Response to Peer Post (26)
Response to Peer Post
Author’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Response to Peer Post
Thank you for going through my initial post and raising some crucial questions about my thoughts. Yes, I did mention that the aging of privately managed critical infrastructure is a key concern because it has implications for national emergency management. We should not forget that the objective and desire of most private institutions is to maximize profits, and so, when it comes to maintaining infrastructure, they are somewhat reluctant, which causes the aging issue. I think that updating these systems is the responsibility of entities from both the private and public sectors. Remember that I mentioned that the PPD21 and the NIPP advocate for strategic collaboration and a unified cross-agency approach to managing and protecting critical infrastructure, which should capture the role of players from the public and private sectors. Such an approach would address the economic and financial problems associated with these infrastructure updates. This is because the public and governments step in to offer assistance when the financial means of solving these issues go beyond the private owners’ resources, hence lessening risks to the public that emanate from outdated systems. I am glad that you raised these questions as this has allowed me to elaborate on the fundamental foundation of my argument: that keeping these systems well maintained calls for collaborative efforts from both sectors.
