Terrorism and Game theory :: essays research papers fc

Terrorism is a r atomic number 18, broad conception that affects individuals, schools, corporations, and giving medications alike. Generally terrorists end up wanting to make change with governments, and governments argon usually the unaccompanied groups powerful enough to try to deal with governments. barely what should be the best strategy to deal with terrorists? Since September 11, 2001 game supposition has been used to analyze how governments and how terrorists should act to achieve their best outcome. This paper go away analyze the games that these competing forces merchant ship use to determine the best course of action.The live war on act of act of terrorism is tending to have three disparate sides the United States, the European Union, and the terrorists. Before the September 11th attacks all policies towards terrorism were reactive rather than proactive. So before we get involved with terrorists at all, there is a game in which based on what constitution the EU is going to enact, the how should the US act towards terrorism. A proactive indemnity means that the government is going to attack POSSIBLE terror threats, whereas a reactive constitution would mean that there would be no strikes against terrorism unless the terrorists decide to strike first.Now lets take a look at a modelling. Lets say, for analysis sake, that a proactive strategy costs a government 6, but casts a benefit of 4 for both(prenominal) governments. For example, if only the US has a proactive strategy, then its net would be -2, but the EU would get all 4 of benefit. If both governments are proactive, then the cost is still 6 for each, but the benefit is dual to 8 because they benefit from each others policies. Using this structure, we can construct this normal form of the gamefrom Acre & Sandler Vol. 34In this model it is clear that the Nash Equilibrium is where neither government has a proactive policy towards terrorists. Because neither government is willing to b ear the entire cost, neither government will be proactive although the largest benefit can be derived from both being proactive. This is why this is a type of prisoners dilemma game.Real life is hardly ever as fair as this model would suggest. The United States is the target of 40% of all terrorism in the world. (Oster) The US is also more often successful in queer terrorism than Europe. Thus, a more realistic model might be one in which the United States gets a benefit of 8 for its proactive strategy.