5 / 200
“
Exploring the dynamics
”
5
At the beginning of the twentieth century, federal and state
government involvement with EM increased gradually
following the growth of disaster science, the emergence of the
American Red Cross, and repeated occurrences of major
catastrophes. Nevertheless, governments at all levels lacked a
formal system to deal with pre-disaster mitigation and post-
disaster recovery. Prior to WWII, the federal government
viewed disasters as uncontrollable natural phenomena. After
WWII, the definition of disaster expanded to include
“intentional actions inflicted on communities,” which led to the
development of the civic defense system designed to “prevent
and deal with the consequence of man-made disasters” (Ward
& Wamsley, 2007: 207-208).
With the passage of the Federal Disaster Assistance Act
(Public Law 81-875) and the Civil Defense Act in 1950, the
federal natural disaster response system became more
formalized and motivated by the specter of nuclear war between
the Soviet Union and such allies as Cuba and the U.S. With the
creation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
in 1979, the federal government was expected to handle both
natural and man-made disasters. However, tensions in the
nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet
Union forced FEMA and U.S. civil defense to prepare mainly
against the possibility of nuclear attack. In the mid-1990s, after
the disastrous Hurricane Andrew demolished sections of south
Florida, FEMA integrated an all-hazards approach into modern
EM to enhance national capability towards natural disaster
responses (Sylves, 2008; Ward & Wamsley, 2007). Later, the
terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on
September 11, 2001 shifted national focus and attention to anti-
terrorism and homeland security issues. FEMA was absorbed
into the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2003 in
the aftermath of changes resulting from the 9/11 attacks. Under
these circumstances, the federal government turned its attention