Security Response: Bio-Monitors & Scanners - Essay Sample

Bio-Monitors

Under Biomonitors the U.S. airports, designed Explosive Trace Detection Devices that can inspect passengers' luggage's and hands for explosives materials. Besides, Explosive Trace Detection Devices, the U.S. airports launched controversial imaging scanners that facilitate security personnel to search under passengers' clothing for hidden explosives or weapons.

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

Order now

The actual response and mitigation help summed to $2.55 billion for operations such as testing and cleaning efforts, emergency transportation measures, removal of debris activities, and temporary utility repairs. All these activities were supported by the effort of the following organizations FEMA, HUD, DOT, and, Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Through the public assistance program, FEMA compensated the city and State of New York. Besides, FEMA and HUD offered aid to individuals and families, which constituted funds to reduce Manhattan residents for the loan and rental assistance, crisis counseling, and, family funds to cover disaster-associated expenses.

London 7/7 Attacks

A series of bombs blasted on three London underground trains on July 7, 2005. After an hour, in Tavistock Square, a fourth bomb exploded on the upper deck of a bus. The fourth attack marked the lethal terror attack in London since World War II and the first suicide attacks in civilized Western Europe.

Mitigation Efforts

The response of London's emergency services and transportation system to the bombings is perceived as the city's most understandable and complex response ever to a terrorist attack. Responding teams, both during and immediately after the attacks, but the primary challenges in emergency coordination were reduced because London officials have formulated associations with one another and had practiced agree-open measures. Subsequently, everyone knew their roles and duties; a command and control system was established and running as expected; a mutual assistance agreement planned out was effectively applied and initiated.

In the wake of July 7, 2005, attacks on the London Underground, British authorities have formulated a new model for mitigating terrorism that aside from the expansion of the list of criminal offenses tied to terrorism and improving police powers, also stressing community policing principles and collaboration with the Muslim group. The counter-terrorism approach is grounded on an agreement that socio-economic lack does not stimulate terrorist recruitment. Knowing plotters have come from all backgrounds. Nevertheless, evidence that enrollment now has shifted to prisons and young people engaged in gangs or street-crime implies that it is essential to address constant problems of inequality and discrimination affecting Muslims. Collaborating with mosque groups has been formulated for offering religious reeducation to prison and youth deemed likely to hold terrorist considerations. Combination policy and national security are hence over-lapping objectives.

Lessons Learnt

The key lesson learned from the London 7/7 attack is that though several individuals were heroic, the emergency response fell short. Despite the motivating act of heroism conducted by firefighters, police officers, paramedics, and, volunteers, the uncomfortable truth that emergency system response to 7/7 attack in London was hindered by delays, tactical confusion, communication delays, and, jobsworth compliance to the procedure that at times confronted common sense.

A second most important learned lesson is that effective leadership is vital to the success of any response effort. Coordinated planning and response, in other words, need an ongoing commitment from agency leaders. The response can backfire when a leader of an essential partner agency is reluctant to commit qualified members and response because he/she is unconvinced of the advantages to the agency.

Mitigation Against Attack

Despite the event size, location, venue, persistent and ongoing efforts, to enhance interagency coordination and information sharing with the investors will improve security and enhance emergency response. According to Williams et al., (2017), to prepare fully for any potentials terrorist attack, against open-access events and mass gathering, security official and organizers must form partnerships with private-sector stakeholders and first responders in advance. The purpose of this is to enhance information sharing, coordination, and potential emergency response concerns. Event planners should work in close collaboration with first responders to establish a communication plan including strategies to address not only an emergency, but also non-emergency information. Therefore, the type of communication to be used in an event of terror attack should own the following elements. A joint information center to share information with the public and local media, emergency response strategy that establish primary and secondary techniques of communicating among security personnel, venue planners, first responder, and, other partners, and, identification and testing of emergency and alternative technique of communication, as -the chief communication lines may be overwhelmed during an attack.

Conclusion

Planning and effective preparedness can promote an effective response to a terrorist attack at Open Access. The most commonplace terrorist attacks take place is at open-access events, outside the perimeter of secured events, and, mass gatherings, probably because of a perceived lack of security, largely unlimited admittance, and, the presence of publicized schedules. Through progressive planning and comprehension of plots and attack tactics against public events, public safety personnel and an event planner will be better prepared to avert, respond to, and, mitigate the impact of a terrorist attack.

References

Brill, S. (2016). Are We Any Safer? Atlantic, 318(2), 60-87. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=tsh&AN=117048937&site=eds-live&scope=site

Mueller, J., & Stewart, M. G. (2016, March). American public opinion on Terrorism since 9/11: Trends and puzzles. In National Convention of the International Studies Association(Vol. 17). Retrieved from: https://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/tpoISA16.pdf

Williams, T. A., Gruber, D. A., Sutcliffe, K. M., Shepherd, D. A., & Zhao, E. Y. (2017). Organizational response to adversity: Fusing crisis management and resilience research streams. Academy of Management Annals, 11(2), 733-769. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0134

Wilson, N., d'Ardenne, P., Brewin, C. R., & Catchpole, M. (2015). How Can the Experience of a Terrorist Attack Inform Public Health Priorities? Some Lessons from the London 7/7 Bombings. In International Perspectives on Terrorist Victimisation (pp. 149-169). Palgrave Macmillan, London. Retrieved from: