The result of 9/11 proved that the US had many vulnerabilities across its various systems. Katrina taught us in the days and months following that we had many technologies available, and that if these ready technologies were utilized before or during the time of the dire event, changes could have been made to minimize the effects of those disasters.
As I mentioned in class, the article I spoke about mainly focused on the availability of cool inventions, devices, and communication methods during the same time that hurricane Katrina hit the southeast US. Sure, a mesh communications network with infallible node redundancy can be something huge that could save lives and enhance disaster relief, but the technology was used hundreds of miles away from the central disaster zones of Louisiana. Motorola outfitted systems for their Motobridge project in Alabama. Additionally, Motorola helped give out radio systems for emergency workers in some of the strongest hit areas, but waited for 2 weeks because no one could reach those areas due to all the destroyed bridges and roads.
One thing I would really like to see is some way to have developers and other companies organize some strategies to test out their new equipment in risk prone areas. This means that companies that provide temporary, robust communication structures should test their redundant networks in areas where power is lost in storms, or where earthquakes damage power systems, rather than testing them in areas which are least affected by natural occurrences. If communications can be provided to people on the ground immediately after or during a disaster, they can relay their information at hand to other sources and become first responders.
Technology is not the only thing we need to focus on. Much like Dr. Louise Comfort at the University of Pittsburgh notes, most of our disaster response policies have been formed through what is called "rear-view mirror" politics. To summarize her thoughts, we have mainly been a reactionary society, basing our plans and changes on things that have already happened. To be much safer, we need to look into becoming proactive by adding protective measures and redundancy plans before "the big one" hits. It's time to stop blaming specific organizations for their failed and delayed efforts to Katrina because it was more of a fact that no one knew what to expect, so they didn't plan for events like Katrina in the days prior to actual landfall. A common operation plan needs to be in place to plan for disasters in these prone areas so that when it comes time to provide relief, efforts are coordinated, accurate, and are utilized in conjunction with applicable technologies that are guaranteed to not fail when they're needed the most.
Certain natural disasters provide enough warning to be sure people can evacuate and to give scientists enough time to estimate the damages when landfall occurs. Other disasters often come with no warning. To be safe, plans need to be in place and technology needs to be available at a moment's notice, especially in prone areas. It's time to be proactive, and not as dramatically reactive.
I enjoyed your post but I do have to disagree with one of your thoughts. On the note that we are a rear view mirror politics, I think that, that is the right thing to do. This is because we need to learn about our past experiences especially our mistakes and successes in order to either improve or continue with what we did. For example, why is the United States such a military powerhouse? It is because we study our past events such as the cold war, World War II, and desert storm. We analyze what we did in those wars, looked at why we lost particular battles, and found out the reason we lost so we do not make the same mistakes twice. If we weren’t able to do that we would be making the same mistake over and over again and nothing would ever change. We would just continue to fail and not know or understand why. I think the same principle relates to hurricane Katrina and all disaster relief. We need to study our past efforts and fix what our mistakes were. We did attempt to do that with our post September eleventh report, but I think everyone would agree with me when I say that it still needs work.
ReplyDeleteHowever, you are correct in saying that we need to also move on with our lives and develop new ways to better or relief. This reminds me of a quote I heard recently that I think applies here at that is “the past is practice.” I believe this to be relevant because we cannot change the past, we can only change the future. Which means we need to do everything in our power to not let the faults that happen in the Katrina clean up, happen in future disasters.
Disagreeing with Mike and agreeing with you, I think reactionary approaches can strengthen and improve some policies, but purely reactionary approaches are also prone to failure and a lack of imagination.
ReplyDeleteTake, for example, the fields of security and intelligence - Israel is often considered the pinnacle in these fields and they rely on an extremely proactive system. In a predictive profiling course being taught by former Israeli Intelligence officers, they actually scoffed the United State's post 9-11 airport security and profiling programs, stating that despite improving, they were almost entirely aimed at being a visual deterrent or being reactionary.
A combined approach is the only practical one. You obviously cannot successfully prepare for future events by ignoring the past, but you also cannot rely on past disasters as your sole guidance. Additionally, I would agree that there is presently too much focus on technology for the sake of technology. We currently have a flood of overly ambitious, overly complicated, and relatively untested devices flooding the field of disaster relief. Much of the technology addresses non-issues - rarely have I heard of aid organizations clamoring for more unmanned reconnaissance drones, yet I've heard plenty of concerns about not enough clean water, food, or electricity. Simply put, much of the technology emerging is interesting, but doesn't necessarily represent any major step towards solving serious problems associated with modern crises.
After 9/11 our systems were proven to be obsolete and not at the level of capability they should be at for emergency responses. We enacted the NIMS which seemed to do absolutely nothing during Katrina. After Katrina just proved that we had some technologies that would be easy to use in a response to the next hurricane that is like Katrina. In my opinion those technologies will be out beat by some other technologies in the next few years. With months after the hurricane those technologies are almost worthless to try to use. They should be used immediately in the response to the disaster, month or months later are just not effective or timely. Time is a huge factor in responding to a disaster, the faster the better the results to saving lives.
ReplyDeleteThe technologies that your article talked about are great technologies, why weren’t they used? If they were NIMS needs to take a deeper look into these technologies and use them in future disasters. However, technologies should only be used in disasters relevant to the situation at hand.
The mesh communications network is a brilliant idea, but like you said it was used to far away from the disaster area making it another piece of technology, not a technology for relief efforts. I believe if there was a way to get this technology into the immediate area of the disaster then it would be effective with helping to save lives and keep communications open.
Hey Tony,
ReplyDeleteI did really like reading your blog about hurricane Katrina, and I do have to agree with what both you and Matt DeRosa said, “I think reactionary approaches can strengthen and improve some policies, but purely reactionary approaches are also prone to failure and a lack of imagination.” Many of our nations policies and laws are reactionary, and have been from the get go of our nation.
The problem with hurricane Katrina not only lied with the downed power lines, but also with outdated cell phone towers that were damaged when Hurricane Katrina made landfall. But I also agree that it would be awesome to see developers and other companies test new equipment and technologies in risk prone areas. Doing this would not only help disaster response techniques but would also help improving the technologies involved in disaster responses!
While certain disasters do indeed have enough warning time to allow for people to evacuate the areas that might be affected, like how Hawaii has an early warning system for tsunamis, others do come with little to no warning at all. Plans and proven technology for these times are really necessary to help avoid another post-Hurricane Katrina disaster.
Tony, you brought some great points regarding the need for us to become a more proactive society. However, I do not foresee the current political situation allowing us to become a more proactive society. The United States tends to believe that ignorance is bliss in regards to potential future problems. If the situation worsens, than that is simply a problem for future decision makers to handle. I do not see the situation changing anytime soon as this has been a problem through American History. In World War II, we saw Hitler and the Japanese growing in power and did not get fully involved until Pearl Harbor. Recently, analysts warned that Al-Qaida was planning to attack the United States, but decision makers did not do anything until the attacks on September 11. The United States could have potentially avoided both of these situations had it been more proactive. The saddest part of this reactive society is that numerous studies show that proactive efforts are more effective than reactive efforts. I do wish that the United States became more proactive instead of reactive, but I do not ever foresee it occurring.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of testing new technologies and equipment in risk prone environments is certainly interesting. Responders would be able to test the new equipment in an area this is prone to certain disasters. I hope that by testing the new equipment responders would be comfortable using them when the "big one" hits. These new technologies would have then saved lives that may have otherwise been lost without the use of these new technologies. The only concern I have regarding your idea is that most people do not enjoy being human guinea pigs. The people in the risk-prone areas may instead wish that responders relied on traditional methods so that they could return to their normal lives. These concerns must be quieted for this idea to be effective.