Bridging Gaps in the Development of CBRN Defense Technologies Through Multi-Sectorial Collaboration–A Call for Action
-
Moran Bodas
,
Yuval Kimhi
Abstract
The past decade brought about a dramatic change in the global Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) risk with a reduction of the threat of war and an increase in risk of terrorism. These changes have a considerable influence on the development of CBRN defense technologies: from highly predictable scenarios with relatively good risk assessment and intelligence capabilities, to a wide variety of scenarios with limited predictive capabilities in the case of terrorism. First responders are challenged to deal with multilateral issues, which are more complex than ever before. As long as the threat was state-posed and in a war context, CBRN technologies were developed in light of defense authorities’ demands. Nowadays, with the diminishing wartime threat, the market is left “unsupervised.” Manufacturers and developers are adopting their technologies with limited to no feedback and support of the end-users. In turn, this leads to suboptimal technological results from the operational point-of-view. This paper calls for a multi-sectorial, joint venture between academia, industry, government and first responders. Such collaboration should seek a non-competitive, financially stable environment to bridge gaps in the development of defense technologies that are adapted to the rapidly changing threats. Examples and discussion will be provided.
References
Broughton, E. 2005. “The Bhopal Disaster and its Aftermath: A Review.” Environmental Health 4 (1): 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069x-4-6.Suche in Google Scholar
Byers, M. 2014. “Deliberate Chemical Attack: Revisiting the Lessons of the Tokyo Subway Attack.” Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine 22 (1): A8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1757-7241-22-s1-a8.Suche in Google Scholar
Campbell, B., and A. Murdie. 2018. “Keep the Informants Talking: The Pursuit and Use of CBRN Weapons by Terrorist Organizations.” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism: 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610x.2018.1531517.Suche in Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, G. J. 2008. “Chemical Warfare and Medical Response during World War I.” American Journal of Public Health 98 (4): 611–25. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2007.111930.Suche in Google Scholar
Haines, D. D., and S. C. Fox. 2014. “Acute and Long-Term Impact of Chemical Weapons: Lessons from the Iran-Iraq War.” Forensic Science Review 26 (2): 97–114.Suche in Google Scholar
Hincal, F., and P. Erkekoglu. 2006. “Toxic Industrial Chemicals (TICS)-Chemical Warfare without Chemical Weapons.” FABAD Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 31 (4): 220.Suche in Google Scholar
Jernigan, D. B., P. L. Raghunathan, B. P. Bell, R. Brechner, E. A. Bresnitz, J. C. Butler, and C. Greene. 2002. “Investigation of Bioterrorism-Related Anthrax, United States, 2001: Epidemiologic Findings.” Emerging Infectious Diseases 8 (10): 1019. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid0810.020353.Suche in Google Scholar
Kallenborn, Z., and P. C. Bleek. 2018. “Avatars of the Earth: Radical Environmentalism and Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) Weapons.” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 43: 351–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2018.1471972.Suche in Google Scholar
Louth, J. 2012. “The Sum of its Parts? Partnering, the MoD and Industry.” The RUSI Journal 157 (2): 6–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071847.2012.675784.Suche in Google Scholar
Mauroni, A. 2010. “Homeland Insecurity: Thinking about CBRN Terrorism.” Homeland Security Affairs 6 (3): 1–17.Suche in Google Scholar
McLeish, C. 2017. “Recasting the Threat of Chemical Terrorism in the EU: The Issue of Returnees from the Syrian Conflict.” European Journal of Risk Regulation 8 (4): 643–57. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2017.57.Suche in Google Scholar
Meulenbelt, S. E., and M. S. Nieuwenhuizen. 2015. “Non-State Actors’ Pursuit of CBRN Weapons: From Motivation to Potential Humanitarian Consequences.” International Review of the Red Cross 97 (899): 831–58. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1816383116000011.Suche in Google Scholar
McNaugher, T. L. 1990. “Ballistic Missiles and Chemical Weapons: The Legacy of the Iran-Iraq War.” International Security 15 (2): 5–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/2538864.Suche in Google Scholar
Nesser, P., A. Stenersen, and E. Oftedal. 2016. “Jihadi Terrorism in Europe: The IS-Effect.” Perspectives on Terrorism 10 (6): 3–24.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190264024.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Patocka, J. 2016. “Syria Conflict and Chemical Weapons: What is the Reality.” Military Medical Science Letters 85: 39–43. https://doi.org/10.31482/mmsl.2016.006.Suche in Google Scholar
Terrill, W. A. 1991. “The Chemical Warfare Legacy of the Yemen War.” Comparative Strategy 10 (2): 109–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/01495939108402836.Suche in Google Scholar
Trevisanato, S. I. 2007. “The ‘Hittite Plague’, an Epidemic of Tularemia and the First Record of Biological Warfare.” Medical Hypotheses 69 (6): 1371–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2007.03.012.Suche in Google Scholar
van Courtland Moon, J. E. 1984. “Chemical Weapons and Deterrence: The World War II Experience.” International Security 8 (4): 3–35. https://doi.org/10.2307/2538560.Suche in Google Scholar
Vinhas, L. A. 2003. “Overview of the Radiological Accident in Goiânia.” In International Conference on Security of Radioactive Sources, 347–55. Vienna: IAEA.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Research Articles
- Strategic Planning in Emergency Management: Evaluating the Impacts on Local Program Quality
- Representative Bureaucracy in Emergency Management: Attitudes About Contemporary Emergency Management Policy and Politics in Local Agencies
- More Monitoring, Less Coordination: Twitter and Facebook Use between Emergency Management Agencies
- First Responders’ and Librarians’ Intention to Use Web-Based Resources for Response Information During Biological, Chemical, and Radiological Terrorism Events
- A Decision Methodology for Determining Suitable Post-Disaster Accommodations: Reconsidering Effective Indicators for Decision-making Processes
- Comparing Actions and Lessons Learned in Transportation and Logistics Efforts for Emergency Response to Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Harvey
- Evaluation of Basic Trainings for Rescue Forces
- Geospatial Analysis in Responding to a Nuclear Detonation Scenario in NYC: The Gotham Shield Exercise
- Opinion
- Bridging Gaps in the Development of CBRN Defense Technologies Through Multi-Sectorial Collaboration–A Call for Action
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Research Articles
- Strategic Planning in Emergency Management: Evaluating the Impacts on Local Program Quality
- Representative Bureaucracy in Emergency Management: Attitudes About Contemporary Emergency Management Policy and Politics in Local Agencies
- More Monitoring, Less Coordination: Twitter and Facebook Use between Emergency Management Agencies
- First Responders’ and Librarians’ Intention to Use Web-Based Resources for Response Information During Biological, Chemical, and Radiological Terrorism Events
- A Decision Methodology for Determining Suitable Post-Disaster Accommodations: Reconsidering Effective Indicators for Decision-making Processes
- Comparing Actions and Lessons Learned in Transportation and Logistics Efforts for Emergency Response to Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Harvey
- Evaluation of Basic Trainings for Rescue Forces
- Geospatial Analysis in Responding to a Nuclear Detonation Scenario in NYC: The Gotham Shield Exercise
- Opinion
- Bridging Gaps in the Development of CBRN Defense Technologies Through Multi-Sectorial Collaboration–A Call for Action
