IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v268y2018i1p300-313.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk evaluation and games in mine warfare considering shipcounter effects

Author

Listed:
  • Sakai, Kazuki
  • Hohzaki, Ryusuke
  • Fukuda, Emiko
  • Sakuma, Yutaka

Abstract

Mines are believed to have suitable cost performance because cheap weapons prevent opponents from freely engaging in activity in mined areas for a comparatively long time. Mine warfare (MW) can be regarded as combat between a minefield planner and mine countermeasure (MCM) forces. The minefield planner equips influence mines with mine counter-countermeasures (MCCMs), which increase the difficulty of their removal. One of the MCCMs is a mine shipcounter, which provides a mine detonation fuse that triggers with some delay after the mine sensor detects vessels. In this paper, we develop a mathematical model of the MCM operation against scattered naval mines with shipcounters and analyze MW as a two-sided warfare game between the minefield planner and the MCM forces. The MCM forces must make a clever choice between mine-hunting or sweeping operations because, depending on the MCM operations, the shipcount has different effects on the removal of mines or on the damage risk to civilian ships transiting in a channel. First, we evaluate the performances of hunting and sweeping considering the mine shipcount; second, we consider a simple game with the minefield planner and the MCM forces as players and analyze rational strategies for these decision makers in MW.

Suggested Citation

  • Sakai, Kazuki & Hohzaki, Ryusuke & Fukuda, Emiko & Sakuma, Yutaka, 2018. "Risk evaluation and games in mine warfare considering shipcounter effects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(1), pages 300-313.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:268:y:2018:i:1:p:300-313
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2018.01.030
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221718300511
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2018.01.030?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ryusuke Hohzaki & Takehiro Higashio, 2016. "An attrition game on a network ruled by Lanchester’s square law," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 67(5), pages 691-707, May.
    2. Powell, Robert, 2009. "Sequential, nonzero-sum "Blotto": Allocating defensive resources prior to attack," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 611-615, November.
    3. De Leeneer, Isabelle & Pastijn, Hugo, 2002. "Selecting land mine detection strategies by means of outranking MCDM techniques," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(2), pages 327-338, June.
    4. Ye, Zhi-Sheng & Peng, Rui & Wang, Wenbin, 2017. "Defense and attack of performance-sharing common bus systemsAuthor-Name: Zhai, Qingqing," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 256(3), pages 962-975.
    5. Casey D. Trail & Mendel D. Schmiedekamp & Shashi Phoha & John P. Sustersic, 2013. "Multiobjective planning for naval mine counter measures missions," International Journal of Operational Research, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 16(1), pages 113-135.
    6. Peng, R. & Zhai, Q.Q. & Levitin, G., 2016. "Defending a single object against an attacker trying to detect a subset of false targets," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 137-147.
    7. Powell, Robert, 2007. "Defending against Terrorist Attacks with Limited Resources," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 101(3), pages 527-541, August.
    8. Ryusuke Hohzaki & Takashi Chiba, 2015. "An attrition game on an acyclic network," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 66(6), pages 979-992, June.
    9. Zhuang, Jun & Bier, Vicki M. & Alagoz, Oguzhan, 2010. "Modeling secrecy and deception in a multiple-period attacker-defender signaling game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 203(2), pages 409-418, June.
    10. Shan, Xiaojun & Zhuang, Jun, 2013. "Hybrid defensive resource allocations in the face of partially strategic attackers in a sequential defender–attacker game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(1), pages 262-272.
    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. Huang, Jianbai & Liu, Jia & Zhang, Hongwei & Guo, Yaoqi, 2020. "Sustainable risk analysis of China's overseas investment in iron ore," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).

    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. Qingqing Zhai & Rui Peng & Jun Zhuang, 2020. "Defender–Attacker Games with Asymmetric Player Utilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 408-420, February.
    2. Kjell Hausken, 2014. "Choosing what to protect when attacker resources and asset valuations are uncertain," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 24(3), pages 23-44.
    3. Hunt, Kyle & Zhuang, Jun, 2024. "A review of attacker-defender games: Current state and paths forward," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 313(2), pages 401-417.
    4. Shan, Xiaojun & Zhuang, Jun, 2013. "Hybrid defensive resource allocations in the face of partially strategic attackers in a sequential defender–attacker game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(1), pages 262-272.
    5. Liang, Liang & Chen, Jingxian & Siqueira, Kevin, 2020. "Revenge or continued attack and defense in defender–attacker conflicts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 287(3), pages 1180-1190.
    6. Jie Xu & Jun Zhuang, 2016. "Modeling costly learning and counter-learning in a defender-attacker game with private defender information," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 236(1), pages 271-289, January.
    7. Paulson, Elisabeth C. & Linkov, Igor & Keisler, Jeffrey M., 2016. "A game theoretic model for resource allocation among countermeasures with multiple attributes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 252(2), pages 610-622.
    8. Kress, Moshe & Caulkins, Jonathan P. & Feichtinger, Gustav & Grass, Dieter & Seidl, Andrea, 2018. "Lanchester model for three-way combat," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(1), pages 46-54.
    9. Mohammad E. Nikoofal & Mehmet Gümüs, 2015. "On the value of terrorist’s private information in a government’s defensive resource allocation problem," IISE Transactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(6), pages 533-555, June.
    10. Sushil Gupta & Martin K. Starr & Reza Zanjirani Farahani & Mahsa Mahboob Ghodsi, 2020. "Prevention of Terrorism–An Assessment of Prior POM Work and Future Potentials," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(7), pages 1789-1815, July.
    11. Zhang, Xiaoxiong & Ye, Yanqing & Tan, Yuejin, 2020. "How to protect a genuine target against an attacker trying to detect false targets," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 553(C).
    12. Zhang, Xiaoxiong & Ding, Song & Ge, Bingfeng & Xia, Boyuan & Pedrycz, Witold, 2021. "Resource allocation among multiple targets for a defender-attacker game with false targets consideration," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    13. Nikoofal, Mohammad E. & Zhuang, Jun, 2015. "On the value of exposure and secrecy of defense system: First-mover advantage vs. robustness," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(1), pages 320-330.
    14. Zhang, Jing & Zhuang, Jun, 2019. "Modeling a multi-target attacker-defender game with multiple attack types," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 465-475.
    15. Yang Jiao & Zijun Luo, 2019. "A model of terrorism and counterterrorism with location choices," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 179(3), pages 301-313, June.
    16. Garret Ridinger & Richard S. John & Michael McBride & Nicholas Scurich, 2016. "Attacker Deterrence and Perceived Risk in a Stackelberg Security Game," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1666-1681, August.
    17. Hunt, Kyle & Agarwal, Puneet & Zhuang, Jun, 2022. "On the adoption of new technology to enhance counterterrorism measures: An attacker–defender game with risk preferences," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 218(PB).
    18. Duffy, John & Matros, Alexander, 2017. "Stochastic asymmetric Blotto games: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 88-105.
    19. Edouard Kujawski, 2015. "Accounting for Terrorist Behavior in Allocating Defensive Counterterrorism Resources," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), pages 365-376, July.
    20. John Duffy & Alexander Matros, 2013. "Stochastic Asymmetric Blotto Games: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Working Paper 509, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh, revised Nov 2013.

    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:eee:ejores:v:268:y:2018:i:1:p:300-313. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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.