{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025557011795543906, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003931847968545216, 'mean_word_length': 6.004587155963303, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Meeting the threat of weapons of mass destruction terrorism: toward a broader conception of consequence management.

As the importance of psychosocial issues in domestic preparedness has come to be better understood, it has become evident that there are significant conceptual limitations in existing approaches to weapons of mass destruction consequence management. This article identifies six problems: (1) most understandings of consequence management focus on short-term issues with longer-term recovery issues receiving far less attention; (2) while psychological issues are beginning to be introduced, social issues are generally not addressed; (3) although more attention is being paid to mental health issues, scenarios that are predominantly psychosocial in their effects are not generally considered; (4) social and behavioral science insights are not adequately incorporated; (5) despite the further inclusion of psychological issues, the overall approach is not sufficiently integrated or interdisciplinary; and (6) although psychological issues are receiving more attention, fundamental macro-level issues such as the re-establishment of trust after a weapons of mass destruction terrorist incident rarely receive significant attention. These limitations could seriously weaken efforts to address the consequences of a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear terrorist attack. There is an urgent need, therefore, to re-think current approaches and to develop a broader conception of consequence management.