Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Game Theory: Counter Terrorism and Threat Reduction
RealMan    1/2/2010 9:39:48 AM
Game Theory: Counter Terrorism and Threat Reduction Nash Equillibrium “In game theory, Nash equilibrium [named after John Forbes Nash, who proposed it] is a solution concept of a game involving two or more players, in which each player is assumed to know the equilibrium strategies of the other players, and no player has anything to gain by changing only his or her own strategy unilaterally. If each player has chosen a strategy and no player can benefit by changing his or her strategy while the other players keep theirs unchanged, then the current set of strategy choices and the corresponding payoffs constitute a Nash equilibrium.” Wikipedia Projected Equivalence [Sustainable Deterrence and Balance] In many instances, an equilibrium or balance can be facilitated by law enforcement initiatives that optimize containment, deterrence and balance variables. These initiatives are indicative of flexible response, tactical convergence and infrastructural augmentation concepts. Example Counter Terrorism/Global War on Terrorism In a counter terrorism, general war and total war scenario, failures to obtain projected equivalence related benefits would make many nations vulnerable to attack or scenarios that have a projected equivalence of the same [threats or provocative actions that are coercive]. Hence, all nations need positive projected equivalence to secure, improve and sustain their quality of life as a nation state. Example Social Diversity [classic and modern day ideological tolerance] National Defense Viability [viability is distinctly different from capability] Defense/Economy based Peripheral Benefits [Security creates sustainable alliances, treaties and income] Coordination Game Variant "Coordination games are a formalization of the idea of a coordination problem, which is widespread in the social sciences, including economics, meaning situations in which all parties can realize mutual gains, but only by making mutually consistent decisions." Wikipedia Unified Moral Prerogative [Definition and Enforcement] While all law enforcement institutions represent the moral prerogative of its nation state and the international community as a whole, the variance in definition, articulation and enforcement creates a haze of confusion that ultimately leads to the negative costs of the fog of war. National and international points of deterioration [security and stability] must be safeguarded in a universally accepted mandate and language to preserve theatre, regional and global stability concerning nation states. Such an occurrence will significantly increase law enforcement capabilities nationally, regionally and globally while also increasing the efficiency of threat reduction initiatives. This is positive coordination in every sense of the word. Prisoner’s Dilemma In its classical form, the prisoner's dilemma ["PD"] is presented as follows: Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies [defects from the other) for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent (cooperates with the other], the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act?” wikipedia Law Enforcement [Capture, Interrogation and Deterrence] While capturing prisoners is a strength, it is important to remain cognizant of the fact that this strength is often negated by any excess in singular focus concerning the prisoner, as any and all interrogation initiatives should be geared towards breaking up entire networks that threaten the security and stability of the nation state and an assimilation of the same regionally and globally. However, threat facilitators are exceptions to the rule. Conversely, the premise of law enforcement is to decisively deter and reduce crime and all direct and peripheral threats concerning the same. This reality makes it clear that singular focus must ultimately be connected to dismantling and removing entire networks that threaten the security and stability of the nation state and its regional and global partners [conventional and asymmetrical threats].
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest