An Attacker–defender Resource Allocation Game with Substitution and Complementary Effects

The United States is funding homeland security programs with a large budget (e.g., 74.4 billion for FY 2019). A number of game‐theoretic defender–attacker models have been developed to study the optimal defense resource allocation strategies for the government (defender) against the strategic adversary (attacker). However, to the best of our knowledge, the substitution or complementary effects between different types of defensive resources (e.g., human resource, land resource, and capital resource) have not been taken into consideration even though they exist in practice. The article fills this gap by studying a sequential game‐theoretical resource allocation model and then exploring how the joint effectiveness of multiple security investments influences the defensive budget allocation among multiple potential targets. Three false belief models have been developed in which only the defender, only the attacker, and both the defender and attacker hold false beliefs about the joint effectiveness of resources. Regression analysis shows that there are significant substitution effects between human and capital resources. The results show that the defender will suffer a higher loss if he fails to consider the substitution or complementary effects. Interestingly, if the attacker holds a false belief while the defender does not, the defender will suffer an even higher loss, especially when the resources are substitutes. However, if both the attacker and defender hold false beliefs, there will be lower loss when resources are complementary. The results also show that the defender should allocate the highly effective resource when the resources substitute each other. This article provides some new insights to the homeland security resource allocation.