CJ 682 6-2 Worksheet- Risk Assessment Assignment
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Southern New Hampshire University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
682
Subject
Information Systems
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by CountOctopus1696
1
6-2 Worksheet: Risk Assessment Assignment
Viktoria Prifti
CJ 682 Threat Assessment 6-2 Risk Assessment
Professor Henderson
10/29/2023
2
Overview
Hanscom Air Force Base's security hinges on the use of effective threat, vulnerability,
and consequence assessment tools. Therefore, the NIPP framework was used to determine each
of the three elements. The NIPP framework offers insight into the threat based on its potential
while evaluating sources such as man or nature. Furthermore, it analyzes vulnerability to
determine key gaps in the infrastructure or processes that increase the risk of an attack
[ CITATION Bri18 \l 1033
\m Fed234]. The vulnerabilities are distinguished based on their
susceptibility and likelihood of exploitation. The final element (consequence) is gauged across
various aspects or contexts. The insight derived from the framework is seminal in finding ways
to protect the base from imminent attacks.
Values
Threat
The NIPP framework allowed the researcher to evaluate the threat based on jurisdictional
rating. A worksheet was created that distinguished the threat into five aspects revolving around
targeting, WMB capability, violent history, intentions, and existence. After that, the PTE was
identified as the Taliban, which is known for its ongoing onslaught against the United States
[ CITATION USD202 \l 1033 ]. The existence and violent history values were scored at 1, while
the intentions and WMD capability had a score of 2. The targeting aspect was set at 0, which
brought the threat level to 6. Furthermore, the researcher noted that the group was largely
motivated by political and religious ideologies with access to explosive WMD. The below
worksheet presents the respective values:
3
Vulnerability
The vulnerability assessment entailed distinguishing the factors into 7 sections and rating
them from 0 to 5. The lowest value signified that there was no risk, while 5 demonstrated
maximum risk[CITATION NIP13 \l 1033 ]. The scores were then added up across the 7 factors to
receive a tally of 17. However, the researcher converted the total score to a specific rating
number from 1 to 12. The final rating was set at 6.
Consequence
Likewise, the consequence assessment value was estimated at 8, considering the human,
economic, public confidence, and government capabilities impact. This level determination is
critical in guiding the base commanders on how to enhance security and minimize the probability
of a future attack.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
4
Calculate
Risk= Threat* Vulnerability* Consequence
Threat= 6
Vulnerability=6
Consequence=8
=6*6*8
R=288
Risk Level
Based on the evaluation, the risk level is moderate. This is because the score is set at 288,
which falls between 101 and 600. Nonetheless, it is serious and most likely to occur.
5
References
U.S. Department of State Bureau of Counterterrorism. (2020).
Annex of Statistical Information
Country Reports on Terrorism 2019.
Development Services Group, Inc.
Bennett, B. (2018).
Understanding, Assessing, and Responding to Terrorism: Protecting Critical
Infrastructure and Personnel.
Wiley.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2023).
Lesson 3 Overview
. Retrieved from FEMA:
https://emilms.fema.gov/is_0860c/groups/140.html
NIPP. (2013).
Partnering for Critical Infrastructure.