Abstract
AbstractWe present a two‐agent, asymmetric‐information game model featuring a terror organization (Org) and a defending state (State). The Org chooses an aggregate terror input. The State chooses the levels of preemptive measures and redress of grievances of the Org's population, respectively as direct and preventive counter‐terrorism measures. Defining how the war on terror (WoT) may be “lost” or “won,” we prove that it is impossible to win the WoT with preemptive measures only, if the marginal cost of these measures is increasing. The optimal response of the State to an increase in terrorism is to increase preemption and grant more grievance redress.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
