Citation

Koblentz GD. Terrorism Polit. Violence 2011; 23(4): 501-520.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2011, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/09546553.2011.575487

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Since the mid-1990s, academic and policy communities have debated the risk posed by terrorist use of chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) weapons. Three major schools of thought in the debate have emerged: the optimists, the pessimists, and the pragmatists. Although these three schools of thought draw on the same limited universe of data on CBRN terrorism, they arrive at strikingly different conclusions. Given the highly subjective process of CBRN terrorism risk assessment, this article analyzes the influence of mental shortcuts (called heuristics) and the systemic errors they create (called biases) on the risk assessment process. This article identifies and provides illustrative examples of a range of heuristics and biases that lead to the underestimation of risks, the overestimation of risks and, most importantly, those that degrade the quality of the debate about the level of risk. While these types of biases are commonly seen as affecting the public's perception of risk, such biases can also be found in risk assessments by experts. The article concludes with recommendations for improving the CBRN risk assessment process.

Language: en

Keywords

biological weapon; homeland security; nuclear weapon; risk assessment; risk perception; terrorism; weapons of mass destruction