Terör Maksatlı Biyolojik-Kimyasal Saldırılara Ait Tehdit Değerlendirmesinde Risk Analizi ve Yönetimi

Öz

Teröristler barındıkları ülkelerde olduğu gibi dış ülkelerde de faaliyet gösterebilmekte, para kaynakları, lojistik destekleri ülke sınırları ile sınırlanamamakta ve ekonomik ambargolarla para akışları durdurulamamaktadır. Ayrıca, hızlı ve etkin bir haberleşme sağlamak için en üstün teknolojileri kullanmaktadırlar. Amaçları önceki dönemlerden çok daha ölümcül olup genellikle kitle imhasına yönelik teknikler üzerinde çalışmaktadırlar. Kolluk güçleri ve devletin diğer ilgili kuruluşlarının müdahale etmek zorunda kalacakları değerlendirilen felaketler arasında en yıkıcı ve etkileri en fazla olabilecek olan biyolojik ve kimyasal saldırılar olacaktır. Biyolojik-kimyasal saldırı tehdidi toplum sağlığı ve güvenliği ile ilgilenen kurumlar için öncelikli tedbir alınması gereken bir durumdur. Hazırlanan bu makale ile biyolojik ve kimyasal saldırıların oluşturduğu tehdidin değerlendirilmesi, karşı tedbir politikalarının oluşturulmasında risk analizi ve yönetim prensiplerinin ortaya konulması, yapıcı bir yaklaşımla oluşturulacak risk değerlendirmeleri ile rasyonel tedbir politikalarının oluşturulması konularına yardımcı olmak amaçlanmıştır

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Biyolojik-Kimyasal Saldırı, Tehdit Değerlendirmesi, Risk Analizi, Tedbir Politikaları

RISK ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT IN TERRORIM RELATED BIOLOGICAL-CHEMICAL ASSAULT THREAT

Öz

Terrorists are acting locally and internationally. Their money source and logistic support are not dependent on the country boundries and can not be stopped by economic embargos. They use fast and efficient means of communications. Henceforth, aims of the terrorist organizations are more fatal than before and usually work on improvised explosive devices designed for mass destruction. The most devastating catastrophe which law enforcement agencies and related govermental bodies will have to deal with are to be biological and chemical assaults. This situation is a foremost important issue for the bodies dealing with public health and security. In this paper, it was aimed to assist for threat evaluation of chemical-biological assaults, establishing risk analysis and management of counter measure policies, risk assesment in a positive thinking and establishing rational precautions

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Chemical-Biological Assault, Threat Evaluation, Risk Analysis, Counter Measure Policies

Kaynakça

1. Altman, S., vd., (2005). An Open Letter to Elias Zerhouni. Science, 307 (4 March 2005), 1409-1410.
2. Ashton B.C., John M.D. ve Philip D.Z., (1998). Catastrophic Terrorism: Elements of a National Policy, Stanford-Harvard Preventive Defense Project, Stanford, Calif.: Oct. 1998, 6-10.
3. Balmer, B., (2001). Britain and Biological Warfare: Expert Advice and Science Policy, 1930–65. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Biological and Toxin Weapons Today, (1986). (Ed.) E. Geissler, SIPRI, Oxford University Press.
4. Birkland, T.A., (2010). An Introduction to the Policy Process:Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public Policy Making, Armonk, New York, M.E.Sharpe Inc.
5. Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Risk Assessments, Report to Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate (GAO-12-272), Ocak 2012.
6. Cole, B. ve Nadine Gurr, (2002). The New Face of Terrorism: Threats from Weapons of Mass Destruction. London, New York: I.B. Tauris.
7. Collier, S., Lakoff, A. ve Rabinow, P., (2004). Biosecurity: Towards an anthropology of the contemporary. Anthropology Today, 20(5), 3-7.
8. Crenshaw, M. (1999). Threat Perception in Democracies: ‘WMD’ Terrorism in the U.S. Policy Debate, presented before the 22nd Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society for Political Psychology, Amsterdam, Temmuz 18-21.

9. Dando M. (2001). The New Biological Weapons, Boulder ve London, Lynne Rienner.
10. Douglas, M. ve Wildavsky, A.B., (1982). Risk and Culture: An Essay on The Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers, Berkeley: University of California Press.
11. Dubuis B., (1994). Recombinant DNA and Biological Warfare. Zurich, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, Institut für Militärische Sicherheitstechnik, Report IMS., 94 -10.
12. Enserink, M. ve Kaiser, J. (2005). Has Bioterrorism Gone Overboard?, Science, 307(4 March), 1396-1398.
13. Ericson, R.V., ve Doyle, A. (2004). Catastrophe Risk, Insurance and Terrorism, Economy and Society, 33(2), 135-173.
14. Ewald, F., (2002). The return of Descartes’ malicious demon: An outline of a philosophy of precaution. İçinde T. Baker ve J. Simon (Ed.), Embracing Risk: The Changing Culture of Insurance and Responsibility. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15. Fifth Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction, Geneva, (19 November–7 December 2001), Background Paper on New Scientific and Technological Developments Relevant to The Convention, 26 Ekim 2001.
16. Hacking, I., (2001). The Social Construction of What?, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17. Harigel, G., (1998). The Twin Problem of Warheads and Their Delivery Vehicles. Where to Put The Priority During Future Treaty Negotiations, ISODARCO Beijing Seminar, Ekim/Kasım 1998, Beijing.
18. Hunger, I. (1997). Improving Biological Security: The Process of Strengthening the BTW Convention, First Forum of the International Scientific Panel on the Possible Consequences of the Misuse of Biological Sciences, Science for Peace Series, UNESCO, Nu.6, 367- 388.
19. Jackson RJ vd. (2001). Expression of mouse interleukin-4 by a recombinant ectromelia virus suppresses cytolytic lymphocyte responses and overcomes genetic resistance to mousepox. Journal of Virology, 75(3),1205-1210.
20. Jasanoff, S. ve Wynne, B. (1998). Science and decisionmaking. Içinde S. Rayner ve E.L. Malone (Ed.) Human Choice and Climate Change. Columbus: Battelle Press.
21. Jonathan B.T. ve Sands A. (1999). An Unlikely Threat, The Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists, Temmuz/Ağustos, 46-52
22. Kulling P. (2000). The Terrorist Attack with Sarin in Tokyo. Socialstyrelsen Report. Stockholm, Modin-Tryck. Leitenberg M. (1999). Aum Shinrikyo’s Efforts to Produce Biological Weapons. Terrorism and Political Violence, 11(4), 149-158
23. Luhmann, N. (1993). Risk: A Sociological Theory, New York: A. de Gruyter.
24. Meselson, M. (1991). The Myth of Chemical Superweapons, The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, April 1991,12-15.
25. Measures For Controlling The Threat From Biological Weapons, (2000). London, Royal Society, (document 4/00).
26. Miller, D. (2005). NIH Scientists Criticize Agency: Microbiologists Echo Earlier Claims That Funding Priorities Are Skewed Against Basic Science, The Scientist, 30 Mart.
27. New Scientist, (2006). Know Your Enemy: In Throwing Money at Bioterror, The US Is Ignoring A Greater Health Risk (Editorial). New Scientist, 2572 (7 Ekim).
28. Noble, R.K. (2006). Secretary-General’s Foreword. In Bio-Terrorism Incident Pre-Planning And Response Guide. Lyon, France: ICPOINTERPOL.
29. Okumura T. vd. (1998). Tokyo Subway Sarin Attack: Disaster Management. Part 2, Part 3: Hospital Response. Academic Emergency Medicine, 5, 618–628.
30. Palfy, A. (2003). Weapons System Selection and Mass-Casualty Outcomes, Terrorism and Political Violence, 15 (2), (Summer 2003). Panofsky, W.K.H. (1998). Dismantling the Concept Of ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction, Arms Control Today, Nisan 1998, 3-8.
31. Parachini, J.. (2000). Combating Terrorism: Assessing Threats, Risk Management, and Establishing Priorities, Testimony before the House Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations. 26 Temmuz 2000.
32. Richard A.F., Newman R..D. ve Thayer B.A. (1998). America’s Achilles Heel: Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical terrorism and Covert Attack, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
33. Rose, N., (1999). Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34. Rose, N. ve Miller, P. (1992). Political Power Beyond The State— Problematics of Government. British Journal of Sociology, 43(2), 173–205.
35. Scheinman L. (2000). Regimes, Defence and Deterrence, The CBW Convention Bullettin, Giugno 2000, n. 48. Schroeck, G. (2002). Risk Management and Value Creation, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
36. Sprinzak, (2000). On Not Overstating the Threat, İçinde Roberts, Brad. (Ed.), Hype or Reality? The "New Terrorism" and Mass Casualty Attacks. Alexandria, VA: The Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute, 5-6.
37. Smithson A. ve Levy LA., (1999). Ataxia: The Chemical And Biological Terrorism Threatand The US Response. Washington, DC: The Henry L. Stimson Center.
38. Tucker, Jonathan B. (Ed.) (2000). Toxic Terror: Assessing Terrorist use of Chemical and Biological Weapons, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. United Nations Security Council Document S/23500, 31 Ocak 1992