A Game Theoretical Model of Radiological Terrorism Defense

Q4 Social Sciences International Journal of Nuclear Security Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.7290/ijns07vrqk
S. Rane, J. Harris
{"title":"A Game Theoretical Model of Radiological Terrorism Defense","authors":"S. Rane, J. Harris","doi":"10.7290/ijns07vrqk","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Radiological dispersal devices (RDD) pose a threat to the United States. Healthcare facilities housing high-risk radioactive materials and devices are potentially easy targets for unauthorized access and are vulnerable to malevolent acts of theft or sabotage. The three most attractive candidates for use in RDD considered in this study are: 60Co (radiosurgery devices), 137Cs (blood irradiators) and 192Ir (brachytherapy high dose radiation device). The threat posed by RDDs has led to evaluating the security risk of radioactive materials and defending against attacks. The concepts of risk analysis used in conjunction with game theory lay the foundations of quantitative security risk management. This paper develops a two player non-cooperative one-shot simultaneous defender-attacker game. The defender (healthcare facility) chooses to defend one of the three high-risk radioactive material targets and the attacker (terrorists or adversaries) chooses to attack one of the three high-risk radioactive material targets. A risk-informed approach is used to model players’ payoffs or expected utilities for each choice of strategies. A game-theoretic model (RDD game) captures the strategic interaction between competing players who act rationally to maximize their expected utility. The evaluation of the RDD game results in a von Neuman max-min strategy solution being preferable to a mixed strategy Nash equilibrium solution. The von Neumann max-min strategy solution of the defender defending cobalt and the attacker attacking cesium is found to be the most prescriptive result, thus favoring the current efforts of phasing out cesium blood irradiators and replacing them with alternative technologies. The RDD game not only gives the defender strategic options to budget scarce security resources but also helps healthcare facilities make optimal choices under severe uncertainty about the terrorist threat.","PeriodicalId":36043,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Nuclear Security","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Nuclear Security","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7290/ijns07vrqk","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Radiological dispersal devices (RDD) pose a threat to the United States. Healthcare facilities housing high-risk radioactive materials and devices are potentially easy targets for unauthorized access and are vulnerable to malevolent acts of theft or sabotage. The three most attractive candidates for use in RDD considered in this study are: 60Co (radiosurgery devices), 137Cs (blood irradiators) and 192Ir (brachytherapy high dose radiation device). The threat posed by RDDs has led to evaluating the security risk of radioactive materials and defending against attacks. The concepts of risk analysis used in conjunction with game theory lay the foundations of quantitative security risk management. This paper develops a two player non-cooperative one-shot simultaneous defender-attacker game. The defender (healthcare facility) chooses to defend one of the three high-risk radioactive material targets and the attacker (terrorists or adversaries) chooses to attack one of the three high-risk radioactive material targets. A risk-informed approach is used to model players’ payoffs or expected utilities for each choice of strategies. A game-theoretic model (RDD game) captures the strategic interaction between competing players who act rationally to maximize their expected utility. The evaluation of the RDD game results in a von Neuman max-min strategy solution being preferable to a mixed strategy Nash equilibrium solution. The von Neumann max-min strategy solution of the defender defending cobalt and the attacker attacking cesium is found to be the most prescriptive result, thus favoring the current efforts of phasing out cesium blood irradiators and replacing them with alternative technologies. The RDD game not only gives the defender strategic options to budget scarce security resources but also helps healthcare facilities make optimal choices under severe uncertainty about the terrorist threat.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
辐射恐怖主义防御的博弈模型
放射性扩散装置(RDD)对美国构成威胁。存放高风险放射性材料和设备的医疗保健设施可能很容易成为未经授权访问的目标,并且容易受到恶意盗窃或破坏行为的攻击。本研究考虑的三种最有吸引力的RDD候选材料是:60Co(放射外科设备)、137Cs(血液照射器)和192Ir(近距离治疗高剂量放射设备)。rdd带来的威胁促使人们对放射性物质的安全风险进行评估,并防范攻击。与博弈论相结合的风险分析概念奠定了定量安全风险管理的基础。本文提出了一种二人非合作单次同时攻防博弈。防御者(医疗机构)选择防御三个高风险放射性物质目标中的一个,攻击者(恐怖分子或对手)选择攻击三个高风险放射性物质目标中的一个。风险知情方法用于模拟玩家的收益或每种策略选择的预期效用。博弈论模型(RDD博弈)捕捉竞争参与者之间的战略互动,他们采取理性行动以最大化他们的预期效用。RDD博弈的评估结果表明,冯诺依曼最大-最小策略解决方案优于混合策略纳什均衡解决方案。防御者防御钴,攻击者攻击铯的冯·诺伊曼最大最小策略解决方案被认为是最规范的结果,因此有利于目前逐步淘汰铯血液辐照器并以替代技术取而代之的努力。RDD博弈不仅为防御者提供了预算稀缺安全资源的战略选择,而且还帮助医疗机构在恐怖主义威胁的严重不确定性下做出最佳选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Nuclear Security
International Journal of Nuclear Security Social Sciences-Safety Research
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Book Review of "The International Atomic Energy Agency: Historical Reflections, Current Challenges and Future Prospects" Book Review of "Nuclear Weapons Free Zones: A Comparative Perspective" The Perils of Non-State Actors in Pakistan: Assessing the Risks of Nuclear Safety and Security Assessing Nuclear Security Risks in Pakistan Remote Laboratory for Nuclear Security Education
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1