Homeland Defense, History of - Case Study Example

homeland. The refusal of the U.S. to negotiate with rebels or terrorists and its eagerness to punish advocates of terrorism has formed the situation as well (Jordan, 2002). Current terrorist organizations are becoming ever more engaged in taking lives than acquiring political agreements, and the fear of retaliations has resulted in a bigger need for underground operations and possible deniability among terrorist organizations and their patrons (Gingrich, 2009). The rise of global and nonstate organizations hence has led to opponents who are harder to monitor and prevent than countries are and who are more engaged in initiating destructive occurrences (Larson & Peters, 2001).

Technology also serves a vital function. There are growing concerns about the production of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). These involve fears about unstable ex-Soviet nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) weapons or, by means of attempts by purported ‘rogue states’ and highly subsidized organizations like Osama Bin Laden and Aum Shinrikyo’s group, the growing capability to produce or obtain such weapons (Gingrich, 2009). Likewise, the escalating shipment and range of ballistic missile systems has brought about fears about opponents’ possible capability to attack the U.S. (Jordan, 2002).

Lastly, technological developments in information and communication technologies (ICT) have curtailed the value of geography and facilitated assaults on information and communication structures and other computer-reliant structures from all over the world (Nicholson & Biden, 2005). These continuing developments also have been disrupted by several attacks abroad and at home that has emphasized the defenselessness of developed states against terrorism, like the United States (Nicholson & Biden, 2005), and has led to many injuries and fatalities.

As cited in Cordesman (2002), as explained in the Report of the President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection (1997), the Report of the National Defense Panel (1997), the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s evaluation of federal outcome management capacities in 1997, and the account of the DoD Tiger Team on incorporation of National Guard and Reserve endorsement of the responses to attacks of WMD, these trends have encouraged policy-level interest to the issue and the recognition of several weaknesses in the nation’s ability to reduce or prevent the approaching threats (Cordesman, 2002).

The approaching threats and weaknesses in response also have resulted in the distribution of important resources to the management and deterrence of the outcomes of terrorist assaults against the U.S. and to critical discussion about the bounds of a homeland security, or currently referred to as ‘homeland defense’, undertaking for the U.S. armed forces and the Department of Defense (DoD) (Larson & Peters, 2001). The undertaking would back up the national attempt to mitigate the threats and outcomes of potential attacks on the United States.

This essay will attempt to give a general idea of the major policy concerns linked to homeland defense. This will be a critical essay presenting a case study