IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/harjfk/rwp18-006.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Confronting an Enemy with Unknown Preferences: Deterrer or Provocateur?

Author

Listed:
  • Jelnov, Artyom

    (Ariel University)

  • Tauman, Yair

    (Stony Brook University)

  • Zeckhauser, Richard J.

    (Harvard University)

Abstract

Nation 1 is seeking to join the nuclear club. Nation 2, its enemy, would like to prevent this, and has the potential to destroy 1’s bomb-making facilities. It is uncertain whether 1 has a bomb. So are its intentions. 1 could be seeking to deter an attack. Alternatively, if no bomb is present, 1 might wish to provoke one as a means to secure support at home and abroad. Lacking a bomb, 1 can avoid an attack by allowing inspections. If it refuses inspections, 2 must rely on its imperfect intelligence system to determine whether to attack. This game has a unique sequential equilibrium, possibly separating, possibly pooling. At that equilibrium there is a positive probability that: No bomb is built; 2’s intelligence system accurately detects no bomb; 1 refuses inspections; nevertheless 2 attacks. Present and past experiences from Iraq, Iran, Syria and North Korea illustrate the analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Jelnov, Artyom & Tauman, Yair & Zeckhauser, Richard J., 2018. "Confronting an Enemy with Unknown Preferences: Deterrer or Provocateur?," Working Paper Series rwp18-006, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    • Handle: RePEc:ecl:harjfk:rwp18-006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/getFile.aspx?Id=1625
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Powell, Robert, 1996. "Bargaining in the Shadow of Power," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 255-289, August.
    2. Chungshik Moon & Mark Souva, 2016. "Audience Costs, Information, and Credible Commitment Problems," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 60(3), pages 434-458, April.
    3. R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), 2002. "Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 3, number 3.
    4. Fearon, James D., 1995. "Rationalist explanations for war," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(3), pages 379-414, July.
    5. Alexandre Debs & Jessica Chen Weiss, 2016. "Circumstances, Domestic Audiences, and Reputational Incentives in International Crisis Bargaining," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 60(3), pages 403-433, April.
    6. Van Long, Ngo, 2013. "The theory of contests: A unified model and review of the literature," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 161-181.
    7. Powell, Robert, 2004. "The Inefficient Use of Power: Costly Conflict with Complete Information," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(2), pages 231-241, May.
    8. Schultz, Kenneth A., 1998. "Domestic Opposition and Signaling in International Crises," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 92(4), pages 829-844, December.
    9. Wittman, Donald, 1989. "Arms Control Verification and Other Games Involving Imperfect Detection," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(3), pages 923-945, September.
    10. Powell, Robert, 2006. "War as a Commitment Problem," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 60(1), pages 169-203, January.
    11. O'Neill, Barry, 1994. "Game theory models of peace and war," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 29, pages 995-1053, Elsevier.
    12. Muhammet A. Bas & Andrew J. Coe, 2012. "Arms Diffusion and War," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 56(4), pages 651-674, August.
    13. Sandeep Baliga & Tomas Sjöström, 2008. "Strategic Ambiguity and Arms Proliferation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 116(6), pages 1023-1057, December.
    14. Brams, Steven & Kilgour, Marc, 2017. "Stabilizing unstable outcomes in prediction games," MPRA Paper 77655, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Schultz, Kenneth A., 1999. "Do Democratic Institutions Constrain or Inform? Contrasting Two Institutional Perspectives on Democracy and War," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(2), pages 233-266, April.
    16. Debs, Alexandre & Monteiro, Nuno P., 2014. "Known Unknowns: Power Shifts, Uncertainty, and War," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 68(1), pages 1-31, January.
    17. Fearon, James D., 1994. "Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(3), pages 577-592, September.
    18. Jelnov, Artyom & Tauman, Yair & Zeckhauser, Richard, 2017. "Attacking the unknown weapons of a potential bomb builder: The impact of intelligence on the strategic interaction," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 177-189.
    19. Meirowitz, Adam & Sartori, Anne E., 2008. "Strategic Uncertainty as a Cause of War," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 3(4), pages 327-352, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tao Wang, 2020. "Competitive Intelligence and Disclosure of Cost Information in Duopoly," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 57(3), pages 665-699, November.
    2. Brams, Steven J. & Ismail, Mehmet S., 2019. "Farsightedness in Games: Stabilizing Cooperation in International Conflict," MPRA Paper 91370, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Ma, Siyu & Biran, Dov, 2023. "Attacking a nuclear facility: The impact of a noisy intelligence with unknown quality," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 472-483.
    4. Brams, Steven J. & Ismail, Mehmet S., 2018. "Stabilizing Cooperative Outcomes in Two-Person Games: Theory and Cases," MPRA Paper 86295, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jelnov, Artyom & Tauman, Yair & Zeckhauser, Richard, 2017. "Attacking the unknown weapons of a potential bomb builder: The impact of intelligence on the strategic interaction," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 177-189.
    2. Clara Ponsati & Santiago Sanchez-Pages, 2012. "Optimism and commitment: an elementary theory of bargaining and war," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 157-179, March.
    3. Kim, Jin Yeub, 2018. "Counterthreat of attack to deter aggression," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 112-114.
    4. Andrew H. Kydd & Roseanne W. McManus, 2017. "Threats and Assurances in Crisis Bargaining," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(2), pages 325-348, February.
    5. Yuleng Zeng, 2020. "Bluff to peace: How economic dependence promotes peace despite increasing deception and uncertainty," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(6), pages 633-654, November.
    6. John Tyson Chatagnier, 2015. "Conflict bargaining as a signal to third parties," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 27(2), pages 237-268, April.
    7. Muhammet A. Bas, 2012. "Measuring Uncertainty in International Relations: Heteroskedastic Strategic Models," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(5), pages 490-520, November.
    8. Scott Wolford, 2020. "War and diplomacy on the world stage: Crisis bargaining before third parties," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 32(2), pages 235-261, April.
    9. Kristopher W. Ramsay, 2004. "Politics at the Water’s Edge," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(4), pages 459-486, August.
    10. Nakao, Keisuke, 2022. "Democratic Victory and War Duration: Why Are Democracies Less Likely to Win Long Wars?," MPRA Paper 112849, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Robert Shum, 2014. "China, the United States, bargaining, and climate change," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 83-100, March.
    12. Ma, Siyu & Biran, Dov, 2023. "Attacking a nuclear facility: The impact of a noisy intelligence with unknown quality," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 472-483.
    13. Abbink, Klaus & Dong, Lu & Huang, Lingbo, 2023. "Preventive wars," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 552-569.
      • Klaus Abbink & Lu Dong & Lingbo Huang, 2022. "Preventive Wars," Discussion Papers 2022-01, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    14. Gary Uzonyi & Matthew Wells, 2016. "Domestic institutions, leader tenure and the duration of civil war," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 33(3), pages 294-310, July.
    15. Thomas Edward Flores & Irfan Nooruddin, 2011. "Credible Commitment in Post-Conflict Recovery," Chapters, in: Christopher J. Coyne & Rachel L. Mathers (ed.), The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, chapter 23, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Helios Herrera & Massimo Morelli & Salvatore Nunnari, 2022. "A Theory of Power Wars," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 17(1), pages 1-30, January.
    17. Joe Clare & Vesna Danilovic, 2012. "Reputation for Resolve, Interests, and Conflict," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(1), pages 3-27, February.
    18. Giacomo De Luca & Petros G. Sekeris, 2013. "Deterrence in Contests," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 80(317), pages 171-189, January.
    19. Max Gallop, 2017. "More dangerous than dyads: how a third party enables rationalist explanations for war," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 29(3), pages 353-381, July.
    20. Jin Yeub Kim, 2022. "Negotiation statements with promise and threat," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(2), pages 149-164, June.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ecl:harjfk:rwp18-006. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ksharus.html .

    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.