This weekly recap focuses on why the Oct. 7 attack wasn't Israel's 9/11, humanity's future approach to space, the pressing need to ensure more people know about the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline, and more.
Almost half of Americans are afraid that 911 is not a safe option to call for someone undergoing a behavioral health problem—and with good reason. Broader advertising and outreach about the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline is necessary. People simply can't call what they don't know about.
To build the societal resilience required to respond effectively to everything from climate-related emergencies to pandemics, to intentional state-on-state attacks, and disinformation, a joint approach is needed, not only across government, but across wider society.
Although food security early warning early action (FS-EWEA) has a track record of reducing food insecurity, it is designed for rural settings, and effective action remains elusive. Extending FS-EWEA to the millions living in fragile urban contexts requires answering four critical questions.
The vulnerability of supply chains to routine disruptions has been widely discussed and documented, but meeting such challenges can be even more difficult during unexpected surges in demand caused by wars, public health crises, or other emergencies. The creation of option contracts that would kick in during surges is one promising solution.
Mitigating the effects of climate change will require a whole-of-government approach and a redefinition of national security to embrace a more panoramic set of risks. Government officials are saying lots of the right things. But is it being done, and done quickly enough?
In their new book, Andrew Hoehn and Thom Shanker argue that America has entered an age of danger that may come to rival anything in its history. They explain why the national security system needs an overhaul as we face a growing array of threats, from cyber attacks to climate change.
Modernizing, better funding, and expanding wildland firefighting forces in North America won't make fires or smoke magically disappear. A massive paradigm shift is necessary. But it's clear something needs to happen immediately too.
COVID-19 showed that the U.S. pandemic response plans of the past were no match for a protracted nationwide health emergency. What lessons were learned that could help the United States effectively protect its population and other vital national interests going forward?
The COVID-19 pandemic revealed a need for a more-robust health security paradigm within the broader national security context. But addressing preparedness and response shortfalls for national-level challenges might not be fully possible without first addressing the glaring seams and gaps between the various stakeholder communities.
A 2015 landslide that killed three people in Sitka, Alaska, changed how residents looked at the steep hills all around them. The community worked with researchers to develop a warning system to prevent such tragedies in the future.
The slow degradation of infrastructure and disaster response is less a spectacle than an overflying balloon, but the train derailment and chemical spill in Ohio highlights just how bizarre such a focus on perceived external national security threats has become. The far greater threat may be from within.
It turned out to be a system failure that grounded thousands of flights on January 11, but U.S. critical infrastructure faces a range of threats—from Russian hackers, to weather events, to angry individuals with guns. The government and organizations responsible for critical infrastructure can take steps to actively manage these risks.
The next public health emergency or large-scale disaster may be looming. It may be time to rethink the way federal relief funds are sought and allocated so that aid is more rapidly, accurately, and fairly distributed to hospitals and health systems. This could help ensure patients and communities get the care when and where they need it when crisis hits.