using an IMS method for managing daily incidents, as well as rare and infrequent disasters, this review is of two separate incidents that occurred in 1995. The incidents are the Tokyo subway sarin gas attack and the Oklahoma City bombing. Both are similar in timeframe, type of incident, size of the response, and they have multiple other similarities. In the Oklahoma City bombing, the component that the first responders utilized was the ICS method, while in Tokyo, they did not utilize any IMS method. In looking at the efficacy of an IMS method, there are very few incidents that are as comparable in size, scope, and intent, which is the reason these two incidents were chosen.
The first incident to occur was the sarin attack in Japan during the month of March in 1995; the second incident, the Oklahoma City Bombing occurred in the United States in the month of April in 1995. Both incidents were considered mass casualty events. Both of these disasters were considered domestic terrorist attacks (manmade). While they occurred in different countries, both countries are considered developed countries. In both incidents, domestic terrorists used Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) to attack the citizens of their own country. These two events have multiple similarities, with the main differences being that in Japan it was a chemical attack (sarin), while the other was an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) bombing. Of course, while we want to compare the use of an IMS method versus none used, we must also consider that cultural differences might have played a role in these responses.
2.4.1 Tokyo Subway Attack
On 20 March 1995, members of the Aum Shinrikyo doomsday cult discharged a deadly nerve agent (sarin gas) in the world's busiest subway system; the Tokyo subway. The gas was developed by the cult at their compound, and the delivery system utilized was human delivery by members of the cult. The attack was timed to happen simultaneously on three different trains, using five devices. The group planned the attack so that they materialized as the trains converged on the main hub of the Tokyo subway system. This incident caused 12 confirmed deaths and 50 injuries specifically from the attack itself. Another 6252 injuries resulted from the subsequent panic, fear, confusion, and secondary contamination, with the secondary contamination making up the majority of the injuries (Murakami, 2000).
Preparedness is a key factor that is often overlooked in incident management, and in 1995, Tokyo officials and the federal government somewhat overlooked preparedness. While there were some disaster plans in place, those plans primarily covered what should be done when resources are overwhelmed in only the response phase. It did not take into consideration what to do in a Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) scenario. Nobody knew what to do on a Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) incident except for the federal government (Pangi, 2002). Additionally, The Cycle of Preparedness was not part of the Japanese disaster management methodology at the time of the attack.
As you will learn later in this chapter, preparedness is comprised of a continuous cycle of planning, organizing, training, equipping, exercising, evaluating, and taking corrective action. This is referred to as the Cycle of Preparedness (explained later in this Chapter 5). This cycle helps to work out any issues (or gaps) prior to an incident so that there will be active and effective coordination during a real incident response.
After reviewing extensive research, it appears as if the country of Japan and the local government entities in Tokyo undertook very few disaster preparedness efforts prior to the attack. This caused complications in the overall response because these entities did not integrate, cooperate, coordinate, or collaborate with each other before, or during, the incident. This in effect caused a substantial amount of problems and caused stove‐piping (or the silo effect) of information sharing.
Stove‐piping is when information is closely controlled (and sometimes choked down) in a horizontal fashion. Information can be shared up the chain of command within an organization, but cross‐organizational or multijurisdictional sharing is not free‐flowing. In most instances, this stove‐piping is caused by failing to share information. While varying agencies might have critical information or intelligence, this information is kept for only that agency and is not shared with similar agencies who might be working on the same issue or issues. Because these agencies typically work on some level to keep some information secret, a stovepipe occurs. These stovepipes prevent all agencies from being on the same page with the same intelligence and situational awareness. Because many of the Japanese public safety agencies worked in their own circle, stove‐piping existed. Prior to the attack, there were no preparedness efforts, and there was a serious deficit in interorganizational cooperation. This included being able to identify that the incident was an organized attack.
The initial signs of the attack were unclear. Initial first responders identified that attack as extremely chaotic and confusing, and what was causing the physical symptoms to people riding the trains was not known for several hours. Had there been information sharing in place, then the identification of a Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) incident most likely would have been discovered much sooner. This is based on the premise that a 360° view from multiple response agencies would have given an Incident Commander ([IC] if there were one) or a primary agency enough intelligence to determine that it was an organized attack. Considering that many passengers who had been on the subway were displaying the physical characteristics of choking, vomiting, and some even were even suffering blindness, should have been a quick indicator of a larger attack rather than assuming it was an isolated incident. Additionally, the report of individuals making their way from the subway station to the street only to collapse on the sidewalk should have been another quick indicator of something other than normal (Pangi, 2002).
As the local government and the various agencies began to respond to the incident, they were overwhelmed by chaos, confusion, and uncertainty. In the initial reports, the National Police Agency received information of several incidents at numerous stations and did not understand that they were all from a single organized attack. For quite some time, they had no idea that it was actually a Mass Casualty Incident (MCI). They were initially unaware of the magnitude, so they assumed that these reports were multiple smaller incidents rather than being interconnected. Had all agencies worked together, and reported suspicions to a centralized agency, the extent of this incident likely would have been realized substantially quicker; possibly within minutes (Pangi, 2002).
The use of incident management was significantly delayed. Pangi (2002) suggests that there were two problems that led to the postponement of using an IMS method; the first was the delay in identifying that it was an organized attack, and second, because of a lack of interagency interconnections. The agencies involved with this incident operated at the same time, but they had no centralized management to put forth a unified effort. Such an effort likely would have led to identifying additional resources that could have been utilized and integrated into the response, which would have likely reduced the pain, suffering, and the death toll.
Approximately 45 minutes after the first report, and 15 minutes after realizing that this was a singular attack, the National Police Agency requested assistance from the Self‐Defense Force (SDF). The National Police Agency failed to shut down the subway system for at least one‐half hour after asking for, and waiting on, assistance from the Self Defense Force. The total shutdown of subway system was not complete until one and a half hours after the incident began. For that hour and a half, bystanders could freely come and go through these contaminated areas, unrestricted. Most of the trains continued to run their normal schedule, while being contaminated from individuals that came from other trains. One train that suffered direct contamination from the attack was even allowed to run its entire route before it was stopped and isolated (Pangi, 2002).
This failure to act caused secondary contamination throughout the subway system and the city as well. Prior to this attack, there was no record found of government agencies nor subway personnel having discussed a Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) attack, nor had any of the entities prepared for one. Only the Japanese military had made plans of how to respond to a Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) attack, so even if those responding to the incident were able to miraculously identify what caused the incident, there were no plans in place to help direct them in the
