Entropi Temelli SAW ve ARAS Yöntemleri İle Nato Ülkeleri Askeri Güçlerinin Sıralanması

Year 2020, Volume: 4 Issue: 3, 731 - 753, 30.09.2020

Fatma Gul Altin , Mustafa Zihni Tunca , Nuri Ömürbek

https://doi.org/10.29023/alanyaakademik.646385

Cited By: 2

Abstract

Kuzey Atlantik Antlaşması Örgütü (NATO), 4 Nisan 1949 tarihinde 12 ülke tarafından Sovyet Sosyalist Cumhuriyetleri Birliği’nin yayılmacı politikasına karşı kurulmuş, uluslararası askeri bir ittifaktır. Daha sonra 17 ülke daha ittifaka dahil olmuştur. NATO’nun en önemli aktörleri üye ülkelerin kendileridir. Bu nedenle örgüt için NATO ülkelerinin güçlü ordulara sahip olmaları büyük öneme sahiptir. Bu çalışmanın amacı NATO ülkelerinin askeri güçlerinin Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri ile sıralanmasıdır. 27 NATO ülkesinin askeri güçleri Entropi temelli SAW ve ARAS yöntemleri değerlendirilmiş ve Global Firepower sitesi tarafından düzenlenen liste ile karşılaştırılmıştır. Her iki yönteme göre elde edilen sıralamalar birbirini destekler niteliktedir. Üç sıralamaya göre de Amerika Birleşik Devletleri ilk sırada yer alırken; SAW ve ARAS yöntemleri ile elde edilen sıralamalarda Türkiye ikinci sırada yer almıştır.

Keywords

Entropi, SAW, ARAS, NATO

Ranking Military Power of Nato Countries Using Entropy Based Saw and Aras Methods

Abstract

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is an international military alliance against the expansionist policy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, established by 12 countries on 12 April 1949. Later, 17 more countries joined the alliance. The most important actors of NATO are the member states themselves. For this reason, it is of great importance that NATO countries have strong armies for the organization. The aim of this study is to rank the military forces of NATO countries with Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods. The military forces of 27 NATO countries were evaluated based on Entropy based SAW and ARAS methods and compared with the ranking prepared by Global Firepower site. The rankings obtained according to both methods support each other. While the United States was placed on the top of all three ranking, Turkey stayed in the second rows of the rankings of SAW and ARAS methods.

Keywords

Entropy, SAW, ARAS, NATO

References

• Afshari, A., Mojahed, M. ve Yusuff. R.M. (2010), “Simple Additive Weighting Approach to Personnel Selection Problem”, International Journal of Innovation. Management and Technology, 1(5), 511-515.Ameri, A.A., Pourghasemi, H.R. ve Cerda. A. (2018), “Erodibility Prioritization Of Sub-Watersheds Using Morphometric Parameters Analysis and Its Mapping: A Comparison Among TOPSIS. VIKOR, SAW and CF Multi-Criteria Decision Making Models”, Science Of The Total Environment. 613-614, 1385-1400. Ashari, H.E. ve Parsaei, M. (2014), “Application of The Multi-Criteria Decision Method ELECTRE III for The Weapon Selection”, Decision Science Letters, 3(4), 511–522.Bozanic, D., Tesic, D. ve Milicevic. J. (2018), “A Hybrid Fuzzy AHP-MABAC Model: Application In The Serbian Army-The Selection Of The Location For Deep Wading As A Technique Of Crossing The River By Tanks”, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 1(1), 143-164.Can, Ş. ve Arıkan, F. (2014), “Bir Savunma Sanayi Firmasında Çok KRiterli Alt Yüklenici Seçim Problemi ve Çözümü”, Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 29(4), 645-654.Dadelo, S., Turskis, Z., Zavadskas, E.K. ve Dadeliene, R. (2012), “Multiple Criteria Assessment of Elite Security Personal on The Basis of ARAS and Expert Methods”, Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 46(4), 65-88.Dashore, K., Pawar, S.S., Sohani, N., Verma, D.S. (2013), “Product Evaluation Using Entropy and Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods”, International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology, 41(5), 2183-2187.Demir, S. (2016), “21.Yüzyılda Barış ve Güvenliğin Tesisinde NATO’nun Rolü”, Gazi Akademik Bakış Dergisi, 9(18), 235-252.Ersöz, F. ve Kabak, M. (2010), “Savunma Sanayi Uygulamalarında Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemlerinin Literatür Araştırması”, Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi, 9(1), 97-125.Göleç, A., Gürbüz, F. ve Şenyiğit, E. (2016), “Determination of Best Military Cargo Aircraft With Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Techniques”, Manas Journal of Social Studies, 5(5), 87-101.Huang, J. (2008), “Combining Entropy Weight and TOPSIS Method for Information System”, 2008 IEEE Conference on Cybernetics and Intelligent Systems, Chengdu-China.Janic, M. ve Reggiani, A. (2002), “An Application of The Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Analysis to The Selection of A New Hub Airport”, European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 2(2), 113-141.Karabasevic, D., Zavadskas. E.K., Turskis, Z. ve Stanujkic, D. (2016), “The Framework For The Selection of Personnel Based on The SWARA and ARAS Methods Under Uncertainties”, Informatica, 27:1, 49-65.Karaburun, M.F. ve Alaykıran, K. (2018), “Weapon Selection Problem With AHP And Topsis Methods In Multi Criteria Decision Making”, International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 5(5), 48-52.Karami, A. ve Johansson, R., (2014), “Utilization Of Multi Attribute Decision Making Techniques To Integrate Automatic And Manual Ranking Of Options”, Journal of Informatıon Science and Engineering, 30, 519-534.Kutut, V., Zavadskas, E.K. ve Lazauskas, M. (2013), “Assessment of Priority Options for Preservation of Historic City Centre Buildings Using MCDM (ARAS), Procedia Engineering, 57, 657-661. Modarres, M. ve Sadi-Nezhad, S. (2005), “Fuzzy Simple Additive Weighting Method by Preference Ratio”, Intelligent Automation and Soft Computing, 11(4), 235-244.Sanchez-Lozano, J.M., Serna. J. ve Dolon-Payan, A. (2015), “Evaluating Military Training Aircrafts Through the Combination of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Processes with Fuzzy Logic: A Case Study in The Spanish Air Force Academy”, Aerospace Science and Technology, 42, 58-65.Shannon, C.E. (1948), “A Mathematical Theory of Communication”, Bell Labs Technical Journal, 27:4, 623-656.Sliogeriene, J., Turskis, Z. ve Streimikiene, D. (2013), “Analysis and Choice of Energy Generation Technologies: The Multiple Criteria Assessment on the Case Study of Lithuania”, Energy Procedia, 32, 11-20.Turskis, Z. ve Zavadskas, E.K. (2010), “A new fuzzy additive ratio assessment method (ARAS-F). Case Study: The Analysis of Fuzzy Multiple Criteria in Order to Select The Logistic Centers Location”, Transport, 25(4), 423-432.Uçakcıoğlu, B. ve Eren, T. (2017), “Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi ve VIKOR Yöntemleri ile Hava Savunma Sanayisinde Yatırım Projesi Seçimi”, Harran Üniversitesi Mühendislik Dergisi, 2(2), 35-53. Wang, P., Meng, P. ve Song, B. (2014), “Response Surface Method Using Grey Relational Analysis for Decision Making in Weapon System Selection”, Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 25(2), 265-272.Wang, Y.-J., Han, T.C. ve Chou, M.T. (2016), “Applying Fuzzy AHP in Selection of Transport Modes for Kinmen Military Logistics”, Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 24 (2), 222-232.Wang, J.J., Jing, Y.Y., Zhang, C.F. ve Zhao, J.H. (2009), “Review on Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Aid in Sustainable Energy Decision-Making”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13:9, 2263-2278.Yağlı, U. ve Arıkan, F. (2018), “Hava Kuvvetleri Komutanlığı Malzeme İhtiyaç Planlaması Tedarik Tavsiye Listesinin ÇKKV Yöntemleri İle Analizi”, Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi, 17(1), 47-73.Zhang, H., Gu, C.L., Gu, L.W. ve Zhang, Y. (2011), “The Evaluation of Tourism Destination Competitiveness by TOPSIS&Information Entropy- A Case in The Yangtze River Delta of China”, Tourism Management, 32:2, 443-451.(http://www.tasam.org/tr-TR/Icerik/5405/askeri_guc_ve_dis_siyaset. 26.02.2019).(http://www.mfa.gov.tr/nato-tarihce.tr.mfa. 26.02.2019).(https://www.globalfirepower.com/. 26.02.2019).