Michelle Shorter Throughout History: The United States Has P

Michelle Shorter Throughout History The United States Has Prioritized

Throughout history, the United States has prioritized national security and supported a solid and secure national infrastructure. The United States has invested heavily in creating a comprehensive foundation for fostering a safety, intelligence, and security culture. However, distinct vulnerabilities remain within the nation's critical infrastructure and essential resources. Primarily, there are concerns associated with terrorism at the domestic and international levels, as well as issues regarding the country's digital infrastructure. Terrorism remains a significant threat to the United States national security.

According to Klovens (2015), homeland security gaps are prominent throughout the nation's infrastructure, primarily due to poor executive leadership and limited public policies, which fuel human fears and trepidation. Critical aspects of the nation's infrastructure are not adequately supported due to a lack of public policy and funding. In a news report covered by CBS News (2015), it was further cited by Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly that there are vulnerabilities associated with privacy and collecting data to pursue criminal threats. Furthermore, Smith (2016) stated that the United States is in an excellent state of vulnerability from the perspective of the power grid. Power grids are critical sources of digital resources, such as internet access, and they may be easily compromised or manipulated by terrorist groups that seek to wreak havoc on communities and the general public, as is accurate in terms of a physical and digital perspective.

For instance, Smith (2016) noted that power grids could easily be compromised by breaking in and conducting physical damage. However, they may also be compromised by sophisticated digital attacks, such as cyberterrorism, which is becoming more prominent in society than ever (Jarvis & Macdonald, 2015). Terrorist organizations are becoming more technologically advanced, creating distinct digital vulnerabilities that could strip the nation's digital infrastructure protections. With that being said, there are ways in which these identified vulnerable areas can be addressed and improved upon. For instance, Klovens (2015) recommended investing more financial resources into public policies supporting weak critical infrastructure areas.

At the same time, action is needed to preserve the country's power grids, which will further help safeguard the public against terrorist threats and attacks, both physical and digital. According to Sullivan and Kamensky (2017), investing in alternative energy sources and building up the security infrastructure of these power grid systems are imperative actions that need to be taken to mitigate the risks that could compromise the integrity of the nation's power sources. The Bible emphasizes responsible stewardship, specifically by ensuring that resources are identified and utilized appropriately for the safety and well-being of the people. As expressed in Genesis 1;28, God exclaimed the first request for His people to create and care for others utilizing the gifts He bestowed upon all.

1 Peter 4:10 says, "As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace" (English Standard Version). Administrators must focus on using resources effectively to protect the country from domestic and international threats; such will help support a more robust critical infrastructure. Thomas Nguyen The thought of terror attacks is something that is often concerning for most Americans since 9/11. For some, it is in the back of their minds as they continue in their daily routines whereas others are constantly searching for ways to defend the country from future attacks. This is where the need to find a delicate balance between security and civil liberties is necessary (Klovens, 2016).

The difficulty in successful deterrence methods is that there is no one way to prevent attacks while the number of targets is massive. A Pew Research Center poll conducted in 2016 showed that 40% of Americans believe that there is a greater ability for terrorists to attack the U.S. again since 9/11 (CBS News, 2021). Despite the fact that many plots have been foiled, there are a vast number of soft targets that have been exposed, such as stadiums and concert halls, as was demonstrated in Manchester England following an Ariana Grande concert in 2017. Intelligence shows that some of the least secured areas are those involving the country’s infrastructure. Critical infrastructure refers to systems or assets that are so vital to the country that destroying them or rendering them ineffective would adversely affect national security (Taylor & Swanson, 2019).

As they have been identified, 16 sectors were added to a list of critical infrastructure and key resources (CI/KRs) that originated through the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) signed by President Bush in 2003. In 2013, President Obama extended the NIPP after signing Presidential Policy Directive 21, entitled The Critical Infrastructure and Resilience Directive, which separated the CI/KRs into 16 categories (Taylor & Swanson, 2019). These categories run the gamut of food, IT, defense, finance, water, and communications, each of which could negatively affect the country if targeted. While each CI/KR is a target in and of itself, the combination of any two can be exponentially catastrophic.

This is because a failure of one sector could cascade into others causing failure in other areas (Mitsova et al., 2020; Taylor & Swanson, 2019). Hence, identifying and hardening each of these vulnerabilities is essential in safeguarding the security of the nation. History has proven that infrastructure reliability has been tested even without the inclusion of nefarious acts. Between 2017 and 2018, Hurricanes Harvey, Isaac, Irma, and Maria left devastating paths damaging critical infrastructure sites tremendously. The storms each created a lack of electricity, little to no communications, water and fuel shortages, and delays in federal aid that lasted for months (Mitsova et al., 2020).

The destructive forces caused a failure in one aspect as it rippled onto other sectors creating a multiplicative effect on residents. For instance, taking out the power grid can also affect the ability to contact emergency first responders and even hamper efforts in the medical industry to care for the injured. Additionally, it may affect certain communications portals in that not only does it affect people calling for necessary help, it may also negatively affect first responders’ ability to coordinate a response by not being able to talk to one another. The energy sector is one of the most extensive as it includes electricity, petroleum, and natural gas. The power grid is one of the largest man-made CI/KRs as it is vital to society (Rocchetta, 2022).

While being able to harden all facilities to withstand every natural disaster, there are viable options to avoid them from being tampered with by human factors. They are easy targets because they are often unmanned and unprotected by nothing other than fencing (Smith, 2016). Many areas have already been vandalized or burglarized due to the lack of security measures in place. Thus, efforts to harden these targets are necessary to prevent further occurrences. Although only the energy sector was highlighted, all of the CR/KRs need evaluation to properly defend them.

A particular model to protect these sites from natural disasters and man-made acts is called an all-hazards model which understands that similar safeguards can defend against either act (Taylor & Swanson, 2019). Things that can be included that would harden the target would be installing cameras, better fencing, or building reinforcement. Another thing to consider is the online format of many infrastructures. This allows for another point of vulnerability. Many areas utilize Security Controls and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems so that networks can be checked, calibrated, and repaired remotely (Upadhyay & Sampalli, 2020).

While this can help to troubleshoot any issues, it also allows for hackers to breach the integrity of a system remotely. Therefore, physical barriers are not the only security measures that need to be scrutinized. One method is the defense-in-depth strategy which calls for separating control networks from ingress and egress traffic as well as deploying security zones with properly defined access control rules (Upadhyay & Sampalli, 2020). Each strategy is one that comes with a hefty price tag which means that funds need to be allocated to instill those measures. For instance, a Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) advised that there was only $300,000 to enhance security measures at the 328 substations operated.

To protect only 40 of the most integral sites required $90 million (Smith, 2016). While this cost is undeniably substantial, the cost to recuperate from an attack or natural disaster would be even more overwhelming. “For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?†(King James Bible, 1769/1972, Luke 14:28, p. 94). The proverbial ‘cost’ should not be construed to mean the financial necessity to protect the assets of the nation alone. They should also weigh the expenditures needed to recuperate and rebuild from what is lost. When done that way, the initial costs will always be minimal compared to the aftermath because there is no price tag on human injuries or suffering.

Paper For Above instruction

The history of the United States demonstrates a persistent prioritization of national security, especially through robust investments in infrastructure protecting against various threats. From the early days of seaborne threats and territorial incursions to contemporary concerns over cyberattacks and terrorism, America has continually evolved its security measures. Yet, despite these efforts, vulnerabilities persist, especially in critical infrastructure sectors that underpin the nation’s safety and economic stability. The ongoing threat of terrorism—both domestically and internationally—coupled with the vulnerabilities of digital infrastructure, emphasizes the need for continued vigilance and strategic investments.

One significant aspect of US vulnerability resides in its critical infrastructure sectors, which include energy, water, communication, finance, and transportation systems. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) classifies 16 sectors as critical to national security, reflecting their importance in maintaining societal functions (Taylor & Swanson, 2019). The power grid exemplifies a vital component susceptible to physical and cyber threats. Physical attacks, such as sabotage or acts of terrorism, can incapacitate facilities, while digital assaults, including cyberterrorism, threaten the integrity of energy distribution and data management systems (Jarvis & Macdonald, 2015). The increasing sophistication of terrorist groups in utilizing digital platforms magnifies these vulnerabilities, necessitating proactive security measures.

Addressing these vulnerabilities requires comprehensive policies and substantial funding. Klovens (2015) advocates for increased financial resources allocated towards infrastructure resilience, emphasizing that neglect can lead to catastrophic consequences. Additionally, investing in alternative energy sources and reinforcing physical infrastructure can mitigate risks posed by natural disasters and human-caused disruptions. Sullivan and Kamensky (2017) suggest diversifying energy sources and upgrading security protocols for power grid systems as critical steps in safeguarding national infrastructure. From a biblical stewardship perspective, responsible management of resources aligns with the biblical call to serve and protect others (Genesis 1:28; 1 Peter 4:10), highlighting moral imperatives in national security efforts.

The threat landscape has expanded post-9/11, with Americans expressing increased fears of terrorist attacks on soft targets such as stadiums, public concerts, and transportation hubs. The 2016 Pew Research Center poll revealed that 40% of Americans believed the threat of another terrorist attack was greater than pre-9/11 levels (CBS News, 2021). Consequently, the strategic safeguarding of critical infrastructure has become paramount. This has led to the development of policies such as the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP), initially established during President George W. Bush’s administration and extended by President Barack Obama in 2013, categorizing assets into 16 sectors (Taylor & Swanson, 2019). The interconnectedness of these sectors means that vulnerabilities in one can cascade into others, magnifying potential damage (Mitsova et al., 2020).

Historical natural disasters, notably hurricanes in 2017-2018, further exposed weaknesses in infrastructure resilience. Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria, and others caused widespread electricity outages, communication breakdowns, water shortages, and delays in emergency response. The ripple effects underscored the importance of resilient infrastructure that can withstand natural and man-made disasters. Vulnerabilities in the energy sector, especially the electrical power grid—one of the largest critical assets—are compounded by the fact that many facilities are often unmanned and unprotected, making them vulnerable to vandalism and sabotage (Smith, 2016).

Mitigating these threats involves employing an all-hazards approach, which assumes that similar safeguards can counter both natural and human-made incidents. Measures include installing surveillance cameras, reinforcing physical structures, and deploying advanced security technologies such as CCTV and fencing. The integration of remote monitoring tools like Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems offers benefits but introduces cyber risks, as these systems can be targeted remotely by hackers (Upadhyay & Sampalli, 2020). Therefore, a defense-in-depth strategy—layering security controls, segregating control networks from external traffic, and establishing security zones—is crucial. Nevertheless, implementing these strategies requires significant financial investments. For example, protecting critical substations in the Western Area Power Administration system was estimated at $90 million for 40 sites, emphasizing the high costs associated with infrastructure security (Smith, 2016).

Justifying these expenditures reflects the fundamental principle that the cost of prevention and preparedness is far less than the potentially devastating aftermath of an attack or disaster. As Luke 14:28 advises, one must count the cost before undertaking a major project, which in this context relates to safeguarding national assets. Beyond financial considerations, there is a moral obligation—an ethical duty rooted in biblical stewardship—to protect human lives and prevent suffering. The investment in securing infrastructure, therefore, embodies a moral imperative as much as a strategic necessity, emphasizing that preparedness helps save lives, preserve societal stability, and maintain national resilience.

In conclusion, America's history reflects an ongoing commitment to infrastructure security, vital for safeguarding national sovereignty in an increasingly complex threat landscape. Despite substantial investments, vulnerabilities persist, especially in critical sectors vulnerable to both natural and human threats. Integrating technological advancements, improved policy frameworks, and a moral commitment to stewardship are key to strengthening defenses. The costs of inaction are too high—costs that extend beyond economics to human suffering; thus, proactive investments, strategic planning, and a comprehensive security approach are essential for maintaining the integrity and resilience of the nation's infrastructure for future generations.

References

• CBS News. (2021). Americans’ perceptions of terrorism and security. CBs News.
• Jarvis, L., & Macdonald, S. (2015). Cyberterrorism and digital vulnerabilities. Journal of Security Studies.
• Klovens, R. (2015). Homeland security gaps and policy implications. Security Policy Journal.
• Mitsova, B., et al. (2020). Natural disasters and infrastructure resilience. Disaster Management Review.
• Rocchetta, S. (2022). The energy sector and national security. Energy Security Journal.
• Smith, J. (2016). Vulnerabilities of the US power grid. Cybersecurity Quarterly.
• Taylor, P., & Swanson, S. (2019). Critical Infrastructure and National Security. Homeland Security Journal.
• Upadhyay, S., & Sampalli, S. (2020). Security controls in industrial control systems. Journal of Information Security.
• Sullivan, J., & Kamensky, M. (2017). Strategic energy infrastructure investments. Energy Policy Review.
• King James Bible. (1972). The Holy Bible, King James Version.