Countering Threats Posed by Improvised Explosive Devices

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Australia is on the 59th place among the countries affected by terrorism, but even being at its current position, it faces increased rates of terrorism that are close to those observed in Iran. Even though only 2 people died in 2015 because of terror attacks, police claim that the country would have experienced 15 more cases of these adverse events if they had not been foiled (Brook, 2016). Thus, it is not surprising that Australia develops initiatives to counter associated threats, including those posted by improvised explosive devices. Moreover, it develops projects to support other countries in their fight against terrorism.

The representatives of the government state that the population of Australia is not likely to be affected by improvised explosive devices. Nevertheless, two men from Sydney tried to smuggle this device and brought it to an airport. Fortunately, their actions were revealed, and they were arrested (Smyth, 2017). In addition to that, many Australian soldiers perform their duties in Afghanistan. During their missions, men are killed by improvised explosive devices as well. In this way, Australia and its population are affected by terrorism because of different reasons, including those associated with political and ideological beliefs.

Australia believes that terrorism is a global issue that should be overcome in order to ensure population’s safety. In particular, the country develops anti-terrorism legislation that focuses on offenses, organizations, financing, and violence associated with this issue. It is based on the Criminal Code Act 1995 and powered by Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979 (“Australia’s counter-terrorism laws,” 2018).

The legislation includes safeguards that guide professionals’ actions in case of terrorism offenses and lists those procedures that should be conducted to obtain warrants or use tracking devices, etc. Of course, it also discusses limitations and prohibitions needed to prevent dangerous situations.

Realizing the necessity to oppose terrorism and threats posed by improvised explosive devices, Australia does not only resort to appropriate legislation but also develops those programs that counter such issues. For instance, Defense’s Joint Counter Improvised Threat Task Force was created to protect military, police, and security workers who performed their duties in battlefields like Afghanistan and Iraq. With the course of time, a similar project known as Redwing was developed.

It is believed to be an improved version of its predecessor that provided an opportunity to use minimal operator training and logistical support (“Countering the threat of improvised explosive devices,” 2016). Moreover, the representatives of the general public can access a guideline that should be followed in case of facing a threat posed by improvised explosive devices.

While Task Force was used at the beginning of the 2000s, the Redwing program is a current resolution that has been used only since 2015. Nevertheless, both of them managed to save numerous lives and protected people from improvised explosive devices. These programs are considered to be an advantageous innovation in UN Peacekeeping, and their use is highly recommended. Currently, Australia tries to focus more on the protection of its own territory because the majority of its efforts were put on military actions outside of the country. It develops guidelines to teach its population to survive if they face improvised explosive devices. Moreover, it continues using Redwing as the major solution to the problem.