IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/defpea/v31y2020i2p142-159.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Suicide Attacks and Hard Targets: An Empirical Examination

Author

Listed:
  • James A. Piazza

Abstract

Suicide terrorist attacks are theorized to provide militants with various strategic advantages. Among these is the ability to successfully strike against well-defended or ‘hard’ targets. Scholars argue that because suicide attacks produce higher levels of damage and do not require an escape route for the perpetrator, they are particularly effective against hard targets. Consequently, militants should be expected to use such attacks more frequently, and successfully, against hard targets. This study empirically tests this contention using incident-level data on between 22,000 and 170,000 terrorist attacks in between 154 and 175 countries for the period 1970–2016. It makes two key findings. First, suicide attacks are both more frequently deployed against hard targets, and are more often successfully executed against hard targets. Second, this finding is not a product of foreign military interventions, as previous literature might suggest. Suicide attacks are found to be more likely to be launched against, with success, both domestic and foreign military targets. This underscores the importance of qualities of the target itself when explaining the strategic decision to use suicide attacks by militant groups.

Suggested Citation

  • James A. Piazza, 2020. "Suicide Attacks and Hard Targets: An Empirical Examination," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(2), pages 142-159, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:defpea:v:31:y:2020:i:2:p:142-159
    DOI: 10.1080/10242694.2018.1509257
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/10242694.2018.1509257
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/10242694.2018.1509257?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:defpea:v:31:y:2020:i:2:p:142-159. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/GDPE20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.