CJUS 720 Week 7 Discussion Thread Replys
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Mohawk Valley Community College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
720
Subject
Medicine
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
7
Uploaded by acollins234734
Week 7 REPLIES
SARA
Preparing for and Preventing Weapons of Mass Destruction Events
WMDs (CBRNE) are complicated due to their complex nature, different modes of application and attack,
and how they harm, kill or destroy people and property. Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and
explosive weapons and agents (CBRNE) science focuses on preparedness planning, and public health
focuses on basic clinical sciences, modelling management, planning and response management,
recovery, learning and improvement (Coleman et al., 2019). CBRNE involves an integrated approach
focusing on strategic planning, responses, and decision-making processes (Coleman et al., 2019). The
seven core elements of CBRNE science explore rigorous clinical science and development, detailed
modelling of CBRNE threats, development of an All-Hazards approach, training and development of
response and preparedness, development of recovery plans, and commitment to realistic assessments
and improvements (Coleman et al., 2019). An example of implementing CBRNE training courses is a
study in Ukraine, which found that training enhanced knowledge and confidence in hands-on training
(Erickson et al., 2023). The CBRNE training included drills that reviewed potential CBRNE weapons
historically used by Russia (Erickson et al., 2023). The training prioritized preparedness, assessment,
treatment, and CBRNE exposure recognition (Erickson et al., 2023). Specific training for chemical,
biological, and radiological exposure focused on administering an antidote directly after exposure, which
showed that it increased survival rates and decreased the use of critical equipment and hospital beds
(Erickson et al., 2023).
CBRNE all have different costs, characteristics, and means of disbursement that complicate risk analysis
and protection. WMDs are designed to cause mass casualties and cause damage, and that is why
effective response requires training, policies, and adequate equipment (Bennett, 2018). When evaluating
high-explosive weapons, risk analysis takes on several levels. Evaluating terrorist attacks from 1970 to
2019, it was discovered that explosives, bombs, and dynamite were the most used terrorist method (Tin,
2021). Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) are made with high-explosive materials, such as 155mm
artillery shells (Quin & Steward, 2021). Primary fragments cause the most harm because it is the original
detonation of the metal casing with a high explosive charge (Quin & Steward, 2021). A method to
evaluate injury risks from primary fragments generated from detonation is to estimate causality risks in a
standing position exposed to detonation (Quin & Steward, 2021). If an individual is more than 40m from
the detonation site, there is less likely to be a fatality, but the best safety distance is 97m (Quin &
Steward, 2021). Many individual methods of training and preparedness can be applied to CBRNE. There
are also successful examples of an All-Hazards training approach focusing on training for multiple CBRNE
situations, like the training and preparedness in Ukraine. However, each unique CBRNE weapon and
agent has challenges and dangers that make planning for everything difficult. That is why the most
important step in combating CBRNE attacks is to increase the science and research behind CBRNE attacks
(Coleman et al., 2019). Establishing and improving the research will translate to better training, resource
management, and preparedness.
References
Coleman, C. N., Bader, J. L., Koerner, J. F., Hrdina, C., Cliffer, K. D., Hick, J. L., James, J. J.,Mansoura, M. K.,
Livinski, A. A., Nystrom, S. V., DiCarlo-Cohen, A., Marinissen, M. J., Wathen, L., Appler, J. M., Buddemeier,
B., Casagrande, R., Estes, D., Byrne, P., Kennedy, E. M., . . . Lawrence Livermore National Lab. (LLNL),
Livermore, CA (United States). (2019). Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE)
science and the CBRNE science medical operations science support expert (CMOSSE). Disaster Medicine
and Public Health Preparedness, 13(5-6), 995-1010. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2018.
Erickson, T. B., Harvin, D., Schmid, A., Loevinsohn, G., Poriechna, A., Martyshyn, O., Kliukach, K.,
Sydlowski, M., Strong, J., & Kivlehan, S. M. (2023). Evaluation of chemical, biological, radiological,
nuclear, explosives (CBRNE) knowledge change and skills confidence among frontline-line providers
during the russia-ukraine war. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 17, e387-e387.
Rizzo, A., Telloli, C., Ubaldini, A., Ottaviano, G., & Salvi, S. (2022). Fast characterization of compounds and
components of explosives. European Physical Journal Plus, 137(2)https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-
022-02404-4
Qin, H., & Stewart, M. G. (2021). Casualty risks induced by primary fragmentation hazards from high-
explosive munitions. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 215, 107874.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.107874
Tin, D., Margus, C., & Ciottone, G. R. (2021). Half-a-century of terrorist attacks: Weapons selection,
casualty outcomes, and implications for counter-terrorism medicine. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine,
36(5), 526-530. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X21000868
Thank you for your post this week Sara. The discourse on the preparation for and prevention of Weapons
of Mass Destruction (WMDs) events, particularly those concerning Chemical, Biological, Radiological,
Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE) elements, underscores a nuanced web of strategic decision-making,
response management, and threat assessment. The presented text delves into both the theoretical
underpinnings of CBRNE science and the practical applications of the discipline.
The assertion that WMDs, particularly CBRNE weapons and agents, require a multifaceted approach due
to their intricate nature and mode of attack is valid (Coleman et al., 2019). The distinction between
CBRNE science—which emphasizes preparedness planning—and public health—which zeroes in on
response management and recovery—is apt. This points to the varied nature of the threats these
weapons pose and the multi-pronged approach necessary to counter them.
The seven core elements of CBRNE science enumerated in the text provide a robust framework for
responding to threats. By focusing on everything from rigorous clinical science to the development of
realistic assessments and improvements, CBRNE science seeks to offer a holistic strategy against
potential threats (Coleman et al., 2019). The cited example of the training course in Ukraine stands as a
testament to the practical applicability and effectiveness of these strategies (Erickson et al., 2023).
The complexity of risk analysis, particularly regarding high-explosive weapons, is well-elaborated upon.
With explosives, bombs, and dynamite being the dominant tools of terror over a 50-year period (Tin,
2021), the need for a multifaceted response and prevention strategy becomes imperative. The specific
metrics provided, such as the causality risks tied to distance from the detonation site, lend depth to this
analysis (Quin & Steward, 2021).
In conclusion, the presented discourse is both comprehensive and detailed in its treatment of WMDs
and CBRNE threats. The focus on both the theoretical structure and practical applications provides a
balanced perspective. Given the evolving nature of these threats, ongoing research and adaptability in
response strategies are paramount. As aptly summarized, enhancing the research behind CBRNE attacks
will inevitably lead to better training, resource management, and overall preparedness. 1 Peter 5:8, in
the New International Version, expresses that “Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls
around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour."
References
Coleman, C. N., Bader, J. L., Koerner, J. F., Hrdina, C., Cliffer, K. D., Hick, J. L., James, J. J.,Mansoura, M. K.,
Livinski, A. A., Nystrom, S. V., DiCarlo-Cohen, A., Marinissen, M. J., Wathen, L., Appler, J. M., Buddemeier,
B., Casagrande, R., Estes, D., Byrne, P., Kennedy, E. M., . . . Lawrence Livermore National Lab. (LLNL),
Livermore, CA (United States). (2019). Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE)
science and the CBRNE science medical operations science support expert (CMOSSE). Disaster Medicine
and Public Health Preparedness, 13(5-6), 995-1010. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2018.
New International Version. (1973, 2021). Holy Bible, New International Version.
https://www.biblegateway.com
Qin, H., & Stewart, M. G. (2021). Casualty risks induced by primary fragmentation hazards from high-
explosive munitions. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 215, 107874.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.107874
Tin, D., Margus, C., & Ciottone, G. R. (2021). Half-a-century of terrorist attacks: Weapons selection,
casualty outcomes, and implications for counter-terrorism medicine. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine,
36(5), 526-530. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X21000868
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
BRIAN
Risk and WMDs
Risk Analysis
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosives (CBRNE) threats or Weapons of Mass
Destruction (WMDs) must be considered in the risk analysis process. Bennett (2018) discussed in-depth
the many types of CBRNE threats and their effects on a target. There are five different categories of
threats and the likelihood of most of these types of attacks on a single critical asset may be considered
very low. But WMDs, particularly explosives, are still a major threat and must be included in the risk
analysis of every key resource and asset. Complacency due to discounting the possibilities of a WMD
attack is a dangerous path to follow. Terrorists are very imaginative, and creative, and think “outside the
box” with their schemes to attack the United States. The terror attacks on 9-11 should be a stark
reminder of their capabilities and determination. Parnell et al. (2010) conducted a study on modeling for
terrorists conducting a biological attack on a target. The study found that it is difficult to use modeling for
risk against an intelligent aggressor. This is especially true for the “thinking outside the box” attackers
whose creativity cannot always be anticipated. Bennett (2018) discussed having someone take on the
role of a terrorist and use their imagination to find ways to attack an asset. This technique provides
opportunities to identify risks and vulnerabilities.
Protection
Bennett (2018) talked about risk and vulnerability assessments and how they expose weaknesses
in the security of critical assets. This information is the precursor for the protection phase for the asset.
The risk management team must create a key asset priority matrix to make an order of merit list to
decide which risks are higher and more critical. This is then balanced against a cost-benefit analysis to
determine if the resources required to prevent the risk or mitigate the vulnerability are justified. The
incorporation of protection for CBRNE /WMD should be looked at as a terrorist collecting intelligence for
a possible attack. Volders (2021) discussed how terrorists' target selection will be value-driven and not
likely to use costly weapons on a very insignificant or low pay-off target that will yield low casualties and
economic impact against the country.
Impact of WMD on Risk Assessment
Bennett (2018) discussed the numerous limitations of CBRNE weapons in relation to terrorism.
These factors, such as weather conditions, target and terrain characteristics, and method of delivery,
must be included in the assessment to determine the likelihood and any resources that are necessary to
negate the threats. A small pipeline relay facility in a rural setting does not need to consider a chemical,
biological, or nuclear attack. But an explosives threat is a possibility in small, remote locations.
Conversely, a closely grouped set of chemical and oil refineries near each other, such as in the Beaumont
or Houston areas, would justify a higher possibility of risk. Risk assessments must be realistic and
logically approached to ensure time and resources are not wasted on low to no-probability scenarios.
WMD Threat
WMDs are a threat that should be taken seriously despite the likelihood of an attack. Using an
explosive attack against an asset can cause a cascading effect on other facilities. Vicar and Vicar (2011)
write about how the current view of CBRNE is the military viewpoint of chemical warfare rather than
assessing the WMD threat based on risk analysis of terrorist capabilities. Volders (2021) included an
analysis of the effectiveness and efficiency of conducting an attack. The lack of expertise will inhibit the
development of WMD capacity beyond the use of explosives. Asal et al. (2022) conducted a study and
concluded that the WMD threat is related to the terrorist group. The study found that very few terror
organizations are seeking CBRNE weapons. This allows for the threat analysis and protective strategy to
be influenced by who is the current foe. Because of this revelation, WMDs, with the exception of
explosives, do not complicate the risk analysis or protection process.
Main WMD Threat in the USA
The main threat from WMDs to the nation’s critical infrastructure is the usage of homemade or
military-grade explosives. These are the most common weapons used to carry out a terrorist attack.
Grant and Stewart (2017) write about how they have been the primary weapon of choice for terrorists
for decades. Probabilistic Risk Assessments (PRA) must account for these types of weapons, particularly
the Improvised Explosive Device (IED). There are numerous types of IEDs that can be employed against a
target. A good strategy to reduce or mitigate the threat is the use of buffer zones and entry control
points with electronic or K-9 sniffers. This was a major part of the base security plans when this student
was in Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan. These actions were effective because they deprived the enemy of
the opportunity to get the IED close enough that the base would be within the IED’s blast radius.
References
Asal, V., Avdan, N., & Ackerman, G. (2022). Breaking taboos: Why insurgents pursue and use CBRN
weapons. Journal of Peace Research, 60(2), 193-208.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00223433211057021
Bennett, B. T. (2018). Understanding, assessing, and responding to terrorism: Protecting critical
infrastructure and personnel (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN: 9781119237785.
Grant, M. & Stewart, M. (2017). Modelling improvised explosive device attacks in the West – Assessing
the hazard. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 165, 345-354.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832016302745?via%3Dihub
Parnell, G., Smith, C., & Moxley, F. (2010). Intelligent adversary risk analysis: A bioterrorism risk
management model. Risk Analysis, 30(1), 32-48.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01319.x
Vicar, D & Vicar, R. (2021). CBRN terrorism: A contribution to the analysis of risks. Journal of Defense
Resources Management, 2(2), 21-28. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1348605111?
https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https%253A%252F%252Fsearch.proquest.com
%252Fmilitary%253Faccountid%253D12085&pq-origsite=summon
Volders, B. (2021). Building the bomb: A further exploration of an organizational approach to nuclear
terrorism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 33(5), 1012-1031.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09546553.2019.1598387
Thank you for your post this week Brian. Your text is a comprehensive overview of the risk and impacts
of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), specifically Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and
Explosives (CBRNE) threats. Here are some takeaways from your post. With regard to risk analysis, even
if the likelihood of most CBRNE threats is considered low, they should not be ignored. While some
CBRNE threats might be perceived as rare or unlikely, their potential impact could be so significant that
they cannot be ignored. It's not just about the frequency of an event but also about the magnitude of its
consequences. Terrorist entities evolve and adapt. They might use unconventional methods to bypass
security, as witnessed on 9/11. Hence, conventional risk assessment strategies might not always work.
It's crucial to think several steps ahead and anticipate unconventional threats (Vicar & Vicar, 2021).
WMDs, especially explosives, remain a considerable threat. As far as protection, the knowledge from risk
and vulnerability assessments is the foundation for formulating protection mechanisms for assets. It's
essential to balance the cost and benefits of resources allocated to mitigate threats. Once vulnerabilities
are identified, they need to be addressed. This process, however, has to be strategic. Not every
vulnerability warrants action, especially if the cost of mitigation exceeds the potential impact or if the
likelihood is incredibly low. The impact on risk assessment is vital to be realistic while assessing the
impact. The nature of the target greatly influences the kind of WMD threat it faces. For instance, a
remote pipeline might not be a likely target for a nuclear attack, but it could be for an explosive device.
Hence, risk assessments need to be context-specific and not generalized. Despite the varied risk factors,
WMDs need to be taken seriously. The form of WMD used will depend on the threat and the capabilities
of the potential aggressor. The primary WMD threat in the USA remains explosives, notably Improvised
Explosive Devices (IEDs) (Volders, 2021). Measures such as buffer zones, entry control points, and
electronic or K-9 sniffers have proven effective in other contexts, like military bases in conflict zones
(Grant & Stewart, 2017). Proactive measures, like buffer zones and control points, have proven effective
in military contexts. Such strategies can be adapted and implemented in civilian contexts to safeguard
critical assets. Proverbs 27:12, in the New International Version, expresses that “The prudent see danger
and take refuge, but the simple keep going and pay the penalty."
References
Grant, M. & Stewart, M. (2017). Modelling improvised explosive device attacks in the West – Assessing
the hazard. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 165, 345-354.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832016302745?via%3Dihub
New International Version. (1973, 2021). Holy Bible, New International Version.
https://www.biblegateway.com
Vicar, D & Vicar, R. (2021). CBRN terrorism: A contribution to the analysis of risks. Journal of Defense
Resources Management, 2(2), 21-28. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1348605111?
https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https%253A%252F%252Fsearch.proquest.com
%252Fmilitary%253Faccountid%253D12085&pq-origsite=summon
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
Volders, B. (2021). Building the bomb: A further exploration of an organizational approach to nuclear
terrorism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 33(5), 1012-1031.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09546553.2019.1598387