Response to WMD
Students are required to select one Case Study and write an essay (5-7 pages, double
spaced, 12 point font).
This assignment will provide you the opportunity to examine a WMD incident taken
from the National Planning Scenarios, activate the ICS, and develop an appropriate
response using the principles, organizations, and other tools
ed in this module.
APA formatting and citations must be used. See Final Exam Rubric on last page for
specific grading criteria.
Conduct a case study analysis of how you would respond, based on appropriate
National Planning Scenario background, analysis, and response actions needed using
the resources and information provided throughout the course.
1. Select one of the Cases on WMD response (previously provided to you in Unit
6), and carefully read all materials in the case.
• Case Study #1: Anthrax attack on Hart Senate Office Building, October
• Case Study #2: Oklahoma City bombing on Murrah Federal Offices, April
• Case Study #3: Tokyo subway sarin gas attacks conducted by Aum
Shinrikyu, March 1995
• Case Study #4: Jose Padilla case involving radiological bomb plot, March
• Case Study #5: Iran’s suspected development of nuclear weaponry, 2003 to
2. Select a National Planning Scenario that fits in definition and context for
weapons of mass destruction, review entire document, and refer to the scenario
in your planning efforts.
EMH370 – Response to Weapons
of Mass Destruction
3. Review the Target Capabilities List under the sections referring to response to
WMD incidents (Pages 361- 375).
4. Review the Response Federal Interagency Operational Plan (Pages 1-21) and
utilize the planning format contained in the document as your planning “shell.” At
a minimum, you must complete the following:
a. Build a Base Plan for *Incident Level 2; it must address the following:
iii. Planning assumptions and critical considerations
iv. Concept of operations
v. Request for federal support
vi. Coordination of federal support
vii. Provision of federal support
viii. Concept of support
ix. Coordinating instructions
x. Authorities and references
*Incident Level 2- See definition on page B-1-4 of Response FIOP, Table
b. Read Appendix 1 to Annex B – Risk Assessment (only address WMD
Response Activities contained in Table B.1-1 in Response Federal
Interagency Operational Plan). Provide a risk assessment based on
operational risk and risk management strategies that are outlined on
pages B-1-7 to B-1-10.
c. Build Annex C – Operational Coordination (provide the basic components
d. Utilize the THIRA as a guide to validate what you find and use it to
determine where you need to concentrate follow-on efforts. This part of
the assignment must be substantiated in your written assignment.
5. Review ICS 100 to build your Incident Management Command structures.
a. You will serve as the Incident Commander (IC).
b. Describe your role as IC and briefly discuss your Operations, Planning,
Logistics, and Finance/Administration sections.
6. Interagency partners: You will be responsible for developing your plan to ensure
all Interagency partners are considered and included.
Copyright 2022 Post University, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
• You are responsible for researching the body of knowledge available for building
an appropriate response to the scenario you selected.
• Be prepared to defend the plan in the Unit 8 Discussion Board as you have
• Research your topic using news stories, multimedia, and reports. Keep in mind
that you need to read, analyze, and select sources that accurately support and
defend your response plan.
• Please keep in mind there is no “school-house” solution to this assignment and
success can be achieved in any number of ways available to you. The key is to
critically analyze and think about/through your plan development, using the
planning principles provided.
• Each question can be answered in 5-7 pages, double-spaced, and 12-point font.
• At least 3 primary resources used.
• Use of APA formatting and citations must be used.
For a good grade:
Written work is clear and excellent college-level work; Paragraphing and transitions are clear and appropriate; appropriate guidelines outlined for paper were met (see assignment directions).
The length of the written work provides in-depth coverage of the topics, assertions are clearly supported by evidence; Paper meets required length of pages and content areas; 3 or more primary sources were used.
Written work has no major errors in word selection and use; sentence structure, spelling, grammar, punctuation was appropriate; APA style was acceptable with no errors or minor errors.
Case Study #2: Oklahoma City bombing on Murrah Federal Offices, April 1995
The Oklahoma City bombing was one of the first incidents involving high yield explosives devices used to commit a terrorist act. The catastrophic effect using commercially available materials (fertilizer) and easily acquired materials gave rise to urgent needs for new detection methods.
Additionally, there was an emergent need to develop new approaches for identifying and partnering with other government organizations to respond to mass casualties resulting from such incidents. As time progressed, this need was further underscored in the events of 9/11/01, and other large-scale incidents.
Last, this case study is an excellent example of how response organizations need to train and work together under difficult conditions. Many people trapped inside the building needed immediate medical assistance, rubble impeded rescue efforts, and time was working against rescue workers. Any attempts to think about coordinating actions among responders added more layers of frustration – and precious time – to relief efforts.
How would science and technology work to lessen the burden on responders? What organizations are best prepared to deal with this type of incident? How would you, as an emergency manager, prepare for such an event? What training, personnel, partnerships, approaches, and communication methods should be developed that can be rapidly deployed, should such an incident occur?
Live news coverage of bombing on April 19, 1995: • Oklahoma City bombing. (2014, March 5). KOCO- TV News…Oklahoma City Bombing April 19, 1995 [Video file]. YouTube.
President Clinton press conference and comments: • Oklahoma City bombing. (2013, November 3). President Clinton statement on suspect in Oklahoma City bombing April 21, 1995 archival footage [Video file]. YouTube.
Making thermite explosives material from common sand: • Mrhomescientist. (2011, February 12). Make thermite out of sand [Video file].
Michael Freudiger. (2007, July 14). Explosives test using shock tube [Video file]. YouTube.
A photographic look back at the Oklahoma City bombing: • TIME. (n.d.).
FBI summary: • Federal Bureau Investigation. (n.d.). Oklahoma City Bombing.
CNN Fast Facts: Oklahoma City bombing • CNN Editorial Research. (2020, May 10).
National Preparedness Guidelines: • U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2007, September).
Detection of explosives, science & technology: • Phoenix Nuclear Labs. (n.d.).
Novel method for detection of explosive devices: • Wynn, C.M., Palmacci, S., Kunz, R.R., & Rothschild, M. (n.d.).
DoD CBRNE Response elements to high yield explosives incidents: • Department of the Army. (2008, January 24).
DoD Standards for Installation Protection: • Executive Services Directorate. (n.d.).
Domestic IED Threats: • Kress, J. & Grogger, S. (2008).
U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. (2000, June).
Background information on bomb detection capabilities, post Oklahoma City bombing:
• Rouhi, M.A. (1995, July 24).
CTTSO Review, 2013: • Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office. (2013)
Office of the Director of National Intelligence. (n.d.)
CIA CBRN Terrorist Threat Handbook: • Central Intelligence Agency. Directorate of Intelligence. (2003, May).
Central Intelligence Agency. (1998, October).
CIA World Factbook: Central Intelligence Agency. (n.d.).