The data shows that far and above the people who die or are physically hurt in a terrorist attack or act of war, there are many more who are suffer psychological injuries. As the specter of a major terrorist attack hangs over the United States, it is critical that policy makers, government agencies and civil leaders understand how to deal with the fear and panic that come with an attack. It is especially the case when the attackers use a weapon of mass destruction that could be biological, chemical or nuclear in nature.
The utter destructive power of these weapons and the fact that their effects are more long term mean that the psychological damage of an attack would be massive. The nation’s leaders and people can learn from history and be ready for when attackers use a WMD against the country. Purpose and audience The primary audience in this case is policy makers. From the very beginning, it is clear that the author is speaking to those who have the responsibility of preparing a response in case there is an attack. First, the paper establishes that there are indeed gaps in the country’s infrastructure and plans.
It also shows how those short-comings led to the failure to comprehensively deal with psychological injuries after the subway attack in Tokyo in 1995. It points out that the anthrax attacks affected far more people psychologically than it did physically. Even the recommendations are mostly aimed at those who make and implement policy. It is critical for them to perform evaluations of what they have and what will be needed in the event of an accident. The paper addresses those in leadership positions directly and hopes that they take the advice.
However, it is also clear that the author intends to speak to professionals in the field and non-governmental agencies to offer directions as others perform their own research. Any author writing an academic paper will have his or her colleagues in mind. He or she will be adding to the pool of knowledge in the field and colleagues will be interested. For example, the writer explains why the attacks in Tokyo are relevant so as to increase his credibility. Additionally, he acknowledges that it is not only government functionaries who will require the lessons provided.
He addresses non-governmental organizations that always send their personnel to such disasters. They have to be responsible for the psychological wellbeing of their employees and volunteers to begin with. In addition, even a member of the public would find the article useful. It articulates the points without resorting to any jargon or academic parlance thus making it fit for anyone who wants to understand the issue. Importance of the issue It is important to understand the issue for several reasons the first being that it is easy to ignore something that is not immediately visible.
When preparing or reacting to an attack, it is natural to think of the physical injuries. They often require immediate assistance and the fact that they physical demands attention. In that reality, if there are no people to draw attention to psychological trauma, it will be forgotten. Leaders and the people they lead need to understand psychology injuries do happen and they do need attention. Another reason is that psychological damages are long lasting and they occasion a long term drain on the community. As gruesome as they are, physical injuries are more often than not easy to repair.
Rehabilitation is also often easier because one can see what he or she is working with. With death, however horrible it is, there is closure. However, psychological problems fester for much longer. For months after the Tokyo attack, people were afraid to enter the subway. Those who could, used taxis and added to the congestion in the city. Psychological scars can lead to shattered lives as the patient is unable to study or work. Finally, it is critical to understand the issue because it enables the relevant agencies to create plans that should lead to a wholesome recovery after any disaster.
Studies do show that one cannot avoid any aspect of recovery after a disaster. When even one aspect is ignored, it will lead to a community, town, city or country that is not completely recovered. Understanding the imperative to prepare for and deal with mental injuries is key to a comprehensive response. It provides policy makers with the capacity to create complete solutions. Methods The author first of all explains the issue as it is in the modern context. He realizes that it is critical that the reader realizes just how serious it is from the very beginning.
He does this by giving examples that are clear and that show how real the problem is. The anthrax attacks in the United States were well publicized and represented a stark shock to the system. By using the example, the author shows just how real psychological effects of an attack can be. With that example and data from Tokyo, he sets the tone for the article. His main method of analysis is using already existing literature; he performs a secondary research of the issue. Secondary research involves the review of literature already existing.
It is a method that researchers use when the available literature and data is credible and accessible. For example, the author uses data from the Tokyo attack to form opinions and advance ideas. There were numerous studies done after the attack and the author quite obviously trusts them. By using secondary research, the author fails to produce any original data. However, in this case, the paper does not need any primary research for it to achieve its goal. Finally, the author also uses his experience in the field to present ideas and show how real the problem actually is.
In most instances, one should not insert him or herself into an academic paper. However, the writer in this case sees the issue as one that cannot be divorced from himself. The infusion of the personal in some instances makes the story that much realer for the readers. It gives them a perspective that is different and which speaks to the human in them. As per the evidence, it makes the paper more effective. Findings The writer presents the findings in the form of lessons learned and what it means for the United States. There are four key lessons from Tokyo. The first is that issues of community are important.
Victims in Tokyo suffered more because the incident occurred in an urban area without significant social networks. The second is that delays in management only serve to make the situation that much worse. Third, responding agencies and organizations need to be proactive in order to be effective. Finally, policy makers need to take into account the stigma that victims might face. The lessons for the United States are many but they all hinge on the fact that preparation is key. The Federal Response Plan needs to have a comprehensive section on handling mental injuries.
The planning should be constant and it should change as new evidence emerges. The author admits that bureaucracies are notorious for resisting change but that in this instance there is really no choice. FEMA and the agencies that it will lead need to always be prepared for the occurrence of a WMD attack. They need to keep track of developments in consequence management and incorporate new methods into their plans. How the article advances knowledge in the field First, it shows that learning from history is not always obvious.
It cites the Tokyo attack and the fact that it did not have a serious impact on planning in the United States. In spite of the lessons, the United States suffered months of panic during the anthrax attacks. What the article shows is that professionals in the field have to be proactive. Issues might seem obvious when they are actually not. It provides the foundation for continued research on the need and scope of consequence management in the United States today and into the future. The author adds to the knowledge already existing by offering new perspectives and adding to the opinions on the topic.
