There haven't been major civil defense concerns in the US since the cold war. We have FEMA and Homeland Security which also handles civil defense but is that really enough to prepare us for a major disaster such as a nuclear attack? Should the US more thoroughly prepare its citizens by starting a nationwide volunteer civil defense program? Would people take it seriously? Are there any down sides to a nationwide civil defense program?
2007-01-17 05:56:11 · 7 answers · asked by Land Warrior 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Municipalities have a volunteer civilian program, the CERT, or Community Emergency Response Team. It is similar to the old CD program.
2007-01-17 06:07:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps you are right but the perceived threat is not very big for whatever reason.
You forgot to mention the Civil Air Patrol. Don't forget about those guys.
2007-01-17 14:00:43 · answer #2 · answered by C B 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No.
I think if you started something like that, in theory it sounds great, but in reality it would just serv to spread panic. Someone heard this and that...
2007-01-17 14:09:34 · answer #3 · answered by zaitsev_v1 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The U.S. should have enacted a draft immediately after 911. Not only for fighting overseas but for protecting our borders, sea ports and airports here, instead our crack head president told us to go shopping and to pretend that nothing happened.
That's a hell of a leader right there!
2007-01-17 14:13:29 · answer #4 · answered by huckleberry 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I'm ready to join
2007-01-17 14:32:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, already
2007-01-17 14:10:36 · answer #6 · answered by bl_ttn 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
we already do!
2007-01-17 14:00:48 · answer #7 · answered by Indio 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋