Formalizing Acquisition Path Analysis
- 22 Downloads
The theory of directed graphs and non-cooperative games is applied to the problem of verification of State compliance to international treaties on arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Hypothetical treaty violations are formulated in terms of illegal acquisition paths for the accumulation of clandestine weapons, weapons-grade materials or some other military capability. The paths constitute the illegal strategies of a sovereign State in a two-person inspection game played against a multi- or international Inspectorate charged with compliance verification. The effectiveness of existing or postulated verification measures is quantified in terms of the Inspectorate’s expected utility at Nash equilibrium. A case study involving a State with a moderately large nuclear fuel cycle is presented.
This report was prepared in close cooperation with Irmgard Niemeyer (Forschungszentrum Jülich), Arnold Rezniczek (UBA Unternehmensberatung GmbH, Herzogenrath) and Gotthard Stein (Bonn).
- 2.Avenhaus R, von Stengel B, Zamir S (1999) Inspection Games. In: Aumann RJ, Hart S (eds) Handbook of Game Theory, Vol 3. Handbooks in Economics 11. North Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- 4.Canty MJ (2004) Resolving Conflicts with Mathematica: Algorithms for Two-person Games. Academic Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- 6.Nisan N, Roughgarden T, Tardos E, Vazirani VV (eds) (2007) Algorithmic Game Theory. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- 9.Goldberg PW, Papadimitiou CH, Savani R (2011) The complexity of the homotopy method, equilibrium selection, and Lemke - Howson solutions. In: Proc. 52nd FOCS, pp 67–76Google Scholar
- 10.Listner C, Niemeyer I, Canty MJ, Murphy CL, Stein G, Rezniczek A (2015) Acquisition path analysis quantified – shaping the success of the IAEA’s State-level Concept. Journal of Nuclear Materials Management XLIII(4):49–59Google Scholar
- 12.Huszti J, Németh A, Vincze A (2012) Applicability of the directed graph methodology for acquisition path analysis. ESARDA Bulletin 47:72–79Google Scholar