NCJ Number
224846
Date Published
2007
Length
12 pages
Annotation
After defining terrorism and assessing its damage to communities, this paper describes and assesses the current emergency response model, followed by descriptions of two response plans, one used in the United States and one used in Turkey.
Abstract
A variety of definitions of terrorism have been offered; however, the authors agree with historian Richard Drake in concluding that “no definition of terrorism can possibly cover all the various forms of state and individual or group violence that have appeared throughout history.” Still, what is clear is that the use of violence as a means of pursuing various goals, whether political, religious, or otherwise, is growing in popularity and intensity, requiring that nations must take action to prevent and respond to threats of violence against its citizens. The response to violent threats and attacks is usually assigned to emergency management systems, whose operational mode encompasses preparedness, response, and recovery. Preparedness implies efforts in increase readiness for a disaster; response is the activity in the immediate aftermath of the disaster in order to protect life and property; and recovery focuses on returning the impacted community to a predisaster status or, preferably, to an improved situation. This paper focuses on response. In addition to activating a predesigned plan, there are a number of additional steps required. This paper mentions six such steps: the deployment of resources, the activation of a communication plan, the arrival of first responders, the mobilization of volunteers, the creation and implementation of a decisionmaking model, and the acceleration of the recovery plan. In the United States, emergency response is structured under the National Incident Management System, which standardizes a number of emergency procedures across the country. Turkey has a central administrative structure that extends into Provinces and localities. 1 figure and 33 references