Discussion Responses Needed on the following topic:
The Office of University Programs within DHS sponsors security research efforts by coalitions of US universities in Academic Centers of Excellence (COE). One such center is the Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE) headed by the University of Southern California. One CREATE study addressed the question “Should We Protect Commercial Airliners Against Surface-to-Air Missile Attacks by Terrorists?” What did the study conclude? Do you agree? Why or why not?
Instructions:
Please provide a follow up response to the following 3 responses. The responses are to the topic mentioned above.
Requirements:
Min 1 paragraph length for each response
Min 1 source cited per response
Response 1
When the Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events headed the following study, and addressed the question “Should we protect commercial airliners against surface-to-air missile attacks by terrorists” they determined the cost effectiveness of Man-Portable Air Defense Systems. CREATE was used to determine this analysis because they were separate from the office of the MANPADS, and could make an unbiased decision on whether or not to promote these specific countermeasures. The study further went on to determine the countermeasures of the devices and how a terrorist attempt outcome would be, the successes of it, and the consequences it would have on the economy (Winterfeldt & O’Sullivan, 2006, p. 63). With the analysis showing that the economic impact of the defense systems could be huge, which on the other hand the countermeasures are shown to be inexpensive having less impact on the economy. The question is in relation with the United States needing a better means for attack when it comes to missiles. While determining the effectiveness MANPADS the study should of took the economic damage after 9/11 into consideration more than the health of the airline industry. There are other cost effective countermeasures that could be used to defeat air missile attacks. Also, additional research could be done to determine better estimates on economic loss and countermeasure. I bring the estimates up because there is a huge gap in the research and it ranges from $40 billion to $400 billion in the analysis (Winterfeldt & O’Sullivan, 2006, p. 74). Another argument is the analysis never came to an agreement if the anti and pro MANPADS countermeasure are the right means of attack. If there were cost associated with a decision on which countermeasure was better this could definitely steer one’s thoughts in different direction. I think additional information on the cost and countermeasures that directly affect the ebony would be beneficial for a better analysis of this particular study.
Response 2
This was an interesting read. A successful attack is estimated to cost the American consumer between $40 – $400 billion. That is quite the impact from the loss of a single jet. However, these jets are not military aircraft with a sole or pair of operators. These are commercial jets, reliant upon a community to support their existence, to spread commerce globally. They operate under a Capitalistic economic model and often carry hundreds of passengers. The impact of an attack could diminish citizens use of aircraft, cause airlines to fail economically, and even increase fear; all of who’s impact could spread across the country causing a financially catastrophic loss.
CREATE studied the feasibility to install man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS) on commercial airliners in an effort to mitigate a successful attack. CREATE determined that MANPADS could be cost effective provided three conditions were met:
The probability of attack was above 40% over a ten year span.
Countermeasures cost is under $15 billion
Economic value is over $75 billion
I do not agree with the study. While 17 factors were identified, only three mattered to the study. An assumption was made as to the effectiveness of MANPADS in relation to the missiles being utilized. If older, less technologically advanced missile systems are used (this type would increase the probability of an attack but the weapon has a lower success rate), MANPADS could be effective. However, new missile technology is advancing at a rapid rate. MANPADS technology must continue to increase at the rate of missile technology in order to remain effective. With continuing variations in attack methodology, terrorist would certainly modify their attack procedures. Secondly, a great deal of passenger aircraft fly at altitudes over 20,000 feet. The typical range of a shoulder fired SAM is approximately 6 miles. Aircraft cruising at typical altitude as considered relatively safe. There was no mention in the report of probabilities entering and exiting target range when probability for attack by SAM would be greater.
Response 3 Can Disaster Preparation Be Characterized as “Crying Wolf?”
Another CREATE study examined How Near-Miss Events Amplify or Attenuate Risky Decision Making. This postulates, among other things, that decision makers with access to information about disaster “near misses” will be less likely to take mitigation measures because the history is of near misses not actual events. For example, New York City took certain measures for Hurricane Irene events in 2011, many of which did not come to pass. This created a false sense of security and when Hurricane Sandy struck a year later many were caught unprepared based on the previous year’s experience. What do you think? Valid? Or was this study a waste of taxpayer dollars?
