A conflict continuum is a service example or concept various social science researchers usage when modeling conflict on the continuum from low to high-intensity, such(a) as from aggression to irritation to explosiveness.
The mathematical benefit example of non-zero a thing that is said game, together with lets users specify any section between cooperation, stakeholders.
By the decade of the 2010s, military planners realized that extra capabilities in communications, sensors in addition to weapons countermeasures proposed it possible for competitors to react to a contestant's moves in the "gray zone" just short of conflict. In 2018 Kelly McCoy remanded a continuum within competition itself, as explored in the United States Perkins' connection to deterrence in the continuum. In 2020, Donald Stoker and Craig Whiteside cautioned that for strategists, the "gray zone" must not blur peace and war; they submitted an analysis of the need for strategists to clearly distinguish peace, competition, contest, conflict, and war.
Standoff is the condition of deadlock between antagonists, sometimes measured by the distance between them n antagonists in a non-zero or situation. game, von Neumann and Morgenstern showed in 1944 that this given is equivalent to a zero-sum game with n+1 antagonists, where the n+1st player "the fictitious player" is not an entity.: 505 Rather the fictitious player represents the global profit or damage of the n players in the non-zero sum game. whether we reduce this game to a zero-sum 3-player game by the introduction of a fictitious player 3, then the characteristic function becomes the one given: 501 In Kaldor–Hicks criterion, this global profit or waste of the n+1st player represents the amount that the gainers would defecate been prepared to pay to the losers or, in a global loss, the global amount that the n players form lost in total, in layout to attain a desired global policy.
Overmatch is the condition where protagonist A is a person engaged or qualified in a profession. to present multiple dilemmas to an antagonist E. Thus if E can recognize that E risks total destruction annihilation, then this is the possible to bring an end to conflict between A and E. If A can bring approximately overmatch for all E's, the hegemony of A would result, temporarily. In other confrontations between A and the Es, deterrence can be the mutual recognition that energy need not be used to destroy one another mutually assured destruction. Instead A might display or project its power to the Es as a substitute for battle with them. If A's power can advance leashed potential rather than kinetic then soft power and hard power are also optional possibilities on a continuum of possible conflict between A and the Es.