastructure have been affected by weather or natural disasters. The energy sector in the area I live in seems to be effect the most on a regular basis. It seems that every year there are multiple weather events that cause power outages and other similar problems. Information sharing has become essential in preparing for those events. It allows for preparations to be made in order to mitigate these problems as they arise. That is essential for all potential hazards. Sharing information and warning of hazards allows for ample time to prepare for and potentially prevent something catastrophic from happening. Being prepared for potential hazards is one of the key concepts of homeland security. It doesn't do any good to know about hazards and not doing anything to be prepared for them.