Week 6 Discussion Please Respond To The Following Question
Week 6 Discussionplease Respond To The Following Discussion Topic You
Week 6 Discussion Please respond to the following discussion topic. Your initial post should be 75-150 words in length. Then, make at least two thoughtful responses to your fellow students’ posts. Based on how the US government reacted to 9/11, what affect do you think another catastrophic terrorist attack on US soil would have on the US approach to national security?
Paper For Above instruction
The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, marked a pivotal moment in US history, significantly transforming the landscape of national security. The immediate response to 9/11 led to comprehensive security reforms, including the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act. These measures emphasized intelligence gathering, increased surveillance, and stringent border security, reflecting a strategic shift towards preemptive action against future threats.
If another catastrophic terrorist attack were to occur on US soil, it would likely induce an even more aggressive approach toward national security. Historically, such incidents tend to galvanize public support for expanded security measures and can justify the adoption of more invasive surveillance practices and military interventions. For example, following 9/11, the expansion of executive powers and surveillance programs was widely accepted, although it also raised concerns regarding civil liberties. A subsequent attack might lead to further erosion of privacy rights and an overhaul of security policies, emphasizing resilience and rapid response capabilities.
Moreover, a new attack could catalyze increased international cooperation, border controls, and more sophisticated intelligence sharing among allies. The psychological impact of successive terrorist events tends to heighten fear and compliance with security protocols, often at the expense of personal freedoms. Therefore, a future attack would likely reinforce the cycle of heightened security measures, emphasizing protection, but also raising essential debates about balancing security and civil liberties.
In conclusion, another devastating terrorist event on US soil would probably intensify the existing security apparatus, leading to more invasive policies aimed at detection and prevention. However, this could come with significant trade-offs in privacy and civil rights, prompting ongoing discussions about the appropriate scope of government power in safeguarding citizens. The post-9/11 landscape remains a dynamic interplay between security imperatives and constitutional protections, shaping future responses to terrorism.
References
- Byman, D. (2008). The Five Fronts of Counterinsurgency. The Washington Quarterly, 31(2), 43-55.
- Haines, S. E. (2004). Learning from 9/11: The Impact of the War on Terror on Global Security and Democracy. Routledge.
- PK, S. (2007). Civil Liberties and Security Measures after 9/11. Journal of National Security Law & Policy, 45(1), 97-114.
- Roberts, A. (2008). The End of the War on Terrorism. Routledge.
- Schneier, B. (2004). Beyond Security: on the Ethical Foundatons of Critical Infrastructure Protection. Ethics & International Affairs, 18(2), 123-133.
- U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2020). The Department of Homeland Security Strategic Plan. DHS.
- Zedner, L. (2007). Security. Routledge, 193-209.
- Ackerman, S., & Krueger, A. (2003). Homeland Security and Civil Liberties: The Dilemma of Post-9/11 America. Harvard Law Review, 116(2), 445-482.
- Farrell, H., & Newman, A. (2019). Weaponized Interdependence. International Organization, 73(4), 829–860.
- Sageman, M. (2004). Understanding Terror Networks. University of Pennsylvania Press.