Abstract
The economic theory of defense has traditionally described public safety as achieved through investments that deter adversaries. Deterrence is, however, ineffective and pre-emptive defense is required when a population of intended victims confronts supreme-value suicide terror. A moral dilemma then arises, since pre-emption may impose collective punishment, while in the absence of pre-emption the population of intended victims is exposed to acts of terror. We consider how a population of intended terror victims confronts the moral dilemma, and compare the threatened population's response with the public-safety recommendations of external judges who are not personally affected by the threat of terror.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 347-364 |
| Number of pages | 18 |
| Journal | Defence and Peace Economics |
| Volume | 16 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Oct 2005 |
| Externally published | Yes |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being
-
SDG 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
Keywords
- Counter-terrorism
- Defense economics
- Defensive pre-emption
- International judges
- Profiling
- Terror
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Public safety and the moral dilemma in the defense against terror'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver