国际标准期刊号: 2157-2526

生物恐怖主义和生物防御杂志

开放获取

我们集团组织了 3000 多个全球系列会议 每年在美国、欧洲和美国举办的活动亚洲得到 1000 多个科学协会的支持 并出版了 700+ 开放获取期刊包含超过50000名知名人士、知名科学家担任编委会成员。

开放获取期刊获得更多读者和引用
700 种期刊 15,000,000 名读者 每份期刊 获得 25,000 多名读者

索引于
  • CAS 来源索引 (CASSI)
  • 哥白尼索引
  • 谷歌学术
  • 夏尔巴·罗密欧
  • 打开 J 门
  • Genamics 期刊搜索
  • 学术钥匙
  • 期刊目录
  • 研究圣经
  • 中国知网(CNKI)
  • 乌尔里希的期刊目录
  • 参考搜索
  • 哈姆达大学
  • 亚利桑那州EBSCO
  • OCLC-世界猫
  • SWB 在线目录
  • 普布隆斯
  • 日内瓦医学教育与研究基金会
  • 欧洲酒吧
  • ICMJE
分享此页面

抽象的

Prioritizing Countries by Concern Regarding Access to Weapons of Mass Destruction Materials

Susan Caskey, Barry Ezell*

This article presents a global prioritization methodology that evaluates the relative risks of non-state actor acquisition of materials that could be used in chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high explosive Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) from the country’s relevant infrastructure. Prioritization is based on three domains: 1. Assessing relative scale of materials in each country, 2. The country’s corresponding security posture, and 3. The presence of threat actors. The output is a list of countries prioritized from greatest risk to least. Rather than providing an overall 1 to N ranking, however, the results are placed into tiers based upon their natural groupings within the three domains. The countries in the highest tiers are flagged as potential US national security concern; those scoring in the middle and at the bottom are flagged as posing lower US national security concern. A systematic approach assesses each country by leveraging many disciplines, such as risk and decision analysis, as well as expert judgement. A quantitative value model based on Multi-Attribute Value Theory (MAVT) organizes the objectives scoring criteria into a value tree using lessons learned from previous studies, published literature, and expert judgement. The article presents the prioritization categories and corresponding value model scoring criteria to include measurement type, weight, range, and value preference. Country names and data are notional in order to share the details on the underlying methodology and model without identification of actual security risks. A deliberative process addresses factors external to the model and scrutinizes inputs, methodology, model, and results