Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Human Factors and Societal Aspects in Future CBRNE Incidents

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
CBRNE: Challenges in the 21st Century

  • 236 Accesses

Abstract

CBRNE agents may pose a potent physical threat but may equally–or even more so–create significant fear and public distress. This chapter explores how the public can react to CBRNE, how states may handle incidents and how technology may be utilised to counter adverse societal effects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Social contract theory can be dated back to the 16- and 1700s, with influential thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rosseau and John Locke in the forefront. In some form or another, all three argued that the state of nature and humans needed to be regulated in a form of social contract where humans gave up some of their liberties, or even rights, to the state in exchange for protection of their lives and property.

  2. 2.

    Read more on how human security and global equality is—in general—constantly improving https://www.gapminder.org/.

  3. 3.

    For a better expansion of this topic see e.g. Cronin AK (2020) Power to the People: How Open Technological Innovation Is Arming Tomorrow's Terrorists. Oxford University Press.

References

  1. Barrett R, Brown PJ (2008) Stigma in the time of influenza: social and institutional responses to pandemic emergencies. J Infectious Diseases 197:34–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bellingcat (2020) Russia’s clandestine chemical weapons programme and the GRU’s Unit 29155. Published 23rd Oct 2020. Available via https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2020/10/23/russias-clandestine-chemical-weapons-programme-and-the-grus-unit-21955/. Accessed 22 Dec 2020

  3. Cabinet Office (2011) UK Resilience: communicating risk. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60907/communicating-risk-guidance.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2019

  4. DCDC UK Ministry of Defence (2018) Global strategic trends: the future starts today. 6th ed. Available via https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/771309/Global_Strategic_Trends_-_The_Future_Starts_Today.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2019

  5. Deer B (2003–2017) Andrew wakefield: the fraud investigation. Articles available via https://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm. Accessed 17 Feb 2021

  6. Douglas K, Sutton RM, Cichocka A (2017) The psychology of conspiracy theories. Current Directions Psychol Sci, 538–542

    Google Scholar 

  7. Earnhardt R, Ackerman G (2019) Modelling terrorist technology transfer. on the horizon: security challenges at the nexus of state and non-state actors and emerging/disruptive technologies. Available via https://nsiteam.com/on-the-horizon-security-challenges-at-the-nexus-of-state-and-non-state-actors-and-emerging-disruptive-technologies/. Accessed 10 Apr 2021

  8. Fischhoff B, Gonzalez RM, Small DA, Lerner JS (2003) Evaluating the success of terror risk communications. Biosecur Bioterror 1(4):255–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gigerenzer G (2006) Out of the frying pan into the fire: behavioral reactions to terrorist attacks. Risk Anal 26(2):347–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Glass TA, Scoch-Spana M (2002) Bioterrorism and the people: how to vaccinate a city against panic. Confronting Biological Weapons 34:217–223

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hall C, Williams N, Gauntlett L et al. (2019). Findings from systematic review of public perceptions and responses. Deliverable D1.1 in PROACTIVE project. Available via https://proactive-h2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/proactive_20191223_D1.1_V4_PHE_Systematic-Review-of-Public-Perceptions-and-Responses.pdf. Accessed 10 Apr 2021

  12. Hall RCW, Chapman MJ (2006) Medical and psychiatric casualties caused by conventional and radiological (dirty) bombs. Gen Hospital Psychiatry 28:242–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Harrison AA, Moulton TJ (1997) The Kennedy assassination, unidentified flying objects, and other conspiracies: psychological and organizational factors in the perception of ‘‘cover-up.’ Systematic Res Behav Sci 14(2):113–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Heath RL (2006) Best practices in crisis communication: evolution of practice through research. J Appl Commun Res 34(3):245–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Henderson JN, Henderson L, Carson RGE, Boatright DT (2004) Chemical (VX) terrorist threat: public knowledge, attitudes, and responses. Biosecur Bioterror 2(3):224–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hoffman FG (2009) Hybrid warfare and challenges. Joint Force Quart 52:34–39

    Google Scholar 

  17. IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) (1988) The radiological accident in Goiânia. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub815_web.pdf. Accessed 11 Aug 2020

  18. Jolley D, Douglas KM (2014) The effects of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories on vaccination intentions. PLOS ONE 9(2):e89177. Available via https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089177. Accessed 2 Dec 2020

  19. Jolley D, Douglas KM (2014) The social consequences of conspiracism: Exposure to conspiracy theories decreases the intention to engage in politics and to reduce one’s carbon footprint. Br J Psychol 105:35–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Krieger K, Amlôt R, Rogers MB (2014) Understanding public responses to chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incidents—driving factors, emerging themes and research gaps. Environ Int 72:66–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lindell MK, Perry RW (2012) The protective action decision model: theoretical modifications and additional evidence. Risk Anal 32(4):616–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Liu D, Asgharpour F, Camp LJ (2008) Risk communication in security using mental models. In: Usable Security. http://usablesecurity.org/papers/liu.pdf. Accessed 4 Jul 2019

  23. McCauley M, Minsky S, Viswanath K (2013) The H1N1 pandemic: media frames, stigmatization and coping. BMC Public Health 13:1116. Available via http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/13/111. Accessed 2 Dec 2020

  24. McComas KA (2006) Defining moments in risk communication research: 1996–2005. J Health Commun Int Perspect 11(1):75–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. National Intelligence Council (NIC) (2017) Global trends: paradox of progress. Available via https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/nic/GT-Full-Report.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2019

  26. NATO Allied Command Transformation (ACT) (2017) Strategic foresight analysis 2017 report. https://www.act.nato.int/images/stories/media/doclibrary/171004_sfa_2017_report_hr.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2019

  27. Parachini J (2001) Anthrax attacks, biological terrorism and preventive responses. Testimony of John parachini, policy analyst, RAND Washington Office, before the subcommittee on technology, terrorism, and government information, Nov 6, 2001. RAND

    Google Scholar 

  28. Poupard JA, Miller LA (1992) History of biological warfare: catapults to capsomeres. Ann NY Acad Sci 666:9–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Quarantelli EL (2001) The sociology of panic. Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware. http://dspace.udel.edu/handle/19716/308. Accessed 9 Jan 2019

  30. Quinn P (2018) Crisis communication in public health emergencies: the limits of ‘Legal Control’ and the risks for harmful outcomes in a digital age. Life Sci Soc Policy 14(4). Available via https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29404722/. Accessed 9 Jun 2019

  31. Reidpath DD, Chan KY, Gifford SM, Allotey P (2005) ‘He hath the French pox’: stigma, social value and social exclusion. Sociol Health Illn 27(4):468–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Rogers MB, Amlôt R, Rubin GJ (2013) The impact of communication materials on public responses to a radiological dispersal device (RDD) attack. Biosecur Bioterror 11(1):49–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rogers MB, Amlôt R, Rubin GJ, Wessely S, Krieger K (2007) Mediating the social and psychological impacts of terrorist attacks: the role of risk perception and risk communication. Int Rev Psychiatry 19(3):279–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rubin GJ, Chowdhury AK, Amlôt R (2012) How to Communicate with the public about chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear terrorism: a systematic review of the literature. Biosecur Bioterror 10(4):383–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Scoch-Spana M, Franco C, Nuzzo JB, Usenza C (2007) Leadership tool for catastrophic health events. Biosecur Bioterror 5(1):8–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sheppard B, Rubin GJ, Wardman JK, Wessely S (2006) Terrorism and dispelling the myth of a panic prone public. J Pub Health Policy 27:219–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Simona T, Goldberg A, Adini B (2015) Socializing in emergencies—a review of the use of social media in emergency situations. Int J Inf Manage 35:609–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sorensen JH (2000) Hazard warning systems: review of 20 years of progress. Nat Hazard Rev 1(2):119–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Spencer ML, Kindt MT, Stans MP (2011) Public Resilience in CBRN events: lessons learned from seven cases. The counterproliferation papers future warfare series 52. USAF Counterproliferation Center

    Google Scholar 

  40. Stern J (2002) Dreaded risks and the control of biological weapons. Int Secur 27(3):89–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Swain KA (2012) Explanation of risk and uncertainty in news coverage of an anthrax attack. J Risk Anal Crisis Response 2(2):81–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Szinicz L (2005) History of chemical and biological warfare agents. Toxicology 214:167–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Tanaka Y (1998) Psychological dimensions of risk assessment: risk perception and risk communication. Prog Nucl Energy 32(314):243–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Tilly C (1992) Cities and states in world history. In: Tilly C (ed) Coercion, Capital and European State, AD 990–1992. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 1–37

    Google Scholar 

  45. Wessely S (2005) Don’t panic! Short- and long-term psychological reactions to the new terrorism: the role of information and the authorities. J Mental Health 14(1):1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Willetts P (2008) Transnational actors and international organizations in global politics. In: Baylis J, Smith S, Owens P (eds) The globalization of world politics, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, p 33

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (Forsvarets Forskningsinstitutt (FFI)), P.O. Box 25, NO2027, Kjeller, Norway

    K. Brattekås

Authors
  1. K. Brattekås
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. Brattekås .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Security Science and Technology, Imperial College London, London, UK

    Peter D.E. Biggins

  2. Institute of Security Science and Technology, Imperial College London, London, UK

    Deeph Chana

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Brattekås, K. (2022). Human Factors and Societal Aspects in Future CBRNE Incidents. In: Biggins, P.D., Chana, D. (eds) CBRNE: Challenges in the 21st Century. Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17374-5_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation