Student Post #6

Thomas Nguyen

          The thought of terror attacks is something that is often concerning for most Americans since 9/11. For some, it is in the back of their minds as they continue in their daily routines whereas others are constantly searching for ways to defend the country from future attacks. This is where the need to find a delicate balance between security and civil liberties is necessary (Klovens, 2016). The difficulty in successful deterrence methods is that there is no one way to prevent attacks while the number of targets is massive. A Pew Research Center poll conducted in 2016 showed that 40% of Americans believe that there is a greater ability for terrorists to attack the U.S. again since 9/11 (CBS News, 2021). Despite the fact that many plots have been foiled, there are a vast number of soft targets that have been exposed, such as stadiums and concert halls, as was demonstrated in Manchester England following an Ariana Grande concert in 2017. Intelligence shows that some of the least secured areas are those involving the country’s infrastructure. Critical infrastructure refers to systems or assets that are so vital to the country that destroying them or rendering them ineffective would adversely affect national security (Taylor & Swanson, 2019). As they have been identified, 16 sectors were added to a list of critical infrastructure and key resources (CI/KRs) that originated through the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) signed by President Bush in 2003. In 2013, President Obama extended the NIPP after signing Presidential Policy Directive 21, entitled The Critical Infrastructure and Resilience Directive, which separated the CI/KRs into 16 categories (Taylor & Swanson, 2019). These categories run the gamut of food, IT, defense, finance, water, and communications, each of which could negatively affect the country if targeted. While each CI/KR is a target in and of itself, the combination of any two can be exponentially catastrophic. This is because a failure of one sector could cascade into others causing failure in other areas (Mitsova et al., 2020; Taylor & Swanson, 2019). Hence, identifying and hardening each of these vulnerabilities is essential in safeguarding the security of the nation.

          History has proven that infrastructure reliability has been tested even without the inclusion of nefarious acts. Between 2017 and 2018, Hurricanes Harvey, Isaac, Irma, and Maria left devastating paths damaging critical infrastructure sites tremendously. The storms each created a lack of electricity, little to no communications, water and fuel shortages, and delays in federal aid that lasted for months (Mitsova et al., 2020). The destructive forces caused a failure in one aspect as it rippled onto other sectors creating a multiplicative effect on residents. For instance, taking out the power grid can also affect the ability to contact emergency first responders and even hamper efforts in the medical industry to care for the injured. Additionally, it may affect certain communications portals in that not only does it affect people calling for necessary help, it may also negatively affect first responders’ ability to coordinate a response by not being able to talk to one another. The energy sector is one of the most extensive as it includes electricity, petroleum, and natural gas. The power grid is one of the largest man-made CI/KRs as it is vital to society (Rocchetta, 2022). While being able to harden all facilities to withstand every natural disaster, there are viable options to avoid them from being tampered with by human factors. They are easy targets because they are often unmanned and unprotected by nothing other than fencing (Smith, 2016). Many areas have already been vandalized or burglarized due to the lack of security measures in place. Thus, efforts to harden these targets are necessary to prevent further occurrences.

          Although only the energy sector was highlighted, all of the CR/KRs need evaluation to properly defend them. A particular model to protect these sites from natural disasters and man-made acts is called an all-hazards model which understands that similar safeguards can defend against either act (Taylor & Swanson, 2019). Things that can be included that would harden the target would be installing cameras, better fencing, or building reinforcement. Another thing to consider is the online format of many infrastructures. This allows for another point of vulnerability. Many areas utilize Security Controls and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems so that networks can be checked, calibrated, and repaired remotely (Upadhyay & Sampalli, 2020). While this can help to troubleshoot any issues, it also allows for hackers to breach the integrity of a system remotely. Therefore, physical barriers are not the only security measures that need to be scrutinized. One method is the defense-in-depth strategy which calls for separating control networks from ingress and egress traffic as well as deploying security zones with properly defined access control rules (Upadhyay & Sampalli, 2020). Each strategy is one that comes with a hefty price tag which means that funds need to be allocated to instill those measures. For instance, a Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) advised that there was only $300,000 to enhance security measures at the 328 substations operated. To protect only 40 of the most integral sites required $90 million (Smith, 2016). While this cost is undeniably substantial, the cost to recuperate from an attack or natural disaster would be even more overwhelming. “For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?” (King James Bible, 1769/1972, Luke 14:28, p. 94). The proverbial ‘cost’ should not be construed to mean the financial necessity to protect the assets of the nation alone. They should also weigh the expenditures needed to recuperate and rebuilt from what is lost. When done that way, the initial costs will always be minimal compared to the aftermath because there is no price tag on human injuries or suffering.