 |
Consequence Management in the Homeland, What Does Right Look Like
Authors: William T Steele; ARMY WAR COLL CARLISLE BARRACKS PA CENTER FOR STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP |
|
Abstract:
Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, many people in the government and the Department of Defense have debated the domestic role of the military. With the increased possibility of a terrorist attack using Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in the homeland, many in the Department of Defense and the federal government believe that the military should play a greater role in homeland security. They argue that the military should be prepared to fight the nation's wars and should also provide a force to assist in the consequence management from a successful WMD attack. There are many issues to this debate that must be examined ranging from funding, training, equipping, size of the force, and the ability to move to the incident site quickly and with the capabilities to save the lives of those affected by the attack. This paper will focus on determining the correct size and defining the capabilities that this force should have to allow it to move quickly enough to the incident site to conduct our primary mission, saving lives. If we fail to plan and execute this mission properly, we would fail the American people and it would have grave implications for the homeland.
| Limitations: |
 APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE |
| Description: |
Strategy research project |
| Pages: |
35 |
| Report Date: |
Mar 2010 |
| Report Number: |
A051025 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Email This Abstract
