Review of Open Source Literature
on Resilience to Terrorist Attack
Jason D. Wood
Science Applications International Corporation
October 2009
The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect
the official policy or position of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency,
the Department of Defense, or the United States Government.
This report has been approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
Defense Threat Reduction Agency
Advanced Systems and Concepts Office
Report Number ASCO 2009 033
Contract Number DTRA01-03-D-0017-0018
The mission of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) is to safeguard America and its allies from weapons
of mass destruction (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high explosives) by providing capabilities to reduce,
eliminate, and counter the threat, and mitigate its effects.
The Advanced Systems and Concepts Office (ASCO) supports this mission by providing long-term rolling horizon
perspectives to help the DTRA leadership identify, plan, and persuasively communicate what is needed in the near term
to achieve the longer-term goals inherent in the agency’s mission. ASCO also emphasizes the identification, integration,
and further development of leading strategic thinking and analysis on the most intractable problems related to
combating weapons of mass destruction.
SAIC is a FORTUNE 500® scientific, engineering, and technology applications company that uses its deep domain
knowledge to solve problems of vital importance to the nation and the world, in national security, energy and the
environment, critical infrastructure, and health. For more information, visit www.saic.com. SAIC: From Science to
Solutions®
For further information on this project, or on ASCO’s broader research program, please contact:
Defense Threat Reduction Agency
Advanced Systems and Concepts Office
8725 John J. Kingman Road
Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-6201
[email protected]
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY REPORT
Introduction
Responding effectively to the threat of international terrorism is a significant policy challenge with
exceptionally high stakes, particularly when considering the potential consequences of terrorist use
of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Unlike traditional nation-state adversaries, terrorists
operate inconspicuously, attack by asymmetric means, and do not distinguish between the battlefield
and the home-front. The elusive and unconventional nature of the terrorist threat demands
innovative thinking and dynamic solutions.
The attacks of September 11th catalyzed a still-ongoing debate over the proper response to the
terrorist threat. In the years since 9/11, a new concept has emerged that is becoming a term of art
in homeland security and crisis management circles – resilience. Generally speaking, resilience is the
capacity of a system or society to absorb an attack or other disruption and return to a normal state.
The concept of resilience contrasts sharply with prevention efforts, which aim to prevent all terrorist
attacks from ever occurring as part of zero-sum game requiring a 100-percent success rate.
However, despite its growing prominence in the homeland security debate, there is still a great deal
of uncertainty surrounding resilience and its implications for policymakers, citizens, and private
industry. Specifically, what does the term “resilience” mean – both conceptually and operationally?
Is the United States resilient – why or why not? How can the United States enhance any existing
resilience and build new resilience capacities?
The purpose of this project is to survey how these important questions have been answered within
the broader academic and analytical community. This short summary report analyzes the
overarching arguments and recommendations of the literature surveyed – with a particular emphasis
on highlighting practical steps that can be taken to enhance U.S. resilience to terrorist attack.
Overall, the assessment concludes that: (1) the concept of resilience is multifaceted; (2) there is an
overall consensus that the U.S. population is generally resilient, though this could be changing; and
(3) resilience can be enhanced through practical steps focused on enhanced crisis communications
strategies and citizen engagement.
As the literature makes clear, the questions addressed in this study are important for a number of
reasons. First and foremost, before adopting resilience as a policy or strategic goal, U.S.
policymakers must understand the concept thoroughly. This necessitates a rigorous parsing of
resilience both as a concept and as an operational requirement. Secondly, policymakers must be
aware of the current state-of-play regarding the resilience of U.S. society. Where latent or innate
resiliency exists, it must be leveraged for maximum benefit. Where resiliency is lacking, capacitybuilding efforts must be instituted to correct potentially harmful deficiencies. Finally, policymakers
need a roadmap to guide future resilience-building efforts. Barring such guidance, resources will
likely be misdirected – to the detriment of U.S. national security.
Methodology. To assess the knowledge base on resilience, a broad search of open-source literature
was conducted to identify studies of possible relevance. The results of this search were then read
and analyzed to single-out key documents that specifically relate to the central questions surrounding
resilience described above. Key document selection criteria included specificity of the subject
material covered, currency, authoritative authorship or sponsoring organization, and the inclusion of
practical policy recommendations for the United States. At the outset, it is important to note that
this study placed heavy emphasis on studying the literature on societal resilience, as opposed to
3
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY REPORT
physical or critical infrastructure resilience. This was done because, relative to critical infrastructure
resilience, there is a lack of consensus regarding what societal resilience is and how it is established.
Physical resilience is comparatively well understood – having structures and services that function
reliably during an emergency or that are restored quickly thereafter.
The twenty-six articles resulting from this drawdown are listed in Appendix I, immediately following
this summary report. Summaries of these key articles are provided in Appendix II – highlighting
each article’s stance on the definition of resilience, the level of U.S. resilience, and ways to enhance
resilience going forward. Appendix III is a bibliography of relevant supplemental literature. Though
these articles did not necessarily fit the criteria established for key documents, they are nonetheless
valuable resources that often reiterate or expand upon the fundamental themes of the key
documents. Finally, Appendix IV is a document typology that cross-references the 26 key
documents and supplemental studies against a number of relevant sub-topics, including: strategies
for enhancing resilience, psychological aspects of resilience, and critical infrastructure.
What is resilience?
Given that resilience is a relatively new and novel concept – as applied to terrorism and homeland
security – there is still a considerable amount of discussion as to what “resilience” means. Thus,
perhaps not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority of relevant articles and analysis focus heavily on
spelling-out the various elements of resiliency. From this dialogue, the literature surveyed
demonstrates that resilience is a highly nuanced, multifaceted concept that varies significantly from
one level of analysis to another.
Across the literature, resilience is conceptualized on the macro and micro level as well as the physical
and psychological/sociological level. Each of these levels of analysis utilize distinct frameworks and
points of reference for understanding resilience as a concept. These various frameworks necessitate
a holistic understanding of resilience that is informed by a variety of perspectives – micro, macro,
physical, and psychological. As one author noted aptly, “the elements constituting social resilience
are multi-faceted and the interaction of these elements with each other is frustratingly opaque. This
is because these elements range from the psychological and social to the normative and also extend
to the politics of both governance and culture.”1
The literature surveyed offers a number of frameworks from which to conceptualize resilience. For
example, Michael Kindt provides a framework for defining micro-level resilience expressed
behaviorally by individuals following terrorist attacks. This three-level framework defines individual
resilience as possessing three primary traits: (1) individual characteristics, to include optimism, selfefficacy, mastery, and coherence; (2) social ties affecting an individual’s access to resources and
communal support; and (3) coping strategies and problem solving skills. Delving further into
individual traits and characteristics, Gino Verleye identified eight elements for conceptualizing
individual resilience, to include: the presence of other major life stressors, perceived risk and fear,
and mental distance from the ongoing terrorist threat.
On the other end of the spectrum, Fran Norris’ macro-level analysis of societal resilience utilizes
four independent variables to conceptualize resilience: (1) economic development; (2) social capital;
(3) information and communication capacities; and (4) community competence for collective action.
1
Norman Vasu, “Grace in Times of Friction: The Complexity of Social Resilience,” RSIS Commentaries No. 72 (2007).
4
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY REPORT
Physical resilience utilizes an entirely different, but no less complimentary, set of competencies and
capacities. For example, T.D. O’Rourke defines macro-level physical resilience as having four
“infrastructural” elements: robustness, redundancy, resourcefulness, and rapidity. He then expounds
on various engineering principles, logarithms, and models that can be used to evaluate the physical
resilience of systems or structures. This approach is adapted across the literature on physical
resilience, as evidenced by Stephen Flynn’s article that builds on “the 4 R’s” of resilience.
Given that resilience can mean many different things across a wide variety of fields and perspectives,
it is particularly noteworthy that the vast majority of surveyed literature emphasized the importance
of integrating all the various concepts of resilience into a single strategic approach. Thus, where one
particular framework for understanding resilience is offered, it is commonly acknowledged that
some overlap between frameworks will occur – and in some cases should occur. For example, much
of the literature on critical infrastructure resilience makes an effort to also note the psychological
elements of resilience. A primary example of this is the Report of the Critical Infrastructure Task Force,
which noted that “the ability of critical infrastructures to fully recover from a catastrophe depends
on the actions of their customers. Thus education initiatives designed build ‘psychological resilience’
should be key components of a national strategy for CIR.”
In addition to overlapping frameworks, there is also the potential for confusion due to variations in
terminology. Throughout the surveyed literature – and this summary report – a number of terms are
used in reference to resilience: a resilience “strategy” or “mission,” for example. This variance in
terms reflects the variety of ways that resilience has been conceptualized – as a process, a trait, a
strategy, or a policy. Regardless, it is worth noting that each of these terms revolve around the
ultimate goal of damage limitation and a rapid return to normalcy.
Is the United States resilient to terrorist attack?
Of the three central questions that this study attempts to answer, the question of whether or not the
U.S. is resilient drew the greatest diversity of opinion. Given the asymmetric nature of terrorism and
the seemingly infinite attack scenarios, a yes or no answer to the resiliency question was not clearly
discernable. Furthermore, as one article noted, “no society will be aware of its resilience until its
people face adversity together.”2 Regardless of this argument, the literature did offer a number of
perspectives on the resiliency of the United States, ranging from optimistic to increasingly skeptical.
Much of the literature on psychological or behavioral resilience – particularly on the individual level
– cited the innate resilience of most populations. Peter Suedfeld argues that individuals and
communities “are generally resilient and hardy. They are able to cope with widespread danger and
disaster, to maintain rational and adaptive problem-solving behaviors, and even to use the
experience as a source of renewed strength.”3 Along this same theme, Ann Speckhard takes issue
with the common expectation of societal panic following a terrorist attack, noting that “on the
contrary, strangers reach out and help one another, panic and breakdown of civil society is rare.
Society often in fact becomes more civil in times of crisis.”4 Maguire noted that “research into
Ibid.
Peter Suedfeld, “Reactions to Societal Trauma: Distress and/or Eustress,” Political Psychology Vol. 18 No. 4 (December
1994).
4 Anne Speckhard. “Civil Society’s Response to Mass Terrorism: Building Resilience.”
2
3
5
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY REPORT
human reactions to disaster has overwhelmingly recognized that resilience in response to disaster is
much more common than suggested by the media, and mass trauma may not necessarily be a
given.”5 To be effective, resiliency plans need to recognize and build on the capacities arising from
naturally emergent social resiliency.
As evidence of the innate resilience of communities, many case studies demonstrating resilient
behavior are cited in the surveyed literature. Perhaps the most notable and instructive case study was
examined by James Kendra. During the September 11th terrorist attacks, New York City’s
Emergency Operations Center (EOC) was destroyed and promptly reconstituted in a new location –
“although the EOC was destroyed, the emergency management organization was not. Rather, the
organization itself exhibited resilient, adaptive behavior.”6
However, some authors expressed concern regarding U.S. resilience. “Resilience has historically
been one of the United States’ greatest national strengths…but this reservoir of self-sufficiency is
being depleted. The United States is becoming a brittle nation. An increasingly urbanized and
suburbanized population has embraced just-in-time lifestyles tethered to ATM machines and 24hour stores that provide instant access to cash, food, and gas.”7 John Mueller argues that persistent
fear throughout American society has lead to irrational behavior and ineffective government policies
that preclude a rational response to the threat or use of terrorism.
Notably, the selected literature included three articles by Bill Durodie. His unique perspective on
resilience provides an interesting contrast to other articles in survey. In particular, Durodie argues
that society is becoming increasingly less resilient, largely due to social disconnectedness and an
increasingly risk-averse population in western society. Durodie underscores themes also found in
Flynn and Mueller – namely that attitudes towards risk and fear are a significant factor in developing
social resilience.
How can the United States build or enhance its resilience?
The academic literature on resilience is of little consequence unless it is paired with practical
recommendations for policymakers to consider and eventually implement. The literature surveyed
offers two overwhelmingly agreed-upon steps to addressing the issue of resilience to terrorist attack:
(1) improving crisis communications; and (2) engaging the public in resilience efforts. Additionally,
the surveyed literature offered insights into adapting current government capacities to the resilience
mission and integrating prevention measures and disaster management principles with the concept
of resiliency.
Numerous articles – most notably the work of Anne Speckhard and Thomas Glass - emphasize that
resilience can best be achieved through effective crisis communication. In the moments immediately
following a terrorist attack, “governments can make or fail to make crucial interventions to the
resiliency of civil society – by what they communicate or fail to communicate.”8 An effective crisis
Brigit Maguire and Patrick Hagan, “Disasters and Communities: Understanding Social Resilience,” The Australian
Journal of Emergency Management Vol. 22 No. 2 (May 2007).
6 James Kendra and Tricia Wachtendorf, “Elements of Community Resilience in the World Trade Center Attack,”
(Newark, DE: University of Delaware Disaster Research Center, 2001).
7 Stephen E. Flynn, “America the Resilient,” Foreign Affairs (March/April 2008).
8 Speckhard, “Prevention Strategies and Promoting Psychological Resilience to Bioterrorism Through Communication.”
5
6
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY REPORT
communications strategy that supports resilience must be prepared ahead of time, down to the
smallest details of who will speak, when, where, and how. Specifically, “we must anticipate the
threats and do three things – build trust in those who will be speakers now, give out anticipatory
information beforehand, and be ready to repeat it again later.” Most importantly, communications
must emphasize calm and truthfulness.
Next, there is broad consensus in the surveyed literature that effective resilience strategies must
provide for public participation in all phases of a disaster, from planning to post-event recovery
operations. More to the point, “treat the public as a capable ally in the response to a terrorist attack,
recognizing that panic is rare and preventable.”9 Steven Flynn goes so far as to recommend that the
Secretary of Homeland Security “should be charged with transforming the department’s law
enforcement culture, which so far has held citizens and the private sector at arms length.”10
Importantly, a number of articles stressed the importance of involving the public in pre-disaster
planning rather than enlisting public support only after an attack has occurred. Indeed, “to access
social capital, one of the primary resources of any community, local people must be engage
meaningfully in every step of the mitigation process.”11 In particular, it is recommended that federal,
state, and local authorities “create participatory decision-making processes by including the public,
especially in discussions about how to allocate scarce resources and instituting controls that may
compromise civil liberties.”12 A key benefit to integrating the public into early planning efforts is that
“active public participation in these plans creates a societal investment in carrying them out.”13
Specific recommendations for integrating the public into resilience planning include enlisting civic
organization in practical public health activities like information dissemination, outbreak monitoring,
and medication distribution.
A number of articles offered specific recommendations for integrating the concept of resilience into
existing U.S. government policies and practices. Examples include using regional Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) offices as forums to “encourage a regional structure for homeland
security that promotes voluntary cooperation among states, local communities, and the private
sector.”14 Internationally, the United States should utilize preexisting institutions and bilateral
partnerships to create forums on resiliency. For example, NATO’s Industrial Advisory Group
currently solicits advice from the defense industry on how to promote transnational cooperation on
defense issues. This group or other NATO bodies represent opportunities to discuss resiliency
issues.15
According to Kindt, “The Homeland Security Advisory System (HSAS) should be significantly
revised or abandoned. The most constructive revision to the HSAS would be the elimination of
general nationwide threat level changes in favor of more specific alerts targeted at specific regions or
9 Thomas A. Glass and Monica Schoch-Spana, “Bioterrorism and the People: How to Vaccinate a City Against Panic,”
Clinical Infectious Diseases Vol. 34 (2002): 217-223.
10 Flynn, “America the Resilient.”
11 Fran H. Norris, “Community Resilience as a Metaphor, Theory, Set of Capacities, and Strategy for Disaster
Readiness,” American Journal of Community Psychology Vol. 41 (2008).
12 Glass, “Bioterrorism and the People.”
13 Speckhard, “Prevention Strategies.”
14 James Jay Carafano, “Resilience and Public-Private Partnerships to Enhance Homeland Security,” Backgrounder No.
2150 (Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation, June 24, 2008).
15 Ibid.
7
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY REPORT
industries.”16 Existing programs in the Citizen Corps must be maximized to capitalize on their
potential for success. These programs should be re-energized and proper metrics established to track
their progress and success.17 The 2006 Report of the Critical Infrastructure Task Force offered six policyoriented recommendations for enhancing critical infrastructure resiliency (CIR). Most significantly,
the report advocates promulgating CIR as the top-level strategic objective – the desired outcome –
to drive national homeland security policy and planning.
Finally, the surveyed literature highlighted the complimentary relationship between resilience,
prevention, and disaster management – advocating a hybrid approach that combines advantages
from all three concepts. For example, Maguire recommends fully incorporating disaster management
principles into resilience strategies, noting that “disaster management professionals describe the
process of human reaction to disasters as cyclical, having four phases: mitigation, preparedness,
response, and recovery…The greatest improvements in social resilience will be achieved when all
four stages of the disaster process are considered in emergency management planning.”18
Clearly, prevention places an emphasis on anticipating attacks before they occur. However, this
emphasis should not place prevention at odds with resilience, which focuses on responding to an
attack after-the-fact. Indeed, “resilience and anticipation are not polar opposites or mutually
exclusive characteristics or states…rather than being conceptually distinct, anticipation is an integral
dimension of resilience.”19
According to Jackson, using a hybrid approach that melds prevention, resiliency, and disaster
management, “policymakers would not be constrained to only investing more in intelligence
activities to try to eliminate uncertainties or adding layer upon layer of security in an effort to
prevent every attack.” Instead, “they can assemble combinations of measures that could perform
better than either type alone across a wider variety of future threats.” Adopting a so-called “portfolio
approach” to homeland security would allow some measures to reach for the higher possible payoff
of completely preventing attacks, while others would provide a more stable protective return by
limiting the damages from any terrorist operation or other event.20
Conclusion
As noted in the Report of the Critical Infrastructure Task Force, much of the U.S. response to terrorism
has been aimed at prevention – an inherently brittle strategy. However, as evidenced by the body of
surveyed literature and the volume of supplementary reading, resiliency is emerging as an important
and valuable concept going forward – one that can compliment and support prevention efforts.
The multifaceted, complex process of resilience involves the interaction of countless variables across
all levels of analysis: macro, micro, physical, psychological and behavioral. All of these varied
perspectives on resilience elicit insights from a similarly diverse range of specialties, to include public
health, psychology, sociology, economics, engineering, architecture, and emergency management.
Michael T. Kindt, Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks: Unlearned Lessons from Military and Civilian Experience
(Maxwell AFB: USAF Counterproliferation Center, November 2006).
17 Ibid.
18 Maguire, “Disasters and Communities.”
19
Kendra, “Elements of Community Resilience.”
20
Brian A. Jackson, Marrying Prevention and Resiliency (Washington, DC: The RAND Corporation, 2008).
16
8
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY REPORT
Overwhelmingly, the surveyed literature argued that the U.S. population is more resilient to crisis
than commonly thought. From this conclusion, it is not surprising that a key component of any
effective resilience strategy is public involvement in planning efforts, training, and actual response.
The public’s innate resilience must be channeled effectively during times of crisis using preplanned
communications that emphasize calm and truth – delivered by trusted sources. Additionally, existing
government capacities can effectively be leveraged to implement a future resilience strategy, both
through DHS and multinational forums.
In the effort to enhance resilience, there is no one size fits all solution. Given that resilience is
multifaceted concept, “one should be wary of those touting magic panaceas. Governments can
provide the framework and lend support…but society has to be given the space to organically find
its own coping mechanisms during testing times.”21
****
21
Vasu, “Grace in Times of Friction.”
9
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX I: SELECTED LITERATURE
1) Barnett, Michael D. “Congress Must Recognize the Need for Psychological Resilience in an Age
of Terrorism.” Families, Systems & Health (March 22, 2004).
2) Ben-Dor, Gabriel, et al. The Social Aspect of National Security: The Impact of Terror on Israeli Society.
Unpublished manuscript, 2007.
3) Bleich, Avi, et al. “Mental Health and Resiliency Following 44 Months of Terrorism: A Survey of
an Israeli National Representative Sample.” Biomed Central Medicine Vol. 4 (August 2006): 2132.
4) Boin, Arjen and Allan McConnell. “Preparing for Critical Infrastructure Breakdowns: The Limits
of Crisis Management and the Need for Resilience.” Journal of Contingencies and Crisis
Management Vol. 15 No. 1 (March 2007).
5) Carafano, James Jay. “Resilience and Public-Private Partnerships to Enhance Homeland
Security.” Backgrounder No. 2150. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation, June 24, 2008.
6) Countering International Terrorism: The United Kingdom’s Strategy. Norwich, UK: The Stationary Office,
July 2006.
7) Durodie, Bill. “Cultural Precursors and Psychological Consequences of Contemporary Western
Responses to Acts of Terror.” In M. Fizduff and C.E. Stout, eds. The Psychology of Resolving
Global Conflicts. Westport, CT: Praeger Press, 2006, 307-326.
8) ________________. “Is Real Resilience Attainable?” The Monitor of the Royal United Services Institute
for Defence Studies Vol. 2 No. 6 (September 2003): 15-19.
9) ________________. “Sociological Aspects of Risk and Resilience In Response to Acts of
Terrorism.” World Defence Systems Vol. 7 No. 1 (Spring 2004): 214-216.
10) Flynn, Stephen E. “America the Resilient.” Foreign Affairs (March/April 2008).
11) Glass, Thomas A. and Monica Schoch-Spana. “Bioterrorism and the People: How to Vaccinate a
City Against Panic.” Clinical Infectious Diseases Vol. 34 (2002): 217-223.
12) Jackson, Brian A. Marrying Prevention and Resiliency. Washington, DC: The RAND Corporation,
2008.
13) Kendra, James and Tricia Wachtendorf. “Elements of Community Resilience in the World Trade
Center Attack.” Newark, DE: University of Delaware Disaster Research Center, 2001.
14) Kindt, Michael T. Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks: Unlearned Lessons from Military and
Civilian Experience. Maxwell Air Force Base, AL: U.S. Air Force Counterproliferation Center,
November 2006.
15) Maguire, Brigit and Patrick Hagan. “Disasters and Communities: Understanding Social
Resilience.” The Australian Journal of Emergency Management Vol. 22 No. 2 (May 2007): 16-20.
10
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX I: SELECTED LITERATURE
16) Marshall, Randall D., et al. “The Psychology of Ongoing Threat: Relative Risk Appraisal, the
September 11 Attacks, and Terrorism-Related Fears.” American Psychologist Vol. 62 No. 4
(May-June 2007): 304-316.
17) Mawson, Anthony R. “Understanding Mass Panic and Other Collective Responses to Threat and
Disaster.” Psychiatry Vol. 68 No. 2 (Summer 2005): 95-113.
18) Mueller, John. “Reacting to Terrorism: Probabilities, Consequences, and the Persistence of
Fear.” Paper prepared for presentation at the National Convention of the International
Studies Association. Chicago, IL: February 26-March 4, 2007.
19) Norris, Fran H., et al. “Community Resilience as a Metaphor, Theory, Set of Capacities, and
Strategy for Disaster Readiness.” American Journal of Community Psychology Vol. 41 (2008): 127150.
20) O’Rourke, T.D. “Critical Infrastructure, Interdependencies, and Resilience.” The Bridge – Journal
of the National Academy of Engineering Vol. 37 No. 1 (Spring 2007): 22-29.
21) Report of the Critical Infrastructure Task Force. Washington, DC: Homeland Security Advisory
Council, January 2006.
22) Speckhard, Anne. “Civil Society’s Response to Mass Terrorism: Building Resilience.” In Rohan
Gunaratna, ed. Combating Terrorism: Military and Nonmilitary Strategies. Singapore: Eastern
Universities Press, 2004.
23) ________________. “Prevention Strategies and Promoting Psychological Resilience to
Bioterrorism Through Communication.” In M.S. Green, J. Zenilman and D. Cohen, eds.
Risk Assessment and Risk Communication Strategies in Bioterrorism Preparedness: Proceedings of the
NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Risk Assessment and Risk Communication in Bioterrorism,
Held in Ein-Gedi, Israel, June 2005. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 2007.
24) Suedfeld, Peter. “Reactions to Societal Trauma: Distress and/or Eustress.” Political Psychology Vol.
18 No. 4 (December 1997): 849-861.
25) Tanielian, Terri L. and Bradley D. Stein. “Understanding and Preparing for the Psychological
Consequences of Terrorism.” In The McGraw Hill Homeland Security Handbook, ed. David G.
Kamien, 689-701. New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 2006.
26) Vasu, Norman. “Grace in Times of Friction: The Complexity of Social Resilience.” RSIS
Commentaries No. 72 (2007).
27) Verleye, Gino, et al. “Resilience in an Age of Terrorism: Psychology, Media and
Communication.” in B. Rogers, et al. Aspects of Terrorism and Martyrdom: Dying for God, Dying for
Good. Lampeter, U.K.: The Edwin Mellen Press, forthcoming 2009.
28) Waxman, Dov. “The Domestic Effects of Terrorism: A Case Study of the Impact of Palestinian
Terrorism on Israeli Society During the Second Intifada.” Paper prepared for presentation at
the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, San Francisco, CA, March 28,
2008.
11
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
1) Barnett, Michael D. “Congress Must Recognize the Need for Psychological Resilience in
and Age of Terrorism.” Families, Systems & Health (March 22, 2004).
****
Typology



Strategies for Enhancing Resilience
Psychological Aspects of Resilience
Public Health
Questions Addressed

Is the United States resilient – how or how not?
No. According to Barnett, “In the wake of the post-9/11 events…it was observed that the
fear generated by terrorist acts in the general population, or the fear experienced from
warnings of a possible imminent attack, often led to behaviors that posed obstacles to our
overall public health/disaster management responses; overwhelmed local emergency rooms,
which lack any significant surge capacity; and, at times, created an eerie sense that our nation
was under siege.”

How can the United States build resilience?
Barnett argues that the popular reaction to 9/11, “as well as the growing concerns within the
government as to how our nation would respond to a terrorist attack utilizing biological,
chemical, or radiological weapons, made it clear that the United States needs to open up a
third front in the war on terror.”
The first two fronts in the war on terror, according to Barnett, are: (1) physical engagement
of terrorist elements, as exemplified by military deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan, and
elsewhere; and (2) domestic efforts aimed at preventing terrorist attacks.
Barnett’s so-called “third front” is “about the fight we all must wage within our own minds.
It is a fight to remain steadfast in our unwillingness to allow fear to rule our lives and to
courageously move forward despite the potential dangers that may lie before us.”
The author argues that the National Resilience Development Act of 2003 (H.R. 3774) is a
blueprint for the third front in the war on terror. Touted as a “direct assault on terrorism
itself,” the NRDA stipulates five goals:
1. Coordinate the efforts of different government agencies in researching,
developing, and implementing programs and protocols designed to increase the
psychological resilience and mitigate distress reactions and maladaptive behaviors of
the American public as they relate to terrorism.
12
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
2. Facilitate the work of the Department of Homeland Security by incorporating
programs and protocols designed to increase the psychological resilience, and
mitigate distress reactions and maladaptive behaviors, of the American public into
the department's efforts in reducing the vulnerability of the United States to
terrorism.
3. Identify effective interventions to the harmful psychosocial consequences of
disasters and integrate these interventions into the United States' plans to mitigate,
plan for, respond to, and recover from potential and actual terrorist attacks.
4. Enable the states and localities to effectively respond to the psychosocial
consequences of terrorism.
5. Integrate mental health and public health emergency preparedness and response
efforts in the United States.
To achieve these goals, the NRDA “requires the establishment of an interagency task force
on national resilience within the Department of Health and Human Services…responsible
for researching and developing resilience-building programs and protocols.”
About the Author
Michael D. Barnett is a physician in Washington, DC. He has been working with the Office of
Congressman Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) since January 2003 on various issues of terrorism,
particularly emergency management, citizen engagement, and social resilience. Dr. Barnett drafted
the only two bills introduced into Congress on resilience and has spoken on numerous occasions on
this topic including two recent NATO Advanced Research Workshops, the National Academy of
Sciences, The Center for Biosecurity, and the National Research Council.
13
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
2) Ben-Dor, Gabriel, et al. The Social Aspect of National Security: The Impact of Terror on
Israeli Society. Unpublished manuscript, 2007.
****
Typology




Concept Definition
Case Studies (Israel)
Societal Resilience
Terrorism (General)
Questions Addressed

What is resilience?
According to the author’s “there are four main social components which constitute the
global concept of “social resilience”: patriotism, optimism, social integration, and trust
(interpersonal trust and trust in political and public institutions). Social resilience is found in
the enduring stability of each of the abovementioned components at a time of terror or
threat. Excessive shifts in each of these social components would reflect an overall low level
of the social resilience of a given society. Hence, in our perspective, there is no basic level in
each of the social components that reflects an ultimate social resilience. Only the delta [i.e.
change] of each of them over time reflects the level of social resilience. In other words, a higher
level of delta in each of these components reflects a low level of social resilience, and vice
versa.”

Is Israeli society resilient – how or how not?
In addition to developing a conceptual definition of resilience, the study also aimed to “test
this conceptual framing by evaluating the impact of fear and terror on the social aspects of
national security in Israel over a number of different points of time during four years of
intense terrorism.”
Data for this test was collected at the National Security Studies Center at the University of
Haifa, utilizing “identical large-scale telephone surveys of a representative sample of the
Israeli adult population. We surveyed approximately 2000 individuals over half-year periods,
from October 2000 to October 2004…All told, there were nine surveys.”
Overall, “the five measurements of societal resilience components displayed a relatively high
level of stability over time.” Specifically, “the high levels as well as relatively consistent
stability of patriotism and optimism throughout the whole period of substantial threat and
numerous terror attacks, reflects a quite impressive social resilience ability from the
perspective of Israeli society.” Nevertheless, “there is reason for caution. The consistent
trend of decline in the levels of trust of Israeli citizens in their public institutions may be the
14
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
first sign of the beginning of an erosion in levels of social resiliency of a society which faces
an ongoing and intractable conflict.”
About the Author
Dr. Gabriel Ben-Dor is a professor in the School of Political Science at the University of Haifa,
Israel.
15
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
3) Bleich, Avi, et al. “Mental Health and Resiliency Following 44 Months of Terrorism: A
Survey of an Israeli National Representative Sample.” Biomed Central Medicine Vol.
4 (August 2006): 21-32.
****
Typology




Case Studies (Israel)
Societal Resilience
Psychological Aspects of Resilience
Terrorism (General)
Questions Addressed

Is Israel resilient – how or how not?
In an attempt to measure the resilience of Israeli society to a sustained period of terrorist
attack, the authors surveyed a representative sample of adults over a period of nearly four
years. The survey consisted of a structured questionnaire of 59 questions measuring “level of
exposure, PTSD symptoms, traumatic stress-related symptoms (TSRS), depression, sense of
safety, optimism, and self-efficacy.” Additionally, the questionnaire measured respondent’s
“anxiety, social support, previous experience with life-threatening events, and physical injury
ensuing from terrorist attacks.”
Analysis of the survey results uncovered the following:
• Being female and being Arab contributed significantly to meeting PTSD symptom criteria,
having more TSR symptoms, and not being traumatic stress (TS) resilient
• Being born in Israel contributed to TS resilience and fewer TSRS
• Optimism about the future of the State of Israel contributed to being TS resilient
• Less education contributed to more TSRS
• Sense of safety contributed to TS resilience and less TSRS
• A life-threatening experience with injury contributed to meeting PTSD criteria and having
more TSR symptoms
• Greater distress about societal problems contributed to more TSRS
• Sense of social support contributed to less TSRS
• A major life event in the previous year contributed to meeting PTSD criteria
16
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
• A substantial loss of income in the past contributed to with meeting symptom criteria for
PTSD and not being TS resilient.
Overall, the author’s conclude that “Israeli society has coped with nearly 4 years of intense
and continuous terror in a mixed manner, and suggests that, aside from possibly fostering
habituation, continuous terror results in erosion of resiliency. The findings also show that
the erosion of resiliency disproportionately affects groups with fewer basic resources,
including the Arab population, the less educated, and immigrants. Finally, our findings
suggest that known vulnerability factors such as gender and exposure to previous traumatic
events contribute to the prediction of terrorism-related distress.”
About the Author
Professor Avi Bleich is Director of the Lev-Hasharon Mental Health Centre and also serves as
Chairman of Psychiatry at the Tel-Aviv University Medical School. His past military career included
becoming Head (Colonel) of the Mental Health Division of the Israel Defense Forces.
17
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
4) Boin, Arjen and Allan McConnell. “Preparing for Critical Infrastructure Breakdowns: The
Limits of Crisis Management and the Need for Resilience.” Journal of Contingencies
and Crisis Management Vol. 15 No. 1 (March 2007).
****
Typology



Strategies for Enhancing Resilience
Societal Resilience
Critical Infrastructure
Questions Addressed

How can societies build societal resilience?
According to the authors, “the enhancement of societal resilience presupposes two necessary
conditions.”
First, “there must be a general awareness that a catastrophe may strike, paralyzing normal
governmental functions and critical infrastructures. If an ‘it couldn’t happen here mentality’
exists, it needs to be challenged. It is true that, in the wake of recent terrorist attacks,
thinking about threats has become increasingly ‘normalized’. Yet, these debates are strongly
focused on terrorism and highly politicized as a result.”
Second, “an investment in resilience should not replace a concern with the basic elements of
any response operation. The following basic response mechanisms should be in place and
work in a more or less autonomous fashion: warning; mobilization; registration; evacuation;
sheltering; emergency medical care and after care; search and rescue; protection of property
and information dissemination. Every crisis and disaster uncovers serious shortcomings with
regard to these basic functions.”
In light of these two considerations, Boin and McConnell suggest the following strategies for
enhanced societal resilience:

Preparing first responders: “these people must be identified and trained to act
independently and effectively in dire circumstances. They must feel capable to operate ‘in
the dark’ – to seize initiative and perform their tasks.”

Business continuity planning: “as the recovery of local businesses is instrumental to
societal resilience, they should be encouraged to develop a business continuity plan. Such
a plan helps organizations think about setting up an emergency operations center, an offsite location for ‘mirror’ operations, off-site IT back-up, and mobile information
gathering units.”
18
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES

Working directly with communities: “Contingency planning and business continuity
plans should be conducted in full consultation with local communities that facilitate an
‘organic’ community response to catastrophe.”

Working with private owners of critical infrastructure: “In most western countries, a
substantial part of the CI landscape is directly or indirectly in private hands…Private
actors should get more incentives to invest in changing management structures, practices
and cultures in order to anticipate, mitigate, and plan for breakdowns and their societal
consequences.”

Joint preparation and training: “Planning and exercising for worst-case scenarios should
be a continuous and joint activity that is valued for the process (not the outcome).”

Training leaders: “Political and organizational leaders need to develop their capacity to
facilitate resilient behavior in times of crisis. As a first step, they must learn to avoid
traditional leadership pathologies in crisis situations. These include: sticking with the
plan; waiting for all facts and figures before making critical decisions; acting as if the
command and control structure still stands; waiting for outside help; spreading
unverified rumors; initiating the ‘blame game’; berating the public and treating the media
as an enemy.”
Finally, the authors identified six barriers to enhancing resilience:






Individual defense mechanisms
Organizational beliefs and rationalizations
Institutional designs for crisis management
Costs of preparation
Governance frameworks
Socio-economic frameworks
About the Authors
Dr. Arjen Boin teaches at the Public Administration Institute at Louisiana State University (Baton
Rouge). He is an adjunct associate professor at Leiden University's Institute of Public
Administration (the Netherlands).
Dr. Allan McConnell is an associate professor at the University of Sydney.
19
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
5) Carafano, James Jay. “Resilience and Public-Private Partnerships to Enhance Homeland
Security.” Backgrounder No. 2150. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation, June
24, 2008.
****
Typology




Concept Definition
Strategies for Enhancing Resilience
Psychological Aspects of Resilience
Societal Resilience
Questions Addressed

What is resilience?
Carafano argues that “‘strategies of resiliency’ means methods for making sure that basic
structures and systems of global, national, and local economies remain strong even after natural
disasters or terrorist attacks. Fundamentally, in the context of terrorism, building a more resilient
society is an effort to prevent and deter.”

How can the United States build resilience?
The author argues that “Congress and the Administration ought to make it easier for the U.S.
government, state and local jurisdictions, and America’s allies to adopt strategies of resiliency.”
In particular, policymakers should promote resiliency by:




Establishing improved public-private models for risk management that define reasonable
roles for government and industry;
Encouraging bilateral cooperation to address liability issues;
Developing national and international forums for increasing collaboration; and
Innovating to pave the way for resilient public infrastructure in the 21st century.
Additionally, Carafano proposes the following “elements of a model strategy of resiliency”:



Communicative Action. “The fundamental goal of a government’s resiliency strategy is
communicative action to reassure the society that its way of life can and will be
maintained despite threats.”
Responding to Risks. “The principal method for organizing a strategy of resiliency is to
determine how to understand and respond to risks.”
Defining Roles. “The key to implementing risk assessments in public-private
partnerships is establishing the appropriate role of each actor in this joint activity.”
Finally, the author suggests two governmental forums for the development of resiliency
strategies. “Both within its borders and with international partners, the United States should
20
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
begin to establish regular forums to promote the resiliency concept, share best practices, and
pave the way for joint action”:


Regional DHS Offices. “These forums could encourage a regional structure for
homeland security that promotes voluntary cooperation among states, local
communities, and the private sector.”
Global Forums. “Internationally, the United States should use existing institutions and
new multinational and bilateral partnerships to create forums on resiliency. NATO’s
Industrial Advisory Group, for example, solicits advice from the defense industry on
how to promote public-private and transnational cooperation on defense issues. This
group or other NATO forums present opportunities to discuss resiliency issues.”
About the Author
Dr. Carafano is Assistant Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for
International Studies and a Senior Research Fellow for National Security and Homeland Security in
the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
21
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
6) Countering International Terrorism: The United Kingdom’s Strategy. Norwich, UK: The
Stationary Office, July 2006.
****
Typology



Strategies for Enhancing Resilience
Case Studies (United Kingdom)
Terrorism (General)
Questions Addressed

How can the United Kingdom build resilience to terrorism?
Beginning in early 2003, the United Kingdom developed a long-term strategy for countering
international terrorism. Known within the UK government as CONTEST, the strategy is
divided into four primary components: PREVENT, PURSUE, PROTECT, and PREPARE.
The PREPARE component is “concerned with ensuring that the UK is as ready as it can be
for the consequences of a terrorist attack.”
According to the document, “achieving this [goal] involves developing the resilience of the
UK to withstand such attacks. This means improving the ability of the UK to respond
effectively to the direct harm caused by a terrorist attack, and in particular to those
individuals affected by it; to recover quickly those essential services which are disrupted by
an attack; and to absorb and minimize wider indirect disruption. We will measure our
success by whether we reduce the impact of terrorist attacks on British citizens and our way
of life.”
Additionally, “A very large number of stakeholders deliver resilience, across the public,
private and voluntary sectors. It is important that all organizations pull in the same direction
if contingency planning is not to be disjointed and inefficient, and if the response to an
emergency is to be as effective as possible. The provision of leadership and direction to the
resilience community, and processes which join-up work at the local, regional and national
levels of government, and between the public, private and voluntary sectors, is thus of
fundamental importance to the PREPARE strand.”
The key elements of PREPARE are: “identifying the potential risks the UK faces from
terrorism and assessing their impact; building the capabilities to respond to them; and
regularly and honestly evaluating and testing our preparedness, including through identifying
lessons from exercises and real-life events.”
About the Author
This document was compiled by the government of the United Kingdom.
22
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
7) Durodie, Bill. “Cultural Precursors and Psychological Consequences of Contemporary
Western Responses to Acts of Terror.” In M. Fizduff and C.E. Stout, eds. The
Psychology of Resolving Global Conflicts. Westport, CT: Praeger Press, 2006, 307326.
****
Typology











Strategies for Enhancing Resilience
Case Studies (various)
Psychological Aspects of Resilience
Societal Resilience
Individual Resilience
Natural Disasters
Chemical Terrorism
Biological Terrorism
Radiological/Nuclear Terrorism
Terrorism (General)
Public Health
Questions Addressed

Is Western society resilient – how or how not?
No. According to Durodie, the resilience of modern society has been negatively impacted by
social disconnectedness and increased risk aversion. These two factors have had a negative
cultural and psychosocial impact that has been exacerbated by ineffective leadership and
institutions.

How can society build resilience?
Durodie offers 14 conclusions about fostering societal resilience:
1. A focus on our own societies’ psychology and culture is a missing element necessary for
understanding both our response to recent acts of terrorism and the particular salience we
attribute to them.
2. More research is required to explore the largely Western origins of antihuman,
antimodern, and anti-Western ideas, as well as how these then become adopted by others.
3. The erosion of social bonds in our society has left a weak, self-centered form of
individualism that may be less capable of withstanding difficulties or of perceiving of a
greater common good or purpose.
23
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
4. A proper understanding of risk perception has to take into account the determining
influence of social factors, such as political disengagement and stasis, as well as being
grounded in scientific evidence.
5. The key asymmetry used by terrorists is that of our respective attitudes toward risk taking.
We must reassert the inevitability of risk in all activity and highlight the fact that without
taking risks nothing can be gained.
6. Government should neither make fatalistic statements about terrorism nor offer the
promise to protect us from all risks. Above all, there should remain a clear distinction
between private intelligence and public information.
7. The public is the primary target of terrorism and, accordingly, the real first responder. Its
attitude and values in advance of such incidents are key to shaping outcomes.
8. People and systems are already resilient. Contrary to popular perception, in an emergency,
the public rarely panics—displaying both rational and prosocial behavior—and vital
processes continue to function.
9. Real resilience is an attitude, or mind-set. It derives from the quiet confidence of having a
broader common purpose, combined with a willingness to judge others and to act when
necessary.
10. Building real resilience requires re-engaging the public in an active sense, building from
their spontaneous cooperative responses, rather than bypassing these using technical means.
11. Technical solutions, when used as an end in themselves—as opposed to a means to a
broader end—can push people apart, promoting mistrust and suspicion and thereby further
corroding social bonds.
12. Counterterrorism strategies and national resilience need to be guided by, and embedded
within, a broader framework of aims and values for the whole of society.
13. There is an urgent need to restore the centrality of a principled and positive political
agenda for society that opposes the use of fear as a vehicle for winning arguments or
building coalitions.
14. Social leaders need to focus society on a broader vision, beyond the immediacy of
terrorism. It is only through this that they may hope to secure real loyalty and active
engagement in achieving their purposes.
About the Author
Dr Bill Durodié is the Senior Fellow coordinating the Homeland Defence research program in the
Centre of Excellence for National Security of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at
the Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He is also an Associate Fellow of the
International Security Program at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House in
24
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
London, and recently completed three years as Senior Lecturer in Risk and Corporate Security in the
Resilience Centre of Cranfield University, part of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom.
25
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
8) Durodie, Bill. “Is Real Resilience Attainable?” The Monitor of the Royal United Services
Institute for Defence Studies Vol. 2 No. 6 (September 2003): 15-19.
****
Typology



Concept Definition
Strategies for Enhancing Resilience
Case Studies (UK)
Questions Addressed

What is resilience?
Durodie disagrees with the UK government’s approach to resilience, which focuses on
increased investment in intelligence and technology as a means to manage risk.
According to the author, “Resilience may be a function of technique and competence, but
ultimately real resilience is about attitude or will. Engendering such an attitude requires a
cultural focus that has rarely been discussed since the events [of 9/11]. It is a qualitative shift
that cannot be quantified in financial terms. Indeed, if we are not careful, the vast sums
being poured into the resilience agenda may simply feed a new bureaucracy, as well as
making us more isolated and insecure.”
Additionally, “many proposed technological solutions seem to make the problem worse
rather than better. This is because encouraging us to be suspicious of others accentuates the
trend towards social atomization, effectively pushing us further apart. Real resilience requires
bringing people together by engaging them in a common purpose, thereby enhancing their
sense of confidence and spirit of camaraderie.”

How can the UK/United States build resilience?
According to Durodie, “Real resilience has four key components: knowing, judging,
engaging and acting. However, these are not as unproblematic as they might appear within
the context of contemporary society.”
Knowing, “The pursuit of knowledge has, in certain circles, become assumed to be both
impossible and a distraction from more immediate, vocational or practical orientations.
Social scientists suggest that there is no single ‘truth’ but rather many ‘truths’. At best, one
can aspire to know oneself, although this too has been problematized. To know where one is
and seeks to be going, let alone aspire to do so for the whole of society, is often seen as
positively dangerous.”
Judging. “We live in remarkably non-judgmental times. Indeed, not to judge the
circumstances, actions and motivations of others is held to be a positive virtue. Yet the
creeping inability to discern, and be able to say that one thing is better than another, may
26
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
ultimately disarm us in our search for real resilience. It is also a remarkable form of selfdenial and self-deception. We live by judging what we do against the alternatives on offer.
Judgment remains the basis for acting as moral, conscious beings. It allows us to push
ourselves and others to improve — succeeding in our aims by transcending or overcoming
circumstances and limitations.”
Engaging. “Engagement in the contemporary world is noticeable by its absence or its very
limited scope. Participation rates in all manner of formal social institutions appear to be in
terminal decline, while at the informal level one can no longer assume a common bond with
others. Critics of the UK government’s approach to civil protection have been quick to
remark the extent to which the public appear to be taken as passive beneficiaries of
enlightened and benevolent state protection. Yet, the solution offered — to engage more
representatives of differing ‘stakeholder’ groups — falls far short of the active engagement
of the population that the Second World War witnessed.”
Acting. “Finally, the will to act is not as strong as one might hope. Indeed, action is
increasingly seen in a negative light today. It is held to lead to unforeseen or unintended
consequences. Thus even when societies do act, as they did in the recent conflict in Iraq, this
is usually based upon a narrow risk calculus that seeks to weigh up the unforeseen
consequences of not acting against the unintended consequences of being too decisive. This
mode of thinking has been formalized through the advent of the so-called ‘precautionary
principle’ that, despite its origins among the liberal-left in relation to science, has been
adopted by those of a more hawkish persuasion in government and the military. These now
speak of the need for pre-emptive action to deal with the dangers of ‘unknown unknowns’
with all the alacrity of the environmental movement.”
About the Author
Dr Bill Durodié is the Senior Fellow coordinating the Homeland Defence research program in the
Centre of Excellence for National Security of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at
the Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He is also an Associate Fellow of the
International Security Program at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House in
London, and recently completed three years as Senior Lecturer in Risk and Corporate Security in the
Resilience Centre of Cranfield University, part of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom.
27
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
9) Durodie, Bill. “Sociological Aspects of Risk and Resilience In Response to Acts of
Terrorism.” World Defence Systems Vol. 7 No. 1 (Spring 2004): 214-216.
****
Typology


Societal Resilience
Terrorism (General)
Questions Addressed

Is the United States resilient – how or how not?
No. According to Durodie, the requisite social bonds for societal resilience “have been
severely eroded over the last decade or so…being more isolated as individuals leaves us
more self-centered, as well as risk averse. In turn, these reduce the likelihood of our acting
for some great common good and make us less resilient, both individually and as a society.”

How can the United States build resilience?
Durodie argues that “If we were to define resilience very roughly as somehow restoring the
status quo ante prior to a severe shock upon society, or at least restoring the general direction
in which we were heading, then the first task that needs to be fulfilled is achieving some sort
of agreement across society as to where we are, and where exactly it is that we are heading.”
Reducing the atomization of society while delineating a common direction “requires people
in positions of authority to agree on a common direction and win others to it. The
reluctance to engage in this fundamentally political process and the clear preference to
concentrate instead upon more technical goals leaves us profoundly ill-equipped for the
future. It may also serve to make matters worse.”
Looking to the future, Durodie argues that “few of the authorities concerned consider it to
be their responsibility to lead in this matter. Nor do they believe such cultural change to be a
realistic possibility. Yet, in the eventuality of a major civil emergency, they hope that the
public will pay attention to the warnings they provide and alter their behavior accordingly.
By then it will be too late.”
About the Author
Dr Bill Durodié is the Senior Fellow coordinating the Homeland Defence research program in the
Centre of Excellence for National Security of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at
the Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He is also an Associate Fellow of the
International Security Program at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House in
London, and recently completed three years as Senior Lecturer in Risk and Corporate Security in the
Resilience Centre of Cranfield University, part of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom.
28
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
10) Flynn, Stephen E. “America the Resilient.” Foreign Affairs (March/April 2008).
****
Typology







Concept Definition
Strategies for Enhancing Resilience
Psychological Aspects of Resilience
Societal Resilience
Individual Resilience
Natural Disasters
Terrorism (General)
Questions Addressed

What is resilience?
Flynn defines resilience as the ability to bounce back, arguing that “resilience results from a
sustained commitment to four factors.” These four factors are:
1) Robustness, “the ability to keep operating or to stay standing in the face of disaster.”
2) Resourcefulness, “skillfully managing a disaster once it unfolds.”
3) Rapid recovery, “the capacity to get things back to normal as quickly as possible after a
disaster.”
4) The means to absorb the new lessons that can be drawn from a catastrophe. “It is foolish
for a society to go right back to business as usual as soon as the dust clears, by, say,
rebuilding homes on floodplains or failing to resolve interoperable communications issues.”

Is the United States resilient – how or how not?
“Resilience has historically been one of the United States’ greatest national strengths…but
this reservoir of self-sufficiency is being depleted. The United States is becoming a brittle
nation. An increasingly urbanized and suburbanized population has embraced just-in-time
lifestyles tethered to ATM machines and 24-hour stores that provide instant access to cash,
food, and gas.”
The author also asserts that the U.S.’ aging infrastructure is compounding the risk of
destruction and disruption.

How can the United States build resilience?
29
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
Flynn argues that enhancing societal resilience “will require presidential leadership…During
the new administration’s first hundred days, it must work with Congress to put in place
programs that help Americans build robustness, achieve resourcefulness, enhance their
ability to recover swiftly, and revise designs and protocols based on lessons learned from
crises.”
Additionally, “The new secretary of homeland security should be charged with transforming
the department’s law enforcement culture, which so far has held citizens and the private
sector at arms length.” DHS must reach out to private entities and task them with taking the
lead in advancing resilience within companies and communities.
Next, the media can play a role in enhancing resilience. Specifically, “Media executives
could…[commit] themselves to relating stories and communicating messages that inform
and inspire individual and societal resilience.”
Finally, Flynn argues that individual American will have to take responsibility for their own
resiliency, taking relatively easy steps, like:



Purchasing a three-day emergency kit;
Developing a family emergency contact plan;
Visiting websites maintained by the Red Cross and other organizations.
According to Flynn, “such efforts can provide real peace of mind and save lives when
disaster strikes.”
About the Author
Stephen E. Flynn is Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the Council
on Foreign Relations and the author of The Edge of Disaster: Rebuilding a Resilient Nation, from which
this article is drawn.
30
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
11) Glass, Thomas A. and Monica Schoch-Spana. “Bioterrorism and the People: How to
Vaccinate a City Against Panic.” Clinical Infectious Diseases Vol. 34 (2002): 217-223.
****
Typology




Strategies for Enhancing Resilience
Biological Terrorism
Terrorism (General)
Public Health
Questions Addressed

What is resilience?
Unlike the vast majority of articles on resilience, the authors did not address concept
definition. Instead, they simply refer to “adaptive behaviors” following a catastrophic event
– specifically, bioterrorist attack.

Is the United States resilient – how or how not?
Using the above definition, the article argues that “although it is not known how the
population will react to an unprecedented act of bioterrorism, experience with natural and
technological disasters and disease outbreaks indicates a pattern of generally effective and
adaptive collective action.”
Given the pattern of effective adaptive behaviors among the general public, the authors
argue that “failure to involve the public as a key partner in the medical and public-health
response could hamper effective management of an epidemic and increase the likelihood of
a social disruption.”

How can the United States build resilience?
The article proposes five guidelines for integrating the public into bioterrorism response
planning:
1) Treat the public as a capable ally in the response to an epidemic.



Recognize that panic is rare and preventable;
Create a positive, constructive role for the general public;
Release timely, accurate public information, including instruction in personal protective
measures.
2) Enlist civic organizations in practical public health activities.
31
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS

ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
Use civic organizations to assist with information dissemination, outbreak monitoring,
and medication distribution.
3) Anticipate the need for home-based patient care and infection control.




Think beyond the hospital for mass-casualty care;
Develop plans for home-based patient care and infection control as part of plans for a
community-wide response to deal with mass casualties;
Involve lay and alternative care providers;
Use family, neighbors, and community groups to identify patients, disseminate
information and therapies and assist affected individuals in obtaining treatment.
4) Invest in public outreach and communications strategies.





Provide information, which is as important as providing medicine;
Plan a health communication strategy that empowers the general public;
Produce multilingual and culturally relevant health information;
Educate the educators, make use of local spokespersons to disseminate information;
Be timely and forthcoming with information about the limits of what is known.
5) Ensure that planning reflects the values and priorities of affected populations.





Assume that the public will not take the pill if it does not trust the doctor;
Educate the public, before an attack, about what is being done to prepare and respond;
Ensure open flows of information during an attack through mass media outlets and
interpersonal exchanges (i.e. town meetings, workshops, chat rooms);
Build nonadversarial relations with the press and respond to media requests for
information;
Create participatory decision-making processes by including the public, especially in
discussions about how to allocate scarce resources and institute epidemic controls that
compromise civil liberties.
About the Author(s)
Thomas A. Glass is an Associate Professor in the Department of Epidemiology at Johns Hopkins
University.
Monica Schoch-Spana, a medical anthropologist, is a Senior Associate with the Center for
Biosecurity of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) and an Assistant Professor in
the School of Medicine Division of Infectious Diseases.
32
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
12) Jackson, Brian A. Marrying Prevention and Resiliency. Washington, DC: The RAND
Corporation, 2008.
****
Typology




Concept Definition
Strategies for Enhancing Resilience
Societal Resilience
Terrorism (General)
Questions Addressed

What is resilience?
Jackson contrasts resiliency with prevention. Whereas prevention measures aim to stop
terrorist attacks from succeeding, “mitigation and resiliency measures are designed to reduce
the impact of a damaging event when it occurs and to make it possible for key
infrastructures, economic activities, and other parts of society to rapidly bounce back.”

How can the United States build resilience?
Jackson proposes a hybrid approach, dubbed “consequence prevention,” that takes
advantage of the relative strengths of both prevention and resilience:
“While traditional prevention measures buy a chance of preventing all damage from
individual attacks by stopping them completely, mitigation and resiliency measures buy a
lower, but more certain payoff; preventing only some of the damage from attacks, but doing
so predictably across the many different ways in which threats might become manifest.”
Using this hybrid approach, “policymakers would not be constrained to only investing more
in intelligence activities to try to eliminate uncertainties or adding layer upon layer of security
in an effort to prevent every attack. Instead, they can assemble combinations of measures
that could perform better than either type alone across a wider variety of future threats. This
makes it possible to take a portfolio approach to homeland security. In a prevention and
mitigation portfolio, some measures would reach for the highest payoff of completely
preventing attacks, while others would provide a more stable protective return by limiting
the damages from any terrorist operation or other event.”
According to Jackson, “similar capabilities-based strategies for hedging uncertain futures
have been pursued in other policy arenas, such as defense planning…these strategies might
save resources as well, for example, if the costs associated with trying to reduce uncertainty
by improving intelligence gathering is high compared with adding mitigation [or resilience]
measures, spending on the latter might provide more protection per dollar invested.”
33
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
Specific means of enhancing resilience include:




Building redundancy into infrastructures and technological systems.
Designing flexibility into organizations’ activities and technologies.
Setting aside resources and capabilities to rapidly repair the damage when an incident occurs.
Improving emergency response and recovery.
As Jackson notes, “Unlike traditional prevention efforts, these measures are not focused
solely on discovering and completely stopping individual attacks, but rather aim to reduce
the amount of destruction, casualties, and psychological impact they would cause.”
About the Author
Brian A. Jackson is a Senior Physical Scientist and currently serves as the Associate Director of
RAND’s Homeland Security research program. Brian holds a Ph.D. in bioinorganic chemistry from
the California Institute of Technology and a Master's degree from George Washington University in
Science, Technology, and Public Policy. Dr. Jackson's research focuses on homeland security and
terrorism preparedness.
34
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
13) Kendra, James and Tricia Wachtendorf. “Elements of Community Resilience in the
World Trade Center Attack.” (Newark, DE: University of Delaware Disaster
Research Center, 2001).
****
Typology






Concept Definition
Strategies for Enhancing Resilience
Case Studies
Societal Resilience
Critical Infrastructure
Terrorism (General)
Questions Addressed

What is resilience?
This paper looks at how New York City handled the destruction of its Emergency
Operations Center (EOC) following the 9/11 attacks and how it reconstituted another
center in a new location. In doing so, the authors utilized the definition of resilience
promulgated by Bruneau and O’Rourke, who conceptualize resilience as having four
characteristics: robustness, redundancy, resourcefulness, and rapidity (see separate summary
for Article 18).
Notably, the authors make a connection between redundancy and resourcefulness that has
not previously been delineated. Specifically, “the WTC case demonstrates that the qualities
of redundancy and resourcefulness are strongly interrelated. Resources, and resourcefulness,
can create redundancies that did not exist previously.”

Is the United States resilient – how or how not?
Clearly the case of New York City’s EOC following 9/11 demonstrates considerable
organizational resiliency – “although the emergency operations center was destroyed, the
emergency management organization was not. Rather, the organization itself exhibited
resilient, adaptive behavior.”

How can the United States build resilience?
The authors offer a number of observations that can be learned from the EOC on 9/11:
1) “Resilience and anticipation are not polar opposites or mutually exclusive characteristics
or states…The case of New York demonstrates that, rather than being conceptually distinct,
anticipation is an integral dimension of resilience.”
35
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
2) “Resilience is achieved by preparing, not for a particular event, but rather for the
maintenance of a range of capabilities.”
3) “Training and preparation remain fundamental, but creative thinking, flexibility, and the
ability to improvise in newly emergent situations are vital.”
About the Author(s)
Dr. James Kendra is an Associate Professor at the University of North Texas focusing on
emergency management.
Dr. Tricia Wachtendorf is a faculty member at the University of Delaware’s Disaster Research
Center.
36
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
14) Kindt, Michael T. Building Population Resilience to Terror Attacks: Unlearned Lessons
from Military and Civilian Experience. Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama: U.S. Air
Force Counterproliferation Center, November 2006.
****
Typology







Concept Definition
Strategies for Enhancing Resilience
Psychological Aspects of Resilience
Societal Resilience
Individual Resilience
Natural Disasters
Terrorism (General)
Questions Addressed

What is resilience?
The author focuses heavily on individual, as opposed to societal, resilience. According to
Kindt, “One key to the development of resilience is having had the experience of being
faced with responsibility in a threat or crisis and successfully managing that crisis. Resilience
does not guarantee that an event will not have an impact on an individual or that person will
never experience distress or difficulty coping. Rather, resilience is the characteristic that
allows one to resume functioning with minimal disruption.”
Kindt then develops a three-level framework for defining a resilient individual:
1) Individual characteristics, to include optimism, self-efficacy, mastery, and coherence.
2) Social ties, noting that “people who are able to ask for and receive support from social
groups such as family, friends, church, or community are more resilient to stress than those
who either cannot seek support or have none available.”
3) Coping strategies/Problem solving skills, to include “stepping back to see the big picture
before rushing to solve a problem, breaking large and potentially overwhelming problems
into more achievable tasks, and taking breaks from the crisis to rest or refocus energy.”

How can the United States build resilience?
Kindt highlights four ways that citizens can build resilience:
1) Build connections with others.
2) Take decisive action during a crisis as a way of reducing the anxiety of indecision.
37
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
3) Keep things in perspective.
4) Avoid seeing crises as too large to be managed.
The author then offers four observations regarding individual behavior in response to a
crisis:
1) “More than the drive to flee to safety, people are motivated by a desire to be with familiar
people and in familiar places, even if this means moving toward the danger.”
2) “People tend to move not toward an objectively safe place but toward people and places
they perceive to be safe.”
3) “Separation from familiar people or places during a disaster may be more disturbing than
the actual physical threat.”
4) “The key to avoiding panic may not be firm social control or discipline but the presence
of familiar people.”
Finally, Kindt offers recommendations for enhancing societal resilience:
1) “The Homeland Security Advisory System (HSAS) should be significantly revised or
abandoned. The most constructive revision to the HSAS would be the elimination of general
nationwide threat level changes in favor of more specific alerts targeted at specific regions or
industries.”
2) “Existing programs in the Citizen Corps must be maximized to capitalize on their
potential for success. These programs should be re-energized and proper metrics established
to track their progress and success.”
3) “The Department of Homeland Security, along with other national leaders, should work
to communicate more directly to the population regarding why and how they should be
prepared.”
4)“Finally, new efforts that have been initiated, such as the National Resilience Development
Act and the new Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) program, should
be supported so that new tools and techniques for enhancing resilience can be developed
and disseminated to ensure that all Americans can maximize their ability to respond to
disaster.”
About the Author
Dr. Michael Kindt is currently the Deputy Director of the USAF Counterproliferation Center, and
adjunct professor at the Air War College.
38
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
15) Maguire, Brigit and Patrick Hagan. “Disasters and Communities: Understanding Social
Resilience.” The Australian Journal of Emergency Management Vol. 22 No. 2 (May
2007): 16-20.
****
Typology


Concept Definition
Societal Resilience
Questions Addressed

What is resilience?
Defining resilience in a macro-level context, the authors argue that “social resilience is the
capacity of social groups and communities to recover from, or respond to, crises…more
specifically, social resilience is understood as having three properties comprising aspects of
how people respond to disasters: resistance, recovery, and creativity.”
Resistance “relates to a community’s efforts to withstand a disaster and its consequences.
Resistance is the distance between the community’s pre-disaster level of functioning and a
threshold beyond which the community would be unable to return to its usual state.”
Recovery “relates to a community’s ability to ‘pull through’ the disaster…Recovery can be
understood in terms of the time taken for a community to recover from a disruption.”
According to the authors, “an optimal recovery involves not just returning to an initial
equilibrium point. Rather, by adapting to new circumstances and learning from the disaster
experience, higher levels of functioning can be attainted. This is the property of creativity.”
Each of these properties are represented in the figure below:

Is the United States resilient – how or how not?
39
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
While not specifically commenting on U.S. resiliency, the authors do propose a set of metrics
to aid in this determination. The authors highlight several indicators of social resilience or
“factors that predict higher [or lower] levels of resilience” that have been proposed in the
relevant professional literature, to include: trust, leadership, collective efficacy, social capital,
social cohesion and sense of community, community involvement, existing
norms/attitudes/values, communication and information, and resource dependency.

How can the United States build resilience?
The authors make a point of highlighting the multi-faceted nature of social resilience.
Specifically, “groups may differ in terms of their socio-economic status, their degree of
geographic isolations, or vulnerability to psychological trauma. These group differences may
mean that different groups within the one society can be more or less resilient to a disaster.”
Thus, “in order to truly understand the social impacts of disasters, and to manage and
prevent adverse consequences, we must understand the impacts of disasters on particular
groups.”
The article also recommends incorporating disaster management principles into resilience
strategies. In particular, the authors note that “disaster management professionals describe
the process of human reaction to disasters as cyclical, having four phases: mitigation,
preparedness, response, and recovery…The greatest improvements in social resilience will
be achieved when all four stages of the disaster process are considered in emergency
management planning.”
Finally, the authors highlight the importance of recognizing “the innate nature of social
resilience.” Specifically, “research into human reaction to disaster has overwhelmingly
recognized that resilience in response to disaster is much more common than suggested by
the media, and ‘mass trauma may not necessarily be a given.’” To be effective, resiliency
plans need to build on the capacities arising from naturally emergent social resilience.
About the Author(s)
Brigit Maguire is a research scientist at Defense Science and Technology Organization (DSTO),
working as part of the Crisis Management Improvement (CMI) team.
Dr. Patrick Hagan works for DTSO as part of the CMI team. He holds a PhD in experiment social
psychology and currently leads the CMI team’s research program on social resilience.
40
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
16) Marshall, Randall D., et al. “The Psychology of Ongoing Threat: Relative Risk
Appraisal, the September 11 Attacks, and Terrorism-Related Fears.” American
Psychologist Vol. 62 No. 4 (May-June 2007): 304-316.
****
Typology





Strategies for Enhancing Resilience
Psychological Aspects of Resilience
Individual Resilience
Terrorism (General)
Public Health
Questions Addressed

What is resilience?
The authors utilize a traditional definition of psychological resilience to traumatic stress.
Building on this concept, they study the onset of post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD) –
an indicator of poor individual resilience – following a terrorist attack.
Traditional theories explaining the onset of PTSD maintain that geographic proximity to a
traumatic event correlates directly with the likelihood of PTSD. However, as demonstrated
by 9/11 – a terrorist attack that was mediated by continual media coverage saturating the
airwaves – geographic proximity to a traumatic event is less of a factor in explaining PTSD
onset.
The authors argue that “relative risk appraisal may explain the relationship between media
exposure and symptomatic response [i.e. PTSD] among those indirectly affected by the
attacks.”
According to the authors, “the function of risk appraisal for an organism is to determine a
response to the environmental event or situation…we use the term relative risk appraisal
because it emphasizes the comparative process through which an environmental event is
appraised in relation to prior experiences and risk expectations.” Additionally, “relative risk
appraisal highlights the core notion from cognitive science that human perception is an
active, multidimensional process, such that for unpredictable societal threats, proximity to
the event is only one of several factors that influence behavioral responses.”

Is the United States resilient – how or how not?
The authors found that “consistent with the previous decade of literature, that the majority
of people showed resilience after the 9/11 attacks, even in the greater New York area.”
Their model focuses on those who do not show resilience, with relatively low exposure to
41
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
the event itself or purely indirect exposure to images of the event, amplified many-fold by
the post-appraisal media fear mongering.

How can the United States build resilience?
Addressing distortions in relative risk appraisal effectively could reduce individual and
societal vulnerability to a wide ranger of adverse economic and ethnopolitical consequences
to terrorist attacks.
According to the authors, distortions in relative risk appraisal could be addressed using 6
steps: (1) clarification of the patient’s beliefs; (2) questioning the validity of the beliefs; (3)
motivational interviewing; (4) in vivo exposure and behavioral experiments; (5) explicit
acknowledgment of living with uncertainty; and (6) encouraging conscious decisions about
relative risk appraisal and personal values, or acceptance of circumstances beyond one’s
control.
About the Author
Randall D. Marshall, MD, is Director of Trauma Studies and Services for the New York State
Psychiatric Institute, New York State Office of Mental Health; and Associate Professor of Clinical
Psychiatry, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. Dr. Marshall has expertise in
the diagnosis and treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and has studied and written
about the role of psychological trauma in anxiety disorders, psychotherapy of traumatized
individuals, and the biology of PTSD.
42
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
17) Mawson, Anthony R. “Understanding Mass Panic and Other Collective Responses to
Threat and Disaster.” Psychiatry Vol. 68 No. 2 (Summer 2005): 95-113.
****
Typology





Strategies for Enhancing Resilience
Psychological Aspects of Resilience
Societal Resilience
Terrorism (General)
Public Health
Questions Addressed

What is resilience?
Mawson does not focus directly on the concept of resilience, choosing instead to address
ways of predicting and understanding collective responses to threat as an indicator of
resilience.

Is the United States resilient – how or how not?
As the article notes, “until recently, mass panic was thought to be the natural response to
physical danger and perceived entrapment. However, contrary to the ‘panic’ or social
breakdown model of collective behavior, the typical response to a variety of threats and
disasters is not to flee or attack but rather affiliation, that is, to seek the proximity of familiar
persons and places; moreover, separation from attachment figures is a greater stressor than
physical danger.”
This observation leads Mawson to propose “an alternative, ‘social attachment’ model of
behavior that recognizes the fundamentally gregarious nature of human beings and the
primacy of attachments.” The social attachment model consists of a four-fold typology that
encompasses a wide spectrum of collective responses to threat and disaster, crossreferencing perceived degree of physical dangers with the location of attachment figures to
develop four possible responses: (1) affiliation; (2) orderly evacuation by non-residents; (3)
evacuation by community residents; and (4) intense flight and affiliation.

How can the United States build resilience?
According to Mawson, “close personal relationships strongly determine individual and
collective responses to threat, but the policy implications of the social attachment model for
public health and safety remain largely unexplored…These findings need to be incorporated
into new models of health education and promotion so that community ties and strengths
can be actively harnessed by public health and other governmental agencies to prepare and
respond more effectively to future disasters and possible terrorist attack.”
43
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
About the Author
Dr. Anthony R. Mawson is Professor of Public Health and Director of the Institute of
Epidemiology and Health Services Research at Jackson State University.
44
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
18) Mueller, John. “Reacting to Terrorism: Probabilities, Consequences, and the Persistence
of Fear.” Paper prepared for presentation at the National Convention of the
International Studies Association. Chicago, IL: February 26-March 4, 2007.
****
Typology




Psychological Aspects of Resilience
Societal Resilience
Individual Resilience
Terrorism (General)
Questions Addressed

What is resilience?
Mueller does not specifically address the concept of resilience. Instead, he focuses on one
variable that has a direct impact on the resilience of individuals and society, particularly
following a terrorist attack – fear.
Specifically, Mueller analyzes (1) the process by which terrorism and risk are measured; (2)
the fears and behavioral consequences it creates and nourishes; and (3) the potential longterm persistence of these fears.

Is the United States resilient – how or how not?
Mueller argues that the United States has greatly exaggerated the risks of international
terrorism.
Focusing only on violence committed by Muslim extremists outside of such war zones as
Iraq, Israel, Chechnya, Sudan, Kashmir, and Afghanistan, the total number of people killed
in the five years since 9/11 comes to about 1,000 – roughly 200 per year. According to
Mueller, “That, of course, is 1,000 too many, but it hardly constitutes a major threat, much
less an existential one, to countries in Europe and North America. For comparison: over the
same period far more people have drown in bathtubs in the United States alone…Thus,
unless international terrorists become far more capable, the danger they present, particularly
to people living outside war zones, remains exceedingly small.”
Nevertheless, “polls suggest that people remain concerned about becoming the victims of
terrorism, and the degree of worry doesn’t seem to have changed much in the half-decade
since the 2001 attacks even though no terrorism whatsoever has taken place in the country
since that year.”
45
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
The result of this exaggeration is a level of fear in society that is disproportionate to the
actual threat of being killed in a terrorist attack. Mueller argues that this latent fear could be
debilitating in three ways:
(1) Irrational fear “can cause people routinely to adopt skittish, overly risk-averse behavior,
at least for a while, and this can much magnify the impact of the terrorist attack, particularly
economically.”
(2) “Fear and anxiety can have negative health consequences.” For example, one study found
that Israeli women who reported being fearful of terrorism “had twice as high a level of an
enzyme that correlates with heart disease, compared with their less fearful compatriots.
Another example of the negative health impact of fear is Chernobyl. According to Mueller,
“it has been found that the largest health consequences came not from the accident itself,
but from the negative and often life-expectancy reducing impact on the mental health of
people traumatized by relocation and by lingering, and greatly exaggerated, fears that they
would soon die of cancer.”
(3) Finally, “fears about terrorism tend to create a political atmosphere that makes it be, or
appear to be, politically unwise, or even politically impossible, to adopt temperate, measured
policies.” Specifically, fearful people demand more laws and harsher penalties, regardless of
the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of these efforts.
How can the United States build resilience?
Reducing fears that have already become ingrained throughout American society will be very
difficult. Mueller cites the opinion that “attempts to reduce fear by emphasizing the low
likelihood of another terrorist attack are unlikely to be successful.” Rather, the best approach
may be to alter the public’s focus by simply discussing something else and to let time do the
rest. However, while “this is a plausible solution” experience suggests “that it may take a
great deal of time for this to come about.”
About the Author
John Mueller is the Woody Hayes Chair of National Security Studies at the Mershon Center and
Professor of Political Science at Ohio State University.
46
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
19) Norris, Fran H., et al. “Community Resilience as a Metaphor, Theory, Set of Capacities,
and Strategy for Disaster Readiness.” American Journal of Community Psychology
Vol. 41 (2008): 127-150.
****
Typology








Concept Definition
Strategies for Enhancing Resilience
Psychological Aspects of Resilience
Societal Resilience
Individual Resilience
Critical Infrastructure
Natural Disasters
Terrorism (General)
Questions Addressed

What is resilience?
According to the authors, “community resilience is a process linking a network of adaptive
capacities (resources with dynamic attributes) to adaptation after a disturbance or adversity.”
Furthermore, community resilience “emerges from four primary sets of adaptive capacities:”
1) Economic development: resource volume, diversity, and equity.
2) Social capital: networked structures and linkages, social support, and community bonds,
roots, and commitments.
3) Information and communication: infrastructure, trusted sources of information,
development of a shared community narrative, and a responsible media.
4) Community competence: collective action and individual efficacy.

How can the United States build resilience?
The authors propose five steps to increasing societal resilience:
1) “To increase their resilience to disaster, communities must develop economic resources,
reduce risk and resource inequities, and attend to their areas of greatest social vulnerability.”
2) “To access social capital, once of the primary resource of any community, local people
must be engaged meaningfully in every step of the mitigation process.”
47
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
3) “Pre-existing organizational networks and relationships are the key to rapidly mobilizing
emergency and ongoing support services for disaster survivors.”
4) “Interventions are needed that boost and protect naturally-occurring social support in the
aftermath of disasters.”
5) “Communities must plan, but they must also plan for not having a plan; this means that
communities must exercise flexibility and focus on building effective and trusted information
and communications resources that function in the face of unknowns.”
About the Author
Fran H. Norris, PhD, is a Research Associate of the Executive Division of the National Center for
PTSD in White River Junction, Vermont, and Research Professor in the Department of Psychiatry
at Dartmouth Medical School. She has published over 100 articles and chapters and has been the
recipient of a number of grants for research, research education, and professional development from
the National Institute of Mental Health.
48
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
20) O’Rourke, T.D. “Critical Infrastructure, Interdependencies, and Resilience.” The
Bridge – Journal of the National Academy of Engineering Vol. 37 No. 1 (Spring
2007): 22-29.
****
Typology


Concept Definition
Critical Infrastructure
Questions Addressed

What is resilience?
Approaching the question of resiliency from an engineering standpoint – focused largely on
critical infrastructure – the author defines resilience as having four “infrastructural qualities”:
1) Robustness: “the inherent strength or resistance in a system to withstand external
demands without degradation or loss of functionality.”
2) Redundancy: “system properties that allow for alternate options, choices, and
substitutions under stress.”
3) Resourcefulness: “the capacity to mobilize needed resources and services in emergencies.”
4) Rapidity: “the speed with which disruption can be overcome and safety, services, and
financial stability restored.”
Expounding on what he refers to as “the human dimension,” O’Rourke notes that
“community resilience is [also] expressed in the organizations responsible for lifeline systems
and in the communities that receive services and resources from them. Community
characteristics have a significant effect on resilience, especially the levels of vulnerability and
preparedness.” Furthermore, “average income, economic growth, level of awareness, and
local politics, for example, have significant repercussions on critical infrastructure and
disaster preparedness.”

How can the United States build resilience?
O’Rourke proposes a four-fold approach to promoting resilience in society and critical
infrastructure:
1) Awareness. “Resilience requires public concern about disasters and the operation of
critical infrastructure, which, in turn, requires public education.” O’Rourke identifies public
schools, science museums, and research centers as “ideally suited to raising awareness of
scientific and engineering issues with children and their families,” in addition to journalists
and the news media.
49
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
2) Leadership. According to the author, “leadership is, perhaps, the most critical factor in
promoting resilience, and also the least predictable. However, we know that effective leaders
require good advice. Thus the engineering and scientific community must be prepared to
communicate accurate, timely information to government officials.”
3) Planning. “Planning for emergencies requires drills and emergency response exercises,
which can reveal weaknesses and lead to improvements in operations. The plan that emerges
from any particular exercise, however, is not as important as the planning process itself,
because as soon as a disaster unfolds, the reality of the event diverges from the features of
even a meticulously designed plan. With good planning, however, emergency managers and
lifeline operators can improvise, and skilled improvisation enables emergency responders to
adapt to field conditions.”
4) Resource Allocation. “Constructing and sustaining critical infrastructure requires both
adequate financial resources and a long-term commitment to finishing complex projects.”
About the Author
T.D. O’Rourke is the Thomas R. Briggs Professor of Engineering at Cornell University.
50
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
21) Report of the Critical Infrastructure Task Force. Washington, DC: Homeland Security
Advisory Council, January 2006.
****
Typology







Concept Definition
Strategies for Enhancing Resilience
Psychological Resilience
Critical Infrastructure
Natural Disasters
Global Catastrophic Events
Terrorism (General)
Questions Addressed

What is resilience?
The Critical Infrastructure Task Force (CITF) concluded that “[Critical Infrastructure
Protection (CIP)], in isolation, is a brittle strategy. We cannot protect every potential target
against every conceivable attack; we will never eliminate all vulnerabilities. Furthermore, it is
virtually impossible to define a desired endstate – to quantify how much protection is
enough – when the goal is to eliminate vulnerabilities.”
In contrast to CIP, the CITF developed the term critical infrastructure resilience (CIR) “not
as a replacement for CIP; but rather an integrating objective designed to foster systems-level
investment strategies. Adoption of CIR as the goal provides a readily quantifiable objective –
identifying the time required to restore full functionality.”
Within the concept of CIR, the CITF defined resilience as “the capability of a system to
maintain its functions and structure in the face of internal and external change and to degrade
gracefully when it must.”
Of particular note, the CITF report recognizes the complementary role of psychological
resilience in CIR: “Ultimately, the ability of critical infrastructures to fully recover from a
catastrophe depends of the actions of their customers. Thus education initiatives designed to
build ‘psychological resilience’ – i.e., to help customers/citizens adapt to the changing
security climate – should be key components of a national strategy for CIR.”

Is the United States resilient – how or how not?
Up to this point, the U.S. has not focused on resilience. The CITF concluded that policies
and strategies focusing on achieving resilience would be more robust than current guidance,
which focuses primarily on protection. Indeed, while protection is a necessary component of
resilience, resilience is not an inevitable outcome of strategies that focus on protection.
51
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
Appendix D of the CITF report proposes a methodology for assessing infrastructure
resilience, verifying resilience, and quantifying the required investment in resilience.

How can the United States build resilience?
The CITF concluded that, “a future focus on resilience would establish a more appropriate
basis for risk-based decisionmaking.” Accordingly, six recommendations were put forward:
(1) Promulgate critical infrastructure resilience (CIR) as the top-level strategic objective – the
desired outcome – to drive national policy and planning.
(2) Align policy and implement directives for risk-based decisionmaking with the CIR
objective within the broad context of the homeland security mission.
(3) Create a framework of cascading national goals flowing from the top-level CIR objective.
(4) Establish and institutionalize proactive mechanisms to ensure that critical infrastructure
policy and planning guidance continually evolves.
(5) Establish a governance structure that supports the diversity of stakeholders within and
among sectors, as well as the realities of infrastructure placement and operation within
communities.
(6) Establish an information-sharing regime explicitly linked to critical infrastructure
resiliency goals and governance – but integrated within an enterprise-wide information
architecture.
About the Author
CITF members included leading government officials, academics, and private industry
representatives.
52
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
22) Speckhard, Anne. “Civil Society’s Response to Mass Terrorism: Building Resilience.” In
Rohan Gunaratna, ed. Combating Terrorism: Military and Nonmilitary Strategies.
Singapore: Eastern Universities Press, 2004.
****
Typology










Concept Definition
Strategies for Enhancing Resilience
Case Studies
Psychological Aspects of Resilience
Societal Resilience
Individual Resilience
Chemical Terrorism
Biological Terrorism
Terrorism (General)
Public Health
Questions Addressed

What is resilience?
The author begins the article by arguing that terrorism is primarily a psychological weapon.
Accordingly, building psychological resilience to terror must be a central part of the overall
societal resilience strategy.

Is the United States resilient – how or how not?
Speckhard takes issue with the common expectation of societal panic following a terrorist
attack, arguing that “on the contrary strangers reach out and help one another, panic and
breakdown of civil society is rare. Society often in fact becomes more civil in times of crisis.
In the face of mass disasters, even terror attacks, social cohesion increases rather than
decreases.” The author cites four case studies to support her assertion: 9/11, the Chernobyl
nuclear accident, the Dubrovka theater attack in Moscow, and the February 2004 Moscow
subway bombings.

How can the United States build resilience?
Speckhard proposes a strategy that emphasizes the following:
(1) Prepackaged communications that emphasize truth, clarity, and calm:
The author argues that building and implementing an effective communications plan is key
to preventing negative psychological and societal reactions to terrorist attack. According to
Speckhard:
53
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
“this requires prepackaging communication – having sound bites ready to roll. We must
anticipate the threats and do three things – build trust in those who will be speakers now,
give out anticipatory information beforehand, and be ready to repeat it again later…If sound
bites and experts to deliver these sound bites are prepared now, and relationships are built
with the media beforehand, the governmental and non-governmental organizations that have
done their homework can be ready to give calm and truly reassuring messages to the
population if need be in a terror attack.”
The author then highlights the following elements of strategic communication aimed at
increasing resilience: calms fears with clear information; gives comprehensible assessments
of the risks; and clearly outline roles that the citizenry can take-on in terms of civil
responsibility.
(2) Advanced planning for heightened fear following a biological terrorist attack:
Speckhard notes that “people especially fear lethal threats that they cannot clearly see nor
clearly protect themselves from.” Accordingly, Speckhard argues that “government and civil
society must prepare for, think through and agree as much as possible beforehand about
strategies of how much power should be given to government to quarantine individuals and
even large groups of people to prevent contagion, should such a situation arise.”
(3) Quieting rather than ratcheting-up fears:
“Fears are unavoidable after a crisis, what is avoidable is ratcheting-up the fears. Ambiguous
statements about looming dangers are anxiety-producing for citizens who have undergone
attack and in fact sensitize rather than reduce fears.”
(4) Dealing with psychogenic illness:
“In nearly all chemical and radioactive accidents or attacks…many more persons than those
actually exposed overwhelmed the medical community with anxious desires to be checked
for potential exposure…In the immediate aftermath of a chemical or radiological attack,
non-medically trained volunteers can be equipped to staff triage units at hospitals and help
to calm fears while sorting through who needs to be seen today, who can be given an
appointment to be seen in a few days, and who can reasonably be sent home to be seen in a
week or two.”
(5) Encouraging the use of natural coping resources:
“In terms of natural coping resources to deal with the traumatic stress of terror attacks, it is
clear that people want to talk after such events…Trying to discourage it – telling people to
stay home or off the phones – when it is really not necessary to do so only creates a situation
that blocks their natural means of coping.”
(6) Preventing a derailment of the political process:
54
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
“Civil society must come to some means of preserving the integrity of the electoral process
in the face of [terrorist] attacks, perhaps by agreeing ahead of time to freeze campaigning for
a period of time to allow recovery and public debate and maintaining or rescheduling
elections as necessary.”
(7) Protecting against the loss of cherished values and civil liberties:
“Included in the challenges of combating terrorism are the potential compromises and loss
of civil liberties that can occur when terrorists exploit liberal democracies. In order to defend
themselves, governments begin to constrict the normally taken-for-granted spheres of liberty
for which democracies are known…Civil society must find ways to combat terrorism
without sacrificing the values for which it stands; as to do so is to lose the battle.”
(8) Battling ethnic divides and the “clash of civilizations”:
“Given the nearly immediate assumption in many regions of Europe and in U.S. that terror
attacks in these regions have been sponsored by groups linked to Islamic militancy…it is
also important for the immediate communication by government and nongovernmental
groups to dispel such assumptions until they are proved or disproved and to take careful
heed of alienating Islamic populations who have nothing to do with terrorism.”
About the Author
Dr. Anne Speckhard is an Adjunct Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Georgetown University
Medical Center and a Professor of Psychology at Vesalius College, Free University of Brussels.
55
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
23) Speckhard, Anne. “Prevention Strategies and Promoting Psychological Resilience to
Bioterrorism Through Communication.” In M.S. Green, J. Zenilman and D. Cohen,
eds. Risk Assessment and Risk Communication Strategies in Bioterrorism
Preparedness: Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Risk
Assessment and Risk Communication in Bioterrorism, Held in Ein-Gedi, Israel,
June 2005. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 2007.
****
Typology









Strategies for Enhancing Resilience
Psychological Aspects of Resilience
Societal Resilience
Individual Resilience
Chemical Terrorism
Biological Terrorism
Radiological/Nuclear Terrorism
Terrorism (General)
Public Health
Questions Addressed

What is resilience?
Viewing WMD terrorism (particularly bioterror) as a primarily psychological weapon,
Speckhard conceptualizes resilience as the avoidance of widespread panic among larger civil
society.

Is the United States resilient – how or how not?
When planning for a response to terrorist attacks, “we must acknowledge that our citizenry
is far more resilient than they are often given credit for. The common view espoused by
government officials and policymakers is an expectation that people will panic in the face of
a mass terrorist event and that chaos will ensue. Experience with terrorism does not bear
that out.”
Rather than panic, “total strangers help each other, open their homes, volunteer their
resources, and risk their lives to help each other. Society actually becomes more civil during
times of disaster as social cohesion increases rather than decreases under threat.” For
example, Speckhard cites 9-11, where evacuations were orderly and without panic.
Additional examples of post-disaster level-headedness include: Chernobyl, the Madrid train
bombings, the Moscow subway bombings, and the London bombings. Notably, “even under
the sustained and intense terrorist threat such as what has occurred in Israel during the
second intifada, we witness that the majority of the population there has habituated to the
threat.”
56
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
However, “while this is true of terrorism that involves bombs and destruction, we know less
about societal responses to bioterrorism and we may find out that the lessons learned from
one type of terrorism may not transfer as well to another. We still have not studied well the
potential effects of a mass bioterrorism event in which the dread caused by the spread of an
invisible, contagious, and potentially lethal pathogen may be horrendous and in fact lead to
less resilient responses.” Speckhard notes the possibility of mass psychogenic illness
following an attack with an invisible agent.

How can the United States build resilience?
Speckhard argues that resilience can best be achieved through effective crisis
communication. According to the author, “Terrorists’ goals are to spread horror on behalf
of their political cause and they reach their goal of maximum psychological impact through
their manipulation of the mass media. The media…generally responds within minutes of any
terror attack and coverage begins immediately…it is at this moment that governments can
make or fail to make crucial interventions to the resiliency of civil society – by what they
communicate or fail to communicate.”
Following a terrorist attack, “it is wise if government has prepared ahead of time who will
speak and given some thought not only to the facts that must be relayed, but also to that
how the message is relayed is often as important as the message itself.” Speckhard
specifically identifies calm and truthfulness as the most important elements of crisis
communications.
Additionally, “government decisions [as to] when and what to tell, regarding attempts to
contain the threat using quarantine strategies, whether or not to take action in a bioterrorism
attack during the period of incubation when there are still no casualties, how to educate now
and during the crisis, decisions about putting resources into the public health system, making
sure medicines and vaccinations are available and dispersed fairly – these are all public policy
issues that should be ethically addressed well ahead of time. Active public participation in
such plans creates a societal investment in carrying them out. If this work has not been done
ahead of time, it may result in less compliant, less cohesive and less resilience responses to
terrorist threats.”
Finally, in post-disaster scenario, Speckhard emphasized the following three considerations:
(1) psychological triage for acute posttraumatic stress; (2) support for vulnerable populations;
and (3) maintaining civil liberties in the face of a threat.
About the Author
Ann Speckhard is Adjunct Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Georgetown University Medical
Center and Professor of Psychology, Vesalius College, Free University of Brussels.
57
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
24) Suedfeld, Peter. “Reactions to Societal Trauma: Distress and/or Eustress.” Political
Psychology Vol. 18 No. 4 (December 1997): 849-861.
****
Typology




Case Studies
Psychological Aspects of Resilience
Societal Resilience
Individual Resilience
Questions Addressed

What is resilience?
Instead of focusing on resilience in response to disaster, the author chose to examine the
catalyst that triggers resilience – traumatic stress.
For the study, traumatic stress is defined as “an experience that invalidates one’s normal
assumptions of order, predictability, safety, and identity, a very severe environmental
challenge calling for the utmost energization of coping resources.”
Contrary to popular belief, traumatic events are not outside the range of normal experience.
Just the opposite, “traumas and disasters affect hundreds of thousands every year” and range
from terrorism to earthquakes.
Notably, “stressful situations could also be, and often are, perceived as challenges. In such
cases, meeting them successfully is a source of self-esteem, pride, and greater ability to cope
with future stressors, all of which can make for ‘good,’ or eustress.”

Is the United States resilient – how or how not?
From the outset, this study “argues that communities – live individuals – are generally
resilient and hardy. They are able to cope with widespread danger and disaster, to maintain
rational and adaptive problem-solving behaviors, and even to use the experience as a source
of renewed strength.” As evidence for his argument, the author cites reactions to the Great
Plague of the 14th century, the aerial bombardment of cities in World War II, and the
adjustment of Holocaust survivors and the Southeast Asian Boat People.

How can the United States build resilience?
While there has been relatively few systematic, quantitative studies on how different groups
respond positively to traumatic stress, some common parallels from the historical case
studies have emerged. These include: persistence of rational problem-solving, attempts to
maintain as much personal control as possible, a prevalence of self-control, and seeking
58
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
social support. Additionally, “humor surfaces both during and after the traumatic experience,
in such unpropitious places as POW camps in North Korea.”
According to the author, “supportive and cooperative behavior is much more the norm, and
disorganized panic much more the exception [and] long-term psychiatric disability is
unusual… the bottom line is that people most commonly put their lives together again and
move ahead, many citing greater strength, insight, altruism, and sense of purpose as
consequences of their traumatic experience. It is high time that social and behavioral
scientists increase their attention to these encouraging phenomena.”
About the Author
Peter Suedfeld is Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of British Columbia.
59
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
25) Tanielian, Terri L. and Bradley D. Stein. “Understanding and Preparing for the
Psychological Consequences of Terrorism.” In The McGraw Hill Homeland Security
Handbook, ed. David G. Kamien, 689-701. New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 2006.
****
Typology




Strategies for Enhancing Resilience
Psychological Aspects of Resilience
Individual Resilience
Terrorism (General)
Questions Addressed

What are the psychological consequences of terrorism as a factor affecting resilience?
According to the authors, those directly affect by terrorism “may experience a wide range of
emotional and behavioral consequences that include PTSD, a psychiatric disorder
characterized by persistent flashbacks or nightmares, extreme irritability or jumpiness, and
emotional numbing or avoidance of reminders of trauma. Others may develop other anxiety
disorders, depression, and problems with substance use, as well as symptoms that do not
meet the criteria for PTSD.”

Who will most probably be affected?
Tanielian and Stein argue that “individuals most likely to be affected, psychologically and
behaviorally, by a terrorist event include those who were injured, those who were present or
nearby, those (such as first responders) who were expose to trauma as a result of their
attempts to help victims, and those (such as vulnerable populations) who were already at risk
of developing psychological symptoms.”

How can the United States build psychological resilience?
“Although additional research on preparedness and response is still needed, the studies
conducted so far have found that after terrorist events, community-oriented responses (such
as those aimed at and based on existing community relationships) have been instrumental in
managing psychological consequences.”
“Overall strategies for preparing the public and the appropriate resources to respond to
large-scale traumatic events can be organized according to specific populations (e.g., victims,
responders, vulnerable groups) and according to phases of the event (pre-event, acute,
postevent, long-term post-event.” Response strategies can be further divided into two
categories with distinct but overlapping goals: (1) to provide immediate psychological
management to allow for effective public health and emergency response strategies; and (2)
to reduce both short-term and long-term psychological morbidity.
60
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
Additionally, the authors offer the following recommendations for improving U.S. resilience
and disaster response:
(1) Traditional disaster response strategies have usually been implemented by trained mental
health professional who are available to those requesting them (American Red Cross,
FEMA). However, this approach needs to be adapted and applied to other populations that
may not be included in the traditional emergency response system, specifically those who are
not identified as needing such services and those than may not feel comfortable about
coming forward for help.
(2) The ability of the U.S. to respond to the psychological consequences of terrorism
depends on the availability of effective interventions. This requires reliable tools and
strategies for assessing symptoms in different affected populations, and for distinguishing
between individuals who are likely to recover and those who will require more intense
interventions. There is currently no universally applicable strategy. Experts in mental health
following a disaster should design and evaluate clinical interventions such as psychotherapy,
medication, and counseling to ensure the delivery of effective care at the right time and by
the right person. These strategies involve advance planning and involve several key
stakeholders.
(3) In a post-disaster scenario, key contributors to any response strategy should be: mental
health specialists (social workers, psychologists, and psychiatrists), informal care providers
and community organizations (teachers, supervisors, and faith-based organizations). The
participation of these individuals will be critical to all phases of planning for preparedness at
the local and state level. In the planning phases, such individuals can help devise appropriate
strategies for communicating about risk, can help develop educational materials that are
sensitive to risk perception, and can help train and educate emergency response personnel.
About the Author
Terri L. Tanielian is a Senior Research Analyst and Associate Director for Mental and Behavioral
Health at RAND’s Center for Domestic and International Health Security.
Bradley D. Stein is a Natural Scientist and Associate Director for Mental and Behavioral Health at
RAND’s Center for Domestic and International Health Security.
61
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
26) Vasu, Norman. “Grace in Times of Friction: The Complexity of Social Resilience.” RSIS
Commentaries No. 72 (2007).
****
Typology



Concept Definition
Strategies for Enhancing Resilience
Societal Resilience
Questions Addressed

What is resilience?
The author begins by noting a simple definition of societal resilience: “the capacity of society
to absorb shocks and bounce back to a functioning condition as rapidly as possible.”
From this baseline, the author argues that “the elements constituting social resilience are
multi-faceted and the interaction of these elements with each other is frustratingly opaque.
This is because these elements range from the psychological and social to the normative and
also extend to the politics of both governance and culture.”
Vasu then argues that resilience is best conceptualized “as a complex system…[where] clear
lines of cause and effect between constitutive elements of the system are not clearly evident.
In addition, in such a system, though constitutive elements are identifiable, their influence
over the overall system is highly unpredictable.”
Once social resilience is acknowledged as a complex system, Vasu asserts that identifying its
most important element is not possible. Rather, “various elements of social resilience
interact in a loose and adaptive manner to contribute to social resilience overall.
Furthermore, to expect the constituent parts of social resilience to interact in a linear or
predictable manner where it can be expressed in an equation such as: Element A + Element
B + Element C = Social Resilience is ill-advised. What goes on between elements is interaction
and not additivity.”
Additionally, the author proposes a “Copernican revolution” in the prevailing wisdom on
social resilience – “the acceptance that social resilience’s constituent elements revolve around
each other and affect each other in subtle yet significant ways. They spin around each other
and no single element is wholly independent. As such, the elements are not stable entities
and social resilience resides in their interplay with each other.”
Furthermore, “different studies have proffered various constitutive elements that make up
resilience.” These include a well-integrated and inclusive society, shared goals, diversity, and
a history of dealing with adversity. Noting that more studies should be done to identify
elements of resilience, Vasu underscores that “no element can be taken for granted as what
may appear a peripheral element today may not be one tomorrow.”
62
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS

ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
Is the United States resilient – how or how not?
Vasu argues that “no society will be aware of its resilience until its people face adversity
together.” However, using wartime Baghdad as an example, the author does note that most
societies do possess the ability to persevere through difficult circumstances.

How can a society build resilience?
According to the author, “there are no simple solutions. IF social resilience is a complex
system, then one should be wary of those touting magic panaceas. Governments can provide
the framework and lend support…but society has to be given the space to organically find
its own coping mechanisms during testing times.”
About the Author
Norman Vasu is Assistant Professor at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Nanyang
Technological University, Singapore.
63
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
27) Verleye, Gino, et al. “Resilience in an Age of Terrorism: Psychology, Media and
Communication.” in B. Rogers, et al. Aspects of Terrorism and Martyrdom: Dying
for God, Dying for Good. Lampeter, U.K.: The Edwin Mellen Press, forthcoming
2009.
****
Typology




Concept Definition
Psychological Aspects of Resilience
Societal Resilience
Terrorism (General)
Questions Addressed

What is resilience?
The authors present an eight-fold construct of resilience, as shown below:
Each of the eight elements of resilience are defined as follows:
Personal and social resources: “The intrapersonal or internal factors/characteristics
individuals rely on to bounce back in times of adversity. These include cognitive factors such
as optimism, energetic approaches to life, curiosity, openness to new experiences, selfefficacy, high self-esteem, locus of control and a sense of mastery.”
64
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
Major life stressors: “stressors that recently occurred can have significant consequences on
psychological resilience. Major life stressors (disease, surgery, death in the family or social
network, a fire, burglary, loss of job or a divorce) – that caused emotional disturbances –
may temporarily (or permanently) change an individual’s perceptions of social reality.”
Attitudes towards governmental initiatives: “perceived competency and adequacy of the
government to prevent potential terrorist attacks and preparedness to reduce negative
consequences of terrorist actions.”
Personal preoccupation: “This dimension reflects on the one hand to which extent people
actively search the media for information about terrorism, on the other hand, the occurrence
of any precautionary behavior. The former is measured through several items relating to an
active information search and news gathering about the terrorist topic.”
Knowledge: “There is a growing consensus in the social sciences that levels of factual
information moderate individual attitudes, preferences, risk perceptions and behaviors.
Because most people will only have acquired this information through mass media,
knowledge will probably correlate with preoccupation…We operationalize this dimension on
the basis of a discriminating test measuring ‘general factual knowledge’ about terrorism.”
Influence of the social network: “This dimension reflects to which extent one’s social
network (colleagues, friends, family, etc.) is able to influence perceptions about terrorist
threats and acts as a kind of buffer” – reasoning that healthy and functioning social networks
are likely to help the individual to buffer stress caused by perceived terrorist threats.
Mental distance: “This dimension reflects to which extent the respondent relates to the
topic, how much one is involved and feels concerned. Broadly spoken: does the respondent
care about a terrorist threat?”
Perceived risk and fear: “This dimension reflects on the one hand the perceived risk to be
confronted with a terrorist attack firsthand and on the other hand, the level of fear.
Examples are ‘the presence of the European Commission in Brussels increases the
probability of an attack.’ And ‘I look around for strange bags whenever I take public
transportation.’”

Is the United States resilient – how or how not?
While this study does not speculate about – or attempt to measure – the resilience of the
U.S. population, it does make an effort to quantify the resilience of a European population –
in this case, Flanders, Belgium. Having defined the concept of resilience, the author’s
propose 12 variables – each closely related to the elements of resilience defined above – that
may be useful in determining pre-trauma resilience:
Knowledge
Preparedness of government
Information by government
Quality of information by government
65
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
Media behavior
Preparatory behavior
Talking to others
Acute need and availability of information
Mental distance
Perceived risk
Ego-resiliency
Study participants were asked to complete a questionnaire designed to measure the above
variables quantitatively. For example, preparatory behavior was measured through several
items questioning any behavior specifically related to terrorism, i.e. the possession of
gasmasks, or the availability of a private emergency plan. The data was then statistically
analyzed to determine significant relationships between variables.

How can the United States build resilience?
The example of Flanders, Belgium is instructive for U.S. policymakers in a number of ways.
For instance “our figures notably tell that there is a need for easily accessible information:
people express an acute need for information about terrorism. We see possibilities for
special websites, for telephone numbers, community centers, etc. where people can find the
necessary information they need.”
According to the authors, in order to develop effective resiliency support programs, a
government must first gauge the initial resilience of their population, pre-trauma. To develop
a framework for measuring the pre-trauma psychological resilience of a society, the authors
propose a concept of psychological resilience, identifying its constituent elements and the
relationships between these elements. This framework is then tested in an attempt to
measure the psychological resilience of the general population of Flanders, Belgium –
selected as a test case due to its lack of direct exposure to international terrorism.
Overall, the analysis of survey results and variable interactions led the authors to conclude
that “each individual possesses the potential for resilience and that the level of resilience is
an outcome of the interplay between the individual and the influencing factors within his
environment.” Understanding the process of resilience with all its relating concepts and
independent variables offers a solid foundation for measuring societal resilience and
developing tangible communication and support programs.
About the Author(s)
Gino Verleye is a Professor of Political Science at Ghent University in Belgium.
66
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
28) Waxman, Dov. “The Domestic Effects of Terrorism: A Case Study of the Impact of
Palestinian Terrorism on Israeli Society During the Second Intifada.” Paper prepared
for presentation at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, San
Francisco, CA, March 28, 2008.
****
Typology




Case Studies
Psychological Aspects of Resilience
Societal Resilience
Terrorism (General)
Questions Addressed
Waxman’s research questions focus exclusively on Israeli society, leaving it for the reader to apply
lessons from the Israeli experience to the United States. Specifically:

What are the effects of terrorism on Israeli society?
The author groups the effects of terrorism into four categories:
(1) Psychological: “The first and most immediate effects of terrorism are psychological.
Terror campaigns can be expected to psychologically affect a sizeable portion of the
population of a targeted society…The greater the number of attacks and the more lethal
those attacks are, the more people that will be psychologically affected by them.”
According to Waxman, “the psychological effects of terrorism are by no means uniform.
Different people are affected to different degrees. This is evident in the PTSD rates of men,
women, and children. In the middle of the second Intifada, 9.4 percent of Israelis suffered
from PTSD, yet 40 percent of Israeli children suffered from this disorder.”
(2) Economic: “The economic effects of terrorism can be broken down into its direct costs,
associated with the destruction caused by an act of terrorism, and its indirect costs, which
affect nearly every aspect of a targeted state’s economy.”
The author argues that direct costs pale in comparison to the indirect costs of a terrorist
attack. Indirectly, a long-running terrorist campaign can impact a state’s GDP – impacting
foreign investment and tourism.
For example, “Israel’s GDP growth slowed from an average of 5 percent in the two years
prior to the Intifada to -0.8 percent in the first two years of the Intifada.” As a result of
higher risk perceptions, Israel’s foreign direct investment dropped from $5 billion in 2000 to
$1.7 billion in 2002. The amount of foreign tourists in Israel dropped from 2.7 million in
2000 to 718,000 in 2002.
67
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX II: KEY DOCUMENT SUMMARIES
(3) Social: “The starting point for the impact of terrorism on a society is the public fear that
terrorist attacks generate...The public’s fear of terrorism is both rational and irrational;
rational in that there is an ever-present threat of a terrorist attack being repeated, but
irrational in the probability assigned to that potential event.”
Waxman states that “Israelis’ fear of terrorism reached new heights during the second
Intifada. In the spring of 2002 – when Palestinian suicide bombings inside Israel were more
frequent – 92 percent of Israelis reported fear that they or a member of their family would
fall victim to a terrorist attack.”
Additionally, terrorism increases the sense of victimhood in a society while also increasing
reliance on stereotypes and ethnocentrism among the targeted population. Terror attacks
also result in what Waxman refers to as “rally around the flag syndrome.” In a survey
conducted during the second Intifada, 86 percent of Israeli Jewish respondents answered
that the events strengthened national unity.
(4) Political: Not surprisingly, the societal impact of terrorism often leads to political
changes. “The most obvious way I which terrorism can influence the political process is by
bringing about changes in public opinion, which governments then tend to take into account
when formulating their policies.”
In Israel, “Palestinian terrorism had a huge impact on Israeli public opinion concerning the
conflict with the Palestinians and the prospects for peace with them…whereas in 1999 less
than 50 percent of Israeli Jews thought that the Arabs wanted to conquer the State of Israel,
in 2002 this number had risen to 68 percent, and by 2004 it reached 74 percent.”

Is Israeli society resilient – how or how not?
According to Waxman, “any foreign visitor to Israel cannot help but be struck by the
seemingly nonchalant manner with which Israelis live with the constant threat of terrorism.
Instead of panic and public hysteria, there appears to be stoicism and resilience. Of course,
appearances can be deceiving, and there is some evidence to suggest that Israelis are not as
resilient in the face of terrorism as they like to believe. Nevertheless, when one considers the
huge toll in Israeli lives that Palestinian terrorism has taken in recent years, the ability of
Israeli society to cope with this terrorism is quite remarkable.”
About the Author
Dov Waxman is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at Baruch College,
City University of New York.
68
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX III: SUPPLEMENTAL LITERATURE
Civil Defense and Homeland Security: A Short History of National Preparedness Efforts. Washington, DC:
United States Department of Homeland Security, September 2006.
“Fear of Terrorist Attack Could Trigger Mass Psychogenic Illness.” HITRAC Private Sector Note.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, July 5, 2006.
Flynn, Stephen E. “The Edge of Disaster: Building a Resilient Nation.” Presentation to the Council
on Foreign Relations, February 21, 2007.
Friedland, Nehemia, et al. The Concept of Social Resilience. Haifa, Israel: Samuel Neaman Institute for
Advanced Studies in Science and Technology, December 2005.
Heldring, Margaret. “Talking to the Public About Terrorism: Promoting Health and Resilience.”
Families, Systems, & Health Vol. 22 No. 1 (2004): 67-71.
Hobfoll, Stevan E., et al. “Trajectories of Resilience, Resistance, and Distress During Ongoing
Terrorism: The Case of Jews and Arabs in Israel.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Vol. 77 No. 1 (2009): 138-148.
________________, et al. “Exposure to Terrorism, Stress-Related Mental Health Symptoms, and
Defensive Coping Among Jews and Arabs in Israel.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Vol. 74 No. 2 (2006): 207-218.
Jones, Edgar, et al. “Civilian Morale During the Second World War: Responses to Air Raids ReExamined.” Social History of Medicine Vol. 17 No. 3 (December 2004): 463-479.
Kano, Megumi, et al. Public Response to Terrorism: Findings from The National Survey of Disaster Experiences
and Preparedness. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, 2008.
Larsen, Jeffrey A. and Tasha L. Pravaceck. Comparative U.S.-Israeli Homeland Security. Maxwell Air
Force Base, AL: U.S. Air Force Counterproliferation Center, June 2006.
Maeseele, Pieter A., et al. “Psychosocial Resilience in the Face of a Mediated Terrorist Threat.”
Media, War & Conflict Vol. 1 No. 1 (2008): 50-69.
Menon, K.U. “National Resilience: From Bouncing Back to Prevention.” Ethos (January-March
2005).
Phillips, Zack. “Snapping Back: Since We Can’t Prevent Every Disaster or Attack, Why Not Shift
Focus Toward Surviving Them?” Government Executive (June 15, 2007): 36-44.
Piotrkowski, Chaya S. and Stephen J. Brannen. “Exposure, Threat Appraisal, and Lost Confidence
as Predictors of PTSD Symptoms Following September 11, 2001.” American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry Vol. 72 No. 4 (2002): 476-485.
Robb, John. “Security: Power to the People.” Fast Company, December 19, 2007.
69
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
APPENDIX III: SUPPLEMENTAL LITERATURE
Schoch-Spana, Monica. “Public Reponses to Extreme Events: Top 5 Disaster Myths.” Presentation
to the Conference on Homeland Security, the Environment, and the Public: Resources for
the Future, October 5, 2005.
Shoshani, Anat and Michelle Slone. “Efficacy of Clinical Interventions for Indirect Exposure to
Terrorism.” International Journal of Stress Management Vol. 15 No. 1 (2008): 53-75.
Slone, Michelle and Anat Shoshani. “Evaluation of Preparatory Measures for Coping with Anxiety
Raised by Media Coverage of Terrorism.” Journal of Counseling Psychology Vol. 53 No. 4 (2006):
535-542.
Speckhard, Anne. “Building Resilience in Civil Society’s Psychological Response to Mass
Terrorism.” Unpublished manuscript, 2007.
The National Resilience Project. Haifa, Israel: Center for the Study of National Security/University of
Haifa, 2004.
U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Committee on Homeland Security. Subcommittee on
Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment. The Resilient Homeland:
How DHS Intelligence Should Empower America to Prepare for, Prevent, and Withstand Terrorist
Attacks. May 15, 2008.
70
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
Appendix IV:
Typology
1
2
3
4
5
Barnett
Ben-Dor
Bleich
Boin
Carafano
6
Countering
International
Terrorism
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Durodie,
"Cultural
Precursors."
Durodie, "Real
Resilience."
Durodie,
"Sociological
Aspects."
Flynn,
"America the
Resilient."
Glass
Jackson
Kendra
Kindt
Maguire
Marshall
Mawson
Mueller
Norris
O'Rourke
21
Report of the
CI Task Force
7
8
9
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Speckhard,
"Civil Society"
Speckhard,
"Prevention
Strategies"
Suedfeld
Tanielian
Vasu
Verleye
Waxman
Concept
Definition
APPENDIX IV: TYPOLOGY
Strategies
Psychofor
Case
logical
Enhancing Studies/ Aspects of
Societal Individual
Resilience History Resilience Resilience Resilience
X
X
X
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
Critical
Infrastructure
Natural
Disasters
Global
Catastrophic
Events
Chemical
Terrorism
Biological
Terrorism
Radiological
/Nuclear Terrorism
Terrorism (General)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Public
Health
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
71
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DETERRING WMD TERRORISM: ANALYTIC NEXT STEPS
Appendix IV:
Typology
Concept
Definition
Supplemental Literature
Critical
Infrastructure
Natural
Disasters
Global
Catastrophic
Events
Chemical
Terrorism
Biological
Terrorism
Radiological
/Nuclear Terrorism
Terrorism (General)
Public
Health
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
72
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
The National
Resilience
Project
U.S. Congress
APPENDIX IV: TYPOLOGY
Strategies
Psychofor
Case
logical
Enhancing Studies/ Aspects of
Societal Individual
Resilience History Resilience Resilience Resilience
Civil Defense
and Homeland
Security: A
Short History
Fear of
Terrorist
Attack Could
Trigger….
Flynn, "The
Edge of
Disaster"
Friedland
Heldring
Hobfall,
"Trajectories of
Resilience"
Hobfall,
"Exposure to
Terrorism"
Jones
Kano
Larsen
Maeseele
Menon
Phillips
Piotrkowski
Robb
Schoch-Spana,
"Public
Responses"
Shoshani
Slone
Speckhard,
"Building
Resilience"
ENHANCING SOCIETAL RESILIENCE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X