Rethinking Readiness

June 15, 2020
Despite its worthwhile aims, this survey from Schlegelmilch, deputy director of Columbia University’s National Center for Disaster Preparedness, is too superficial to be very useful. In tackling five categories of catastrophe—biological, cyber, nuclear, infrastructure-related, and climate change–based—he dispenses such details as the different kinds of “cyber adversaries” handled by security firms, including, in addition to state-sponsored agents and hacktivists, “script kiddies” (young hackers in search of fun and fame) and “vulnerability brokers” (professionals who find and sell system weaknesses, for good or ill). Schlegelmilch also distinguishes between the well-known nuclear winter scenario, involving the “collapse of the global food supply,” and the lesser-known one of a nuclear autumn, which “would not destroy life on earth but would cause severe climate impacts.” Some of his general remarks on emergency planning, such as about the lack of an “increased culture of preparedness” among Americans, resonate in the context of Covid-19. However, the U.S. federal government’s much criticized pandemic response refutes his conclusion that there is “reason for optimism” about how the country, armed with “more knowledge of the world we live in, and more resources at our disposal” than ever before, will respond to future threats. Schlegelmilch’s study throws little new light on an urgent topic.