London Bombings and How it Affected Homeland Security 7 July 2005 - Example

Running Header: 7 July 2005 London Bombings and how it affected the Homeland Security 7.7.2005 London Bombings Name Course Name ad Code Instructor’s Name Date Introduction The government of the United Kingdom sees heightening individual preparedness as a priority (London Assembly, 2006). However, the level of people’s preparedness for a large-scale emergency in the United Kingdom is not known. It is apparent that the 7 July 2005 London bombings affected the citizens of London in a great way both directly and indirectly as a result of the events that took place at the incident. In addition, it is believed that the bombings changed the people’s sense of susceptibility a terrorist attack in the future (London Assembly, 2006). The attack was by the Islamic terrorists who struck London underground as well as a bus with around four bombs in the morning’s rush hour. At least 52 individuals lost their lives and around 700 people were injured (London Assembly, 2006). According to studies, the 7 July 2005 London bombings were the deadliest incident in the United Kingdom of terrorism since the 1988 bombing of the Pan Am Flight 103.Apparently, it is also the deadliest terrorism act in the United Kingdom ever since World War II. The responsibility, of the bombings was separately claimed by the Secret Organization Group of the Al Qaeda of Jihad Organization in Europe. Later, they were claimed by the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigade, which had earlier claimed responsibility for the Madrid attacks in 2004 (London Assembly, 2006). This paper seeks to evaluate the 7 July 2005 London bombings and how it affected the Homeland security. Lastly, the paper will give a report on how the United States responded to this incident. 7 July 2005 London bombings The 7 July 2005 London bombings commonly referred to as the 7/7 were a sequence of synchronized suicide attacks on the Londoners by the use of the public transport system over the morning’s rush hour period (London Assembly, 2006). At around 8:50 am, within 50 seconds of each other, three bombs exploded on three underground trains of London (Hugh and Cowan, 2005). At 9:47 am in Tavistock square, the fourth bomb exploded on a bus. As a result of the bombings, there was a serious disruption of the transport systems in the city as well as the mobile telecommunications infrastructure all day (Hugh and Cowan, 2005). Studies reveal that around 52 people lost their lives and around 700 were injured. In addition, the studies have continued to reveal that, the 7 July 2005 London bombings were the deadliest incident in the United Kingdom of terrorism since the 1988 bombing of the Pan Am Flight 103. Apparently, it is also the deadliest terrorism act in the United Kingdom ever since World War II (London Assembly, 2006). According to the investigation done by the police, four people were identified as the suspects of the suicide bombers. Evidently, this was the first suicide bombings of Europe’s western region. It is believed that they had been planned by the by the Secret Organization Group of the Al Qaeda of Jihad Organization in Europe. Later, they were claimed by the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigade, which had earlier claimed responsibility for the Madrid attacks in 2004 (London Assembly, 2006). The 7 July 2005 London bombings came at a time that the United Kingdom was holding the 31st G8 summit on its first full day and a day after the state was chosen to hold the Summer Olympics of the year 2012 (London Assembly, 2006). Solution Identification According to past research, the incident that took place in London on July 7 had been designed to terrorize the citizens of London, those who visit as well as those who work in London (Home Office, 2006). As a result, this threatened the economy of London great deal. After the occurrence of the incident, the chamber played a great role in restoring the people’s confidence to the business community as well as making sure that the individuals will be well prepared to face such an incident in the future (Home Office, 2006). The first priority was to employ the already available expertise from within to heighten the contingency planning awareness. In the year 2005, September, a Crisis management as well as business continuity planning: A program for business survival was published. The magazine comprised of the moist indispensable contingency planning principles as well as the signposted company directors a majority of whom had been dealing such issues for the first time (Home Office, 2006). It is apparent that at the end of it all there is no notable silver bullet to enhance the security of the public security transportation (House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, 2004).The security of the public security transportation cannot even be met one hundred percent by the mass transit (Prieto, 2005). Notably, the public awareness, preparedness as well as the wide spread closed-circuit television systems put in place by London in order to respond to the IRA long history bombings were not enough to prevent the that London put in place in response to a long history of IRA bombings could not prevent the July 7, 2005 attacks (Prieto, 2005). In addition, Israel is jot in a position to prevent frequent severe bus bombings despite the fact that it is known as the country, which is the most conscious in the universe (House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, 2004). Because London bombing is basically the first suicidal attack within the Western Europe, it signifies that prevention and deterrence in London will even be more complex. Evidently, the most successful transit security ought to have more than one layer, which is responsible of preparing, deterring, detecting, protecting as well as responding (House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, 2004). While this causes a remarkable challenge for making a decision that makes evaluates to prioritize, improvements at any given layer ought to pursue to designate challenges to the would be terrorists, assist in restricting damage as well as casualties in case there was an occurrence of an attack. Besides, they will be reciprocally underpinning with other measures (House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, 2004). Additionally, having more security enhancements incorporated as the objectives for instance of preventing crime, tracking and dispatching vehicles as well as following up on the conditions of the infrastructure and ascertaining a secure operation. The more the transit operators will be able to attain the objectives in an effective as well as efficient way. Funding is yet another challenge that the homeland security experienced. According to a report on the surveys as well as the interviews carried out by the General Accounting Office (GAO) of transit officials across the world designate that inadequate funding is the major cause of not making the transit systems safe as well as secure as deemed right(House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, 2004). Actually, the respondents of the survey were most likely to reveal that in adequate funding was the major obstruction to security as compared to other factors. A similar surveys and interviews were conducted by the United States committee right after the Madrid bombings in 2004 (House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, 2004). It is apparent from the report of the survey that funding is a major challenge amidst the transit authorities. Moreover, the limits of intelligence also affected the homeland securities. According to President Bush, terrorists are supposed to be right only once (House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, 2004). This therefore means that to deal with them the securities ought to be more intelligent. Evidently, this is a logic that signifies confines of intelligence to sojourn terrorist attacks. Despite the fact that several of the hijackers of the 9/11 were on terrorist watch lists, the available data was not effectually used to stop the terrorists from getting into the country or raising alarm when they were noted (House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, 2004). Different form the 9 September terrorists; the 7 July 2005 London bombings were homegrown. Not having sufficient information will continue to restrict the securities from stopping future attacks. Conclusion It is apparent that the 7 July 2005 London bombings affected the citizens of London in a great way both directly and indirectly as a result of the events that took place at the incident. In addition, it is believed that the bombings changed the people’s sense of susceptibility a terrorist attack in the future. It is evident from this paper that the incident was a sequence of synchronized suicide attacks on the Londoners by the use of the public transport system over the morning’s rush hour period. Moreover, they were the deadliest incident in the United Kingdom of terrorism since the 1988 bombing of the Pan Am Flight 103. In response to the attacks, United States Department of Homeland Security raised an alert level to orange particularly for mass cities. Notably it experienced several challenges such as funding. Though much has been done to improve the security, it is believed that much can still be done. Lastly, not even the best efforts can ascertain that terrorists will not succeed in targeting the buses or sub way in the future. References Home Office. (2006). Addressing Lessons from the Emergency Response to the 7 July 2005 London Bombings, Home Office. London. House of Commons Home Affairs Committee (2004). Homeland Security (2003-04 House of Commons Paper 417-I). Hugh, M. and Cowan, R., (2005). Four bombs in 50 minutes – Britain suffers its worst-ever terror attack. London: The Guardian. London Assembly. (2006). Report of the 7 July Review Committee, London. Prieto, D. B., (2005). Mass Transit Security after the London Bombings. Accessed on March 29, 2012 http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/3275/mass_transit_security_after_the_london_bombings.html Read More