Optimal
Attack and Defense for a Number of Targets

in the
Case of Imperfect Interceptors

Joseph George Caldwell

July 31, 2001

Copyright © 1989, 2001 Vista Research Corporation and Joseph
George Caldwell. All rights reserved.

Table of Contents

A.
Mathematical Description of the Problem

2.
An Expression for the Expected Damage.

3.
Procedure for Finding the Solution

B.
Description of the Solution

1.
Low Attack Level (X < X_{min}(Y))

2.
Intermediate Attack Level (X_{min}(Y) < X < X_{max}(Y))

3.
High Attack Level (X > X_{max}(Y))

4.
Qualification Concerning the Lagrangian Solution

C.
Comparison of Solution in the Case of Imperfect Interceptors to That for
Perfect Interceptors

II. An Expression for the Expected Damage

III. Procedure for Finding the Solution

IV. Derivation of the Solution

A.
Solutions for Case 1 and Case 3

C.
Summary of Lagrangian Solutions

V.
Characteristics of the Attacker's Optimal Solutions

VI. Characteristics of the Defender's Optimal
Solutions

VII.
Determination of Solutions Which Are Simultaneously Optimal for Both Attacker
and Defender

A. Correct Solution When X_{min}(λ)
< X < X_{max}(λ)

B.
Correct Solution When X < X_{min}(λ).

C.
Correct Solution When X > X_{max}(λ)

D.
Summary of Correct Solutions

VIII.
Nature of the Solution as a Function of the Attacker's Lagrange Multiplier

IX.
Computer Program for Computing the Optimal Solution

This article is an extraction, with some amplification and
minor notational changes, of portions of the report: Caldwell, J. G., T. S.
Schreiber, and S. S. Dick, __Some Problems in Ballistic Missile Defense
Involving Radar Attacks and Imperfect Interceptors__, Report ACDA/ST-145
SR-4, Special Report 4, prepared for the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
by the Lambda Corporation (subsidiary of General Research Corporation), McLean,
Virginia, May 1969. The results presented
here were derived by Dr. J. G. Caldwell.
These results are presented here because they were never published in
the open literature (refereed journals).

These results were also published as Appendix F of the
report, Caldwell, J. G., __Theater Tactical Air Warfare Methodologies: Automated
Scenario Generation__, Final Report Contract No. F33657-88-C-2156 prepared
for the USAF Air Force Systems Command, Aeronautical System Division by Vista
Research Corporation, July 1989.

__Optimal
Attack and Defense for a Number of Targets in the Case of Imperfect
Interceptors__

This article describes the optimal defense of a set of
targets against an optimal attack, in the case of imperfect interceptors. This solution is obtained from a mathematical
representation of strategic nuclear warfare as a two-sided resource-constrained
optimization problem. The attacker and
defender are assumed to know each other's total force sizes, and it is assumed
that the attacker "moves last," i.e., the attacker allocates his
weapons to targets after observing the defender's allocation of interceptors to
targets. A one-on-one (or fixed
salvo-to-one) firing doctrine is assumed.
The attacker's goal is to maximize the total damage to the targets, and
the defender's goal is to minimize this damage.
It is assumed that damage on any single target can be adequately
described by the "exponential" damage function defined below.

Let us denote the total number of weapons by X and the total
number of interceptors by Y. Further, let us denote the number of targets by t,
and the number of weapons and interceptors allocated to the i-th target by x_{i}
and y_{i}, respectively. The
attacker's and defender's strategies are hence specified by vectors

__x__' = (x_{1}, x_{2},..., x_{t})

and

__y__' = (y_{1}, y_{2},..., y_{t})

where each x_{i} __>__ 0, y_{i} __>__
0, and

Σ(i:1,t) x_{i} = X

and

Σ(i:1,t) y_{i} = Y

where the notation Σ(i:1,t) denotes the summation
operator over the index i, ranging from 1 to t.

Using the exponential damage function, the expected damage at
the i-th target is

D_{i}(z_{i}) = P_{i}(1
- exp(-β_{i}z_{i}))

where z_{i} is the number of weapons reaching the
i-th target, P_{i} is the value of the i-th target, and β_{i}
is the damage function parameter for the i-th target.

The interceptor kill probability, κ, is assumed to be
the same for all targets.

The attacker is assumed to choose his strategy __x__
after observing the strategy __y__ selected by the defender. He will choose a strategy __x__*(__y__)
such that

H(__x__*(__y__*),__y__) = max(__x__)
H(__x__,__y__),

where H(__x__,__y__) denotes the total expected damage
corresponding to the strategies __x__ and __y__, and max(__x__)
denotes maximization with respect to __x__ (of the following function of __x__,
in this case H(__x__,__y__)). The
defender hence must choose his strategy __y__* such that

H(__x__*(__y__*),__y__*) =
min(__y__) max(__x__) H(__x__,__y__) ,

and min(__y__) denotes minimization with respect to __y__.

Using the exponential damage function, the expected damage
on the i-th target is shown in Appendix A to be P_{i}Q_{i}
where

1 - exp(-α_{i}x_{i}) , x_{i} __<__
y_{i}

Q_{i} =

1 - exp(-β_{i}(x_{i}-y_{i}))
exp(-α_{i}y_{i}) ,
x_{i} > y_{i} ,

and α_{i} < β_{i} is defined by
the equation

exp(-α_{i}) = (1 -
κ)exp(-β_{i}) + κ .

The total expected damage is

H(__x__,__y__) = Σ(i:1,t) H_{i}(x_{i},y_{i})

=
Σ(i:1,t) P_{i}Q_{i} .

We shall denote the expected damage corresponding to the
optimal solutions __x__*, __y__* as H(X,Y).

Our problem, thus, is to determine __x__*,__y__* such
that

H(__x__*,__y__*) = min(__y__)
max(__x__) H(__x__,__y__)

where

H(__x__,__y__) = Σ(i:1,t) P_{i}Q_{i}

subject to the constraints

Σ(i:1,t) x_{i} = X

Σ(i:1,t) y_{i} = Y

and x_{i} __>__ 0, y_{i} __>__ 0. The function H(__x__,__y__) is
additively separable over the targets so the Everett-Pugh double Lagrange
multiplier technique (References 2 and 3) can be used to find a solution. The problem becomes one of finding x_{i},
y_{i} corresponding to

min(y_{i}) max(x_{i})
(P_{i}Q_{i} - λx_{i} + μy_{i})

where λ, μ are adjusted so that the constraints

Σ(i:1,t) x_{i} = X

and

Σ(i:1,t) y_{i} = Y

are satisfied. If
there are several choices of (μ,λ) for which the constraints can be
met (i.e., there are several solutions to the double Lagrange multiplier
problem), the correct optimal solution to the problem is the solution
corresponding the least damage.

For convenience we drop the subscript i, so that the problem
is to find x, y corresponding to

min(y) max(x) (PQ - λx + μy)
.

The solution is derived in Appendix A (Technical
Details). The next section will describe
the results.

The solution to the above two-sided optimization problem is
complicated to describe analytically, and can be described best in geometrical
terms. Appendix A contains such a
description. In this section we shall
present only a qualitative description of the optimal attack and defense
allocations.

Note that the mathematical approach used to solve the
present problem assumes that the x_{i}'s and y_{i}'s are
continuous variables, rather than integers.
This approximation introduces a negligible error whenever the number of
interceptors and weapons allocated to targets are zero or large enough that the
fractional parts are insignificant.

The optimal solution can conveniently be described by
observing how the weapon and interceptor allocations to targets change for a
fixed total defense level, Y, as we very the total offense level, X, from zero
to a very large number. In all
situations, weapons are allocated to targets so that the marginal payoff per
weapon is the same on all targets. Note
that for a specified X, there may be some targets that, even if undefended,
yield so little payoff to the attacker that they are not attacked. Such targets are not defended, either. For a specified total defense level, Y, there
are two total attack levels, X_{min}(Y) and X_{max}(Y), that
are of special significance. We shall
describe the nature of the solution in terms of these levels.

When the attack level is less than the value X_{min}(Y),
every attacked target is defended by a number of interceptors that exceeds the
number of weapons assigned to it. Thus
damage to targets can occur only through "leakage", i.e., failure of
the interceptors to kill all incoming weapons.
The defense allocation is arbitrary, so long as there are more
interceptors than weapons on each attacked target. The attack allocation for specified X is
unique. The total payoff to the attacker
is an increasing concave ("diminishing returns") function of the
total attack level, X.

For all attack levels lying between the values X_{min}(Y)
and X_{max}(Y), the defense is unique.
Such a defense is called "stable." In this region of attack levels, the attacker
can choose between two different attack levels on each target. The lower level may be zero on some
targets. The attacker must attack each
target at either the lower level or the higher level, and can choose to attack
at any combination of these permissible levels that meets his total attack
level, X. The payoff is a linear
function of the total attack level in this region.

The situation in the case of the low and intermediate attack
levels is referred to as "defense dominant".

As the total number of weapons is increased above the level
X_{max}(Y), the defender must change his allocation. He does so by defending fewer targets, but
defending the defended targets at a higher level. As the attack size increases, eventually only
one target would be attacked. Also, for
a sufficiently large attack size all targets would be attacked. Since the defense allocation changes as the
attack size changes in this region, the defense is called "unstable". Both the attack and defense allocations
corresponding to specified X are unique.

The situation in the case of a high attack level is called
"attack dominant".

The solutions to the present problem are derived by the
method of generalized Lagrange multipliers.
Using this technique, we can find a solution for every total attack
level X < X_{min}(Y). Over
the range X_{min}(Y) __<__ X __<__ X_{max}(Y),
however, there are only a finite number of Lagrangian solutions, corresponding
to all possible combinations of low level or high level attacks on each
attacked target. For a large number of
weapons, interceptors, and targets, there is a very large number of such
solutions, and there would be a Lagrangian solution corresponding to a total
attack size quite close to any specified total attack level. Hence in practice we need only concern
ourselves with the Lagrangian solutions.
(Solutions corresponding to other total attack levels differ very little
from Lagrangian solutions corresponding to nearby total attack levels. These other solutions are less
"efficient" than the Lagrangian solutions, since the payoff function
for them lies below the marginal payoff for the additional weapons used (beyond
those required by the closest Lagrangian solution using fewer weapons) is less
than the total marginal payoff achieved by going to the next higher Lagrangian
solution. This latter marginal payoff is
defined by the slope of linear payoff function defined by the Lagrangian solutions.)

Over the range X > X_{max}(Y), there can be found
a Lagrangian solution for any specified total attack level, X, but not for
every specified total defense level, Y.
The reason for this difficulty lies with the fact that, in the
Lagrangian solution, a target can be defended at only two levels, one of which
is zero (no defense). (The situation is
analogous to the intermediate attack situation in which targets could be
attacked at only two levels.) As before,
this problem is not of practical significance, since we can always find a
Lagrangian solution corresponding to a total defense level close to the
specified total defense level.

It is of interest to compare how the nature of the solution
to the allocation problem in the case of imperfect interceptors differs from
the solution in the case of perfect interceptors. Two questions of interest are:

1. For what range of the kill
probability, κ, are the allocations and total damage essentially the same
as for the perfect interceptor case, κ = 1?

2. For specified interceptor kill
probability, κ, and total defense level, Y, is the solution to the problem
"similar" (in allocations and total damage) to the perfect
interceptor problem with total defense level κY? (Note that κY is the expected number of
interceptors that do not fail, and represents a possible "effective"
number of perfect interceptors.)

The questions were answered by examining the nature of the
solution for a "reasonable" set of hypothetical targets, described in
Table 1.

Table
1. __Hypothetical Target Set__

Target Value Exponential Damage

__Target Number__
__(Population in millions)__ __Function Parameter (β)__

1 10 .03

2 6 .04

3 4 .05

4 3 .06

5 2 .08

6 1.5 .10

7 1.0 .20

8 1.0 .30

9 1.0 .40

10 .5 .50

The total expected damage, H(X,Y), corresponding to the
optimal attack and defense allocations is plotted in Figures 1 and 2 as a function
of total attack level, X, for fixed total defense level, Y.

Figure 1 corresponds to Y_{1} = 400, and Figure 2
corresponds to Y_{2} = 800. On
each figure are three curves:

1. H(X,Y_{i}) for κ = 1

2. H(X,Y_{i}) for κ = .75

3. H(X,.75Y_{i}) for κ =
1.

The figures indicate first that there are substantial
differences in total damage between the κ = 1 and κ = .75 cases, and
that the imperfect interceptor case is not always closely approximated by the
perfect interceptor case for total defense level κY. However, the difference between these latter
two cases is not so great as to preclude using the "equivalent perfect
interceptor" approximation for some purposes.

This appendix derives the optimal defense of a set of
targets against an optimal attack in the case of imperfect interceptors. It is assumed that the defender has a total
number, Y, of interceptors, and that the attacker has a total number, X, of
weapons. Let us denote the number of
targets by t, and the number of weapons and interceptors allocated to the i-th
target by x_{i} and y_{i}, respectively. The attacker's and defender's strategies are
hence specified by vectors

__x__' = (x_{1}, x_{2},..., x_{t})

and

__y__' = (y_{1}, y_{2},..., y_{t})

where each x_{i} __>__ 0, y_{i} __>__
0, and

Σ(i:1,t) x_{i} = X

and

Σ(i:1,t) y_{i} = Y .

We assume that the exponential damage function adequately
describes the expected damage at each target; that is, the expected damage is

D_{i}(z_{i}) = P_{i}(1
- exp(-β_{i}z_{i}))

where z_{i} is the number of weapons reaching the
i-th target, P_{i} denotes the value of the i-th target, and β_{i}
is the damage function parameter for the i-th target.

We assume that the attacker "moves last," i.e., he
chooses his strategy, __x__, after observing the strategy __y__ selected
by the defender. He will choose a
strategy __x__*(__y__) such that

H(__x__*(__y__),__y__) = max(__x__)
H(__x__,__y__)

where H(__x__,__y__) represents the expected damage
corresponding to the strategies __x__ and __y__. The defender, then, should choose his strategy
__y__* such that

H(__x__*(__y__*),__y__*) =
min(__y__) max(__x__) H(__x__,__y__) = U .

The value U is the upper pure value of the game in which the
attacker and defender move simultaneously.
Since __x__* and __y__* are pure strategies, there is no reason
why U should equal the lower pure value of such a game, defined by

L = max(__x__) min(__y__) H(__x__,__y__)
.

Both the attacker and defender are assumed to know each
other's force size and κ.

We assume that the interceptor kill probability, κ, is
the same for all targets.

The expected damage on the i-th target if u weapons get
through is given by

D_{i}(u) = P_{i}(1 -
exp(-β_{i}u)) .

The probability that u weapons get through, given that there
are x_{i} weapons and y_{i} interceptors, both integers, is

A if 0 __<__ u __<__ x_{i}
and x_{i} __<__ y_{i}

P_{xiyi}(u) = 0 if 0 __<__ u <
x_{i}-y_{i} and x_{i} > y_{i}

B if x_{i}-y_{i} __<__
u __<__ x_{i} and x_{i} > y_{i}

_{ }

where

A = C(x_{i},u)(1 - κ)^{u}
κ^{xi - u}

and

B = C(y_{i},(u - (x_{i }-
y_{i}))) (1-κ)^{u - (xi - yi)} κ^{xi - u} ,

and C(n,e) denotes the combination function (i.e., the
number of combinations of n things taken e at a time). (Note: The word processing program used to
display this article cannot place subscripts or superscripts on subscripts or
superscripts; the exponents xi and yi in the preceding expressions (and in
similar expressions that follow) should be x_{i} and y_{i},
respectively.)

The expected damage on the i-th target is hence

H_{i}(x_{i},y_{i})
= Σ(u:0,x_{i}) (Expected damage given that u weapons

get through) (Probability that u weapons get

through)

= Σ(u:0,x_{i}) P_{i}(1
- exp(-β_{i}u))P_{xiyi}(u)

= P_{i}Σ(u:0,x_{i})
(1 - exp(-β_{i}u))P_{xiyi}(u)

= P_{i}Q_{i} ,

where

A, x_{i} __<__ y_{i}

Q_{i} =

B, x_{i} > y_{i}

where

A = 1 - ((1-κ)exp(-β_{i})+κ)^{xi}

and

B = 1 - exp(-β_{i}(x_{i}
- y_{i})) ((1 - κ)exp(-β_{i}) + κ)^{yi}
.

We shall use this expression for all x_{i}, y_{i},
not just for integral values. We shall
simplify the expression for Q_{i} by defining

exp(-α_{i}) = (1 -
κ)exp(-β_{i}) + κ

where α_{i} __<__ β_{i}
since κ __<__ 1. Hence we
have

1 - exp(-α_{i}x_{i}) , x_{i} __<__ y_{i}

Q_{i} =

1 - exp(-β_{i}(x_{i}
- y_{i})) exp(-α_{i}y_{i}) , x_{i} > y_{i} .

The total expected damage is

H(__x__,__y__) = Σ(i:1,t) H_{i}(x_{i},y_{i})

= Σ(i:1,t) P_{i}Q_{i} .

We shall denote the expected damage corresponding to the
optimal solutions __x__*, __y__* as H(X,Y).

Our problem, thus, is to determine __x__*, __y__* such
that

H(__x__*,__y__*) = min(__y__)
max(__x__) H(x,y)

where

H(__x__,__y__) = Σ(i:1,t) P_{i}Q_{i}

subject to the constraints

Σ(i:1,t) x_{i} = X

Σ(i:1,t) y_{i} = Y

and x_{i} __>__ 0, y_{i} __>__
0. Since the function H(__x__,__y__)
is not concave, the Kuhn-Tucker theorem is of no assistance in computing the
solution. The function H(__x__,__y__)
is additively separable over the targets, however, and so the Everett-Pugh
double Lagrange multiplier technique (References 2 and 3) can be used to find a
solution. The problem becomes one of
finding x_{i}, y_{i} corresponding to

min(y_{i}) max(x_{i})
(P_{i}Q_{i} - λx_{i} + μy_{i})

where λ, μ are adjusted so that the constraints

Σ(i:1,t) x_{i} = X

and

Σ(i:1,t) y_{i} = Y

are satisfied. If
there are several choices of (λ,μ) for which the constraints can be
met, (i.e., there are several solutions to the double Lagrange multiplier
problem), the correct optimal solution to the problem is the solution
corresponding to the least damage. We
shall for convenience drop the subscript i; that is, the problem is to find x,
y corresponding to

min(y) max(x) (PQ - λx + μy)
.

The values of the Lagrange multipliers are adjusted so that
the resource constraints are met.

The significant feature of the generalized Lagrange
multiplier (GLM) method is that, because the damage function is additively
separable (i.e., the total damage is the sum of the damage on each target), the
solution of the global optimization problem may be found by simply solving,
independently, an unconstrained optimization problem for each target (and then
adjusting the multipliers so that the constraints are obeyed. Another reason (apart from additive
separability) why the GLM method is used in this problem is that the damage
function is not convex (so that the Kuhn-Tucker and other standard optimization
methods cannot be applied). (In addition
to not requiring convexity of the objective function, the GLM method also does
not require differentiability or continuity or linearity of the objective
function.)

The only complexity that arises in the present problem is
that the two-sided GLM procedure may produce a multiplicity of solutions for
specified values of the Lagrange multipliers, some of which may not correspond
to optimal solutions. It is hence
necessary to prove that the optimal solution is contained within the solution
set, and to select it from the non-optimal solutions. (This difficulty does not occur with the
one-sided GLM method.)

The damage function H(x,y) = PQ may be illustrated as in
Figure A-1.

Let us denote

g(x) = P(1 - exp(-αx))

and

f(Δ,y) = P(1 - exp(-βΔ -
αy))

where Δ = x - y > 0.
Then we may write

g(x) , x __<__ y

PQ = H(x,y) =

f(Δ,y) , x > y .

We distinguish three cases:

Case 1:
g'(0) __<__ λ, f'(0,0) > λ

Case 2:
g'(0) > λ (which implies f'(0,0) > λ since α <
β)

and

Case 3:
f'(0,0) __<__ λ (which implies g'(0) __<__ λ since
α < β) ,

where the derivative of f(Δ,y) is with respect to
Δ.

These cases are depicted in Figures A-2, A-3, and A-4.

(The parenthetic remarks follow since:

g(x) = P(1
- exp(-αx)

g'(x) = Pα exp(-αx)

g'(0) = Pα

f(Δ,y) = P(1 - exp (-βΔ
- αy)

f'(Δ,y) = Pβ exp(-βΔ - αy)

f'(0,0) = Pβ

α < β therefore Pα < Pβ, and hence g'(0) < f'(0,0).)

Now Case 1 is a straightforward generalization of the
problem solved by Goodrich (pp. 12 - 19 of Reference 4). Goodrich solved this problem in the case of
perfect interceptors (κ = 1), as depicted in Figure A-5.

The solution in Case 1 is as follows. For specified y, consider the line passing
through the origin and tangent to the damage curve (see Figure A-6). (Note: The Figure A-6 does not clearly show
that the damage curve has slope lower than the tangent line at the origin.)

Let us denote the slope of this line by λ'(y), the
value of x at the point of tangency by x', and denote Δ'(y) = Δ' = x'
- y. Let us denote the value of x
corresponding to slope λ by x_{λ}, and denote Δ_{λ}(y)
= Δ_{y} = x_{λ }- y.
It is easy to show (see Goodrich) that the value of x that maximizes the
Lagrangian function

L(x,y) = H(x,y) - λx + μy

is

0 if λ > λ'(y) = λ'

x* =

x_{λ} if λ < λ'(y) = λ'

(either value, 0 or x_{λ}, may be chosen if
λ = λ'). Denoting Δ'(y) =
Δ' = x' - y, we have that

f'(Δ',y) == λ' =
f(Δ',y)/(Δ' + y) ,

(where the differentiation is with respect to Δ and the
double equal sign, ==, denotes "is identically equal to") and we may
rewrite the optimal x-solution as

0 if λ >
f(Δ',y)/(Δ' + y)

x* =

x_{λ} = Δ_{λ}
+ y if λ < f(Δ',y)/(Δ'
+ y) .

Note that if f'(0,0) < λ (Case 3), then x* = 0, for
then (since f'(Δ,y) < f'(0,0) < λ) there is no point x such
that f'(Δ,y) = λ, regardless of the value of y). (This follows by the following:

f'(Δ,y) = Pβ exp(-βΔ
- αy)

f'(0,0) =-Pβ

f'(Δ,y) = Pβ exp(-βΔ
- αy) < f'(0,0) (since exp(-βΔ
- αy) < 1)

so if
f'(0,0) < λ then f'(Δ,y) < λ for all x,y, so that there are no roots if f'(0,0) < λ.)

Substituting the above solution x* into L(x,y), we obtain

μy if λ >
f(Δ',y)/(Δ'+y)

L(x*,y) =

f(Δ_{λ},y) -
λ(Δ_{λ}+y) + μy if λ <
f(Δ',y)/(Δ'+y) .

Note that we have substituted Δ_{λ} + y
for x_{λ} in the above, because we wish to represent y
explicitly. We wish to choose y to
minimize L(x*,y).

It is interesting, but not necessary for the solution, to
note that f(Δ_{λ},y) depends only on λ, in the case of
the exponential damage function. We will
now demonstrate this. Now Δ_{λ}
is defined by the equation

f'(Δ_{λ},y) = λ

where the differentiation of f(Δ,y) is with respect to
Δ. Note that Δ_{λ}
depends on y. Since

f(Δ,y) = P(1 - exp(-βΔ -
αy)) ,

we have

f'(Δ,y) = Pβexp(-βΔ
- αy) ,

so that

Pβexp(-βΔ_{λ}
- αy) = λ ,

so that

f(Δ_{λ},y) = P(1 -
λ/Pβ) ,

which depends only on λ. Hence we could write

f(Δ_{λ},y) =
f(λ)

in the case of the exponential damage function.

This result is interesting, since if implies that the damage
is the attacker's (heavier) optimal attack corresponding to the value λ is
the same (for the exponential damage function), whether the defender chooses to
defend the target or not (since the height of the damage function is the same
(f(Δ_{λ},0) = f(Δ_{λ},y)) in either
case). (If, in the optimal attack
against a defended target, the attacker has two attack options (e.g., 0 and x_{λ}),
the no-defense damage (optimal attack) is the same as the damage at the __heavier__
optimal attack level against the defended target.) We observe from the expression for f(λ)
that the fraction surviving the optimal attack is λ/Pβ.)

Continuing with the (general) solution, we observe that we
can write the Lagrangian function as

μy if λ > f(Δ',y)/(Δ'
+ y)

L(x*,y) =

f(λ) - λ(Δ_{λ}
+ y) + μy if λ <
f(Δ',y)/(Δ' + y)

μy if y > f(Δ',y)/λ -
Δ'

=

f(λ) - λ(Δ_{λ}
+ y) + μy if y <
f(Δ',y)/λ - Δ' .

Now the set

S = {y │
y > f(Δ'(y),y)/λ - Δ'(y)}

= {y │ λ > f(x'+y,y)/x'}

= {y │ λ > λ'(y)} .

Now λ'(y) = f(x'+y,y)/x' is a monotonic increasing function of y,
and so

S = {y │
y > y'}

where y' is the unique solution to the equation

y = f(Δ'(y),y)/λ - Δ'(y)
.

Hence the Lagrangian becomes

μy if y > y'

L(x^{*},y) =

f(Δ_{λ},y) -
λ(Δ_{λ}+Y) + μy
if y < y' .

(For the exponential damage function, f(Δ_{λ}(y),y) = f(λ), and y' is that y such that

f(Δ'_{λ}(y),y)/(y + Δ'_{λ}(y)) = λ

i.e., f(λ)/(y' + Δ'_{λ}(y')) = λ

f(λ)/ λ = y' + Δ'_{λ} (y')

y' = f(λ)/λ - Δ'_{λ}(y') .)

Since L(x*,y) is hence a piecewise linear function of y, the
value of y that minimizes L(x*,y) occurs either as y = 0 or at the solution y =
y' to the equation

y = f(Δ'(y),y)/λ - Δ'(y)
.

Substituting these values into L(x*,y), we obtain

L(x*,0) = f(Δ_{λ}(0),0)
- λΔ_{λ}(0)

and

L(x*,y') = μy'

= (μ/λ)(f(Δ'(y'),y') -
λΔ'(y')) .

To minimize L(x*,y), we hence choose

0 if μ > λc

Y =

y'
if μ < λc

where

c = (f(λ) - λΔ_{λ}(0))/(f(λ)
- λΔ_{λ}(y')) ,

and either value if μ = λc. This corresponds to the solution obtained by
Goodrich (where c = 1 in the case of perfect interceptors). (The solution represents a "balanced
defense", since the per-weapon payoff to the attacker is the same for all
targets.)

We now consider Case 2, in which g'(0) > λ. (This implies f'(0,0) > λ. Observe
also that f'(0,x) > g'(x).) For
specified y, consider the line tangent to the damage function in two places, as
shown in Figure A-7.

We denote the slope of this line by λ', and the values
of x at the two points of tangency by x_{1}' and x_{2}'. We define x_{1}, x_{2},
Δ_{1}, Δ_{2}, Δ_{1}', Δ_{2}'
similarly, as shown in Figure A-7. Since
f'(0,x) > g'(x), we have x_{1}' < y < x_{2}'. Since we are assuming that g'(0) > λ,
the value of x that maximizes the
Lagrangian function

L(x,y) = H(x,y) - λx + μy

cannot occur at x = 0.
Rather, the optimal solution is

x_{1} if λ > λ'

x* =

x_{2} if λ < λ'

(either value if λ = λ'). That this is the optimal solution follows
from the generalizated theory of Lagrange multipliers (Reference 1). Defining Δ_{1}' = x_{1}'
and Δ_{2}' - x_{2}' - y, we have

λ' == f'(Δ_{2}',y) =
(f(Δ_{2}',y) - g(Δ_{1}'))/(Δ_{2}' + y -
Δ_{1}')

(where the differentiation is with respect to Δ_{2}')
so that we may write

x_{1} = Δ_{1} if λ > (f(Δ_{2}',y)
- g(Δ_{1}'))/(Δ_{2}' + y - Δ_{1}')

x* =

x_{2} = Δ_{2} + y if
λ < (f(Δ_{2}',y) - g(Δ_{1}'))/(Δ_{2}'
+ y - Δ_{1}') .

As in Case 1, we observe that f(Δ_{2},y)
depends only on λ in the case of the exponential damage function. The Lagrangian function hence becomes

g(Δ_{1}) -
λΔ_{1 }+ μy if
λ > (f(λ') - g(Δ_{1}'))/(Δ_{2}' + y -
Δ_{1}')

L(x*,y) =

f(λ)-λ(Δ_{2} +
y)+μy if λ < (f(λ') - g(Δ_{1}'))/(Δ_{2}'
+ y - Δ_{1}')

g(Δ_{1}) - λΔ_{1}
+ μy if y > y'

=

f(λ) - λ(Δ_{2} +
y) + μy if y < y'

where, as in Case 1, we substituted Δ_{2} + y
for x_{2} and where y' is the solution to the equation

y = (f(λ) - g(Δ_{1λ}))/λ
- (Δ_{2λ}(y) - Δ_{1λ}) .

Note that L(x*,y) is continuous at y = y'. Since L(x*,y) is piecewise linear in y, the
minimum occurs either at y = 0 or at the solution y = y' to

y = (f(λ) - g(Δ_{1λ}))/λ
- (Δ_{2λ}(y) - Δ_{1λ}) .

(It is easy to show that the function L(x*,y) is always
positive for y positive.)

Calculating the value of L(x*,y) for these two values, we
have

L(x*,0) = f(λ) - λΔ_{2}(0)

and

L(x*,y) = g(Δ_{1}) -
λΔ_{1} + μy'

_{ }

_{ } =
g(Δ_{1}) - λΔ_{1} + μ((f(λ) - g(Δ_{1}))/λ
- (Δ_{2}(y') - Δ_{1})).

To minimize L(x*,y) we hence choose y to be

0 if μ > λc

y* =

y' if μ < λc

where

c = [(f(λ) - g(Δ_{1}))/λ
- (Δ_{2}(0) - Δ_{1})] / [(f(λ) - g(Δ_{1}))/λ
- (Δ_{2}(y') - Δ_{1})],

and either value if μ = λc.

Let us denote the attacker's optimal solution corresponding
to y* by

x* = x*(y*)

0 or x' if y* = y'

=

x" if y* = 0

for Case 1 targets, and

x_{1}' or x_{2}'
if y* = y'

=

x" if
y* = 0

for Case 2 targets.

Both x* and y* are zero for Case 3 targets; that is, the
only targets worth attacking are those worth defending. Note that, since f'(x,0) > g'(x) for small
x, x" > x_{1}' for small x_{1}'. Further, since f'(x - y,y) < f'(x - y,0),
we have x" > x_{2}' - y'.

An unfortunate aspect of the solutions obtained by the
double Lagrange multiplier method is that, for specified resource levels (X and
Y), there may be several solutions, corresponding to different values of the
Lagrange multipliers (μ and λ).
While all such solutions are optimal for the attacker, only one of them
is also optimal for the defender. We
shall refer to this latter solution as the "correct" optimal
solution. (The others are referred to as
"spurious".) The next three
sections well describe the Lagrangian solutions in further detail, and which of
them are optimal for both the attacker __and__ the defender simultaneously
(i.e., which combinations correspond to "correct" optimal solutions.)

We shall now observe some properties of the attacker's
optimal solutions. The salient
characteristic of the solution is that the attacker attacks each target at a
level for which the slope of damage curve is the same (λ). It is noted that the defender either
allocates no interceptors to a target, or y' interceptors to a target, where y'
is the level such that the line of slope λ tangent to the damage curve at
the attack level x > y' either passes through the origin (in Case (1) in
which g'(0) < λ), or is also tangent to the damage curve at the attack
level x < y' (in Case (2) in which g'(0) > λ).

This situation is
illustrated in Figures A-8, A-9, and A-10.

(Concerning Figure A-9: Since f'(0,x) > g'(x), there must
exist Δ > 0 and y > 0 such that f'(Δ,y) = λ in this
case. Note that x" > x_{1}'
holds only if x_{1}' is small.)

(Concerning Figure A-10: Since f'(0,0) > g'(x), there is
no x such that g'(x) = λ.)

Note that the attacker chooses his solution after observing
at each target whether the defender defends at level 0 or y'. For reasons that will be explained later, the
attacker can attack some targets at the low level (0 for Case 1 targets and x_{1}'
for Case 2 targets) only if the defender is defending all Case 1 and Case 2
targets at the higher level (y').

In summary, the optimal solution for the attacker has the
following properties:

1.
The __marginal__ payoff to the attacker on all targets attacked is λ.

2. On all defended "Case 1"
targets, the __ratio__ of damage to number of weapons is λ; on all
defended "Case 2" targets, the ratio of damage to number of weapons
is greater than λ, and this ratio is greater for the solution x_{1}'
than the solution x_{2}'; on all undefended Case 1 or Case 2 targets,
the ratio is greater than λ.

If all Case 1 or Case 2 targets are defended, the total
number,

Y_{max}(λ) == Σ y_{i}'

where the symbol Σ denotes summation; if all Case 1 and
Case 2 targets are defended, and attacked at the highest optimal level, the
total number of weapons used is

X_{max}(Y_{max}(λ))
== X_{max}(λ) = Σ x_{2i}' ;

if all Case 1 and Case 2 targets are defended, and attacked
at the lowest optimal level, the total number of weapons used is

X_{min}(Y_{max}(λ))
== X_{min}(λ) = Σ x_{1i}' ;

if all Case 1 and Case 2 targets are not defended, but are
attacked at the optimal level, the total number of weapons used is

X(Y,λ)│_{Y=0}
= X(0,λ) == Σ x_{3i}' ;

where we define

0 on Case 1 targets

x_{1i}' = x_{1}' on Case 2 targets

0 on Case 3 targets

(corresponding to minimal attack, maximal defense);

x' on Case 1 targets

x_{2i}' = x_{2}' on Case 2 targets

0 on Case 3 targets

(corresponding to maximal attack, maximal defense); and

x"
on Case 1 or Case 2 targets

x_{3i}' =

0 on
Case 3 targets

(corresponding to an attack against no defense).

The following characteristics of the defender's solution are
noted:

1.
For the complete defense, Y = Y_{max}(λ), the attacker can
choose not to attack any (or all) of the Case 1 targets or to attack any of the
Case 2 targets at the lower level, x_{1}', and the resulting
deployments (attack and defense) are optimal at the new level x,

X_{min}(λ)
__<__ X __<__ X_{max}(λ) .

This characteristic results from the
defender's having chosen the defense so that the tangent at slope λ passes through the origin (Case 1) or through
both points of tangency (Case 2). The
attacker is thus indifferent to attacking at the level 0 or the level x' (Case
1), or to attacking at the level x_{1}' or x_{2}' (Case
2). The damage increases linearly (with
slope λ) for all X, X_{min}(λ) __<__ X __<__ X_{max}(λ)
(this will be proved later).

2.
If the defender chooses not to defend some Case 1 or Case 2 targets, and
the attacker __also__ chooses not to attack some defended Case 1 targets or
to attack some defended Case 2 targets at the lower level, then the resulting
deployment is __not optimal__ for the given resource levels, X and Y, even
though the deployment would be the optimal one for the given values of λ
and μ, if λ and μ represented true marginal costs of weapons and
interceptors. This paradoxical situation
arises since, using the double Lagrange multiplier method, there may be many
different values of λ and μ that correspond to the same resource
levels. (See Reference 3 for a
discussion of this point). In the
preceding situation, there would be a larger value of λ that would
correspond to the same total numbers of weapons and interceptors deployed.

The defense would prefer this latter deployment since it
results in lower payoff to the attacker.
This follows since, for X_{min}(λ) __<__ X __<__
X_{max}(λ), the payoff to the attacker is the same per weapon
(beyond the payoff of the "X_{min}(λ) weapons"):

Payoff = λ(X - X_{0}) .

For λ_{1} < λ_{2}, the payoff
λ_{1}X_{01} of the "X_{min}(λ_{1})
weapons" is greater than the payoff λ_{2}X_{02} of
the "X_{min}(λ_{2}) weapons." Also, λ_{1}X < λ_{2}X. Hence

Payoff for λ_{1} = λ_{1}(X
- X_{01}) < λ_{2}(X - X_{02}) = Payoff for
λ_{2}.

Hence the defender would choose the deployment corresponding
to λ_{2}. Thus we see that
the attacker can attack on the range X_{min}(λ) __<__ X __<__
X_{max}(λ) only if the defense is "complete" (i.e., the
defender defends at level y' in all Case 1 and Case 2 targets).

We shall now determine which solutions are simultaneously
optimal for __both__ the attacker and the defender.

In the preceding section, we showed that the pair
(μ,λ) corresponding to the correct solution cannot correspond to a
partial defense and a partial attack.
Rather, the correct (μ,λ) must correspond either to a complete
attack, partial defense, or to a complete defense, partial attack. We also provide that in the complete defense
case, in which X_{min}(λ) __<__ X __<__ X_{max}(λ),
if two different choices for (μ,λ) correspond to the same resource
levels, the "better" solution corresponds to the larger value of
λ. In view of the possibility of
there being many different choices (μ,λ) that correspond to the same
resource levels, it is necessary to answer the following question: How is it possible to find (μ,λ)
corresponding to the solution optimal for the specified resource levels? Our objective is twofold: (1) to make certain that the correct
(μ,λ) pair is included among all (μ,λ) pairs identified as
corresponding to the specified resource levels; (2) to test each such
(μ,λ) solution to determine if it is optimal.

In view of the results of the preceding section, if the
correct solution is included in the set of (μ,λ) pairs identified as
meeting the constraint levels, then we will be able to select it in the
complete defense case. Hence our problem
is solved for the complete defense case if we can prove that the correct
solution is among those identified.

We can prove the correct solution is in fact included, by
the following argument. We will show
that there is only one permissible choice of λ corresponding to the
complete defense case. Since the correct
solution must correspond to the complete defense case. Since the correct solution must correspond to
some choice of (μ,λ) that meets the resource constraints, and this
choice is the only permissible one, it must then be the correct solution. (There may indeed be other values of λ
which satisfy the resource constraints, but they will correspond to partial
defenses and attacks, and hence to spurious solutions.)

Note that for values of λ greater than max(i) (P_{i},β_{i}),
no weapons and no interceptors are allocated to any target. Furthermore, as λ is decreased to zero,
the maximal number of weapons that are allocated increased __monotonically__
(but discontinuously) from zero. For
μ > λ, no interceptors are allocated, and for all μ __<__
λ, the allocation is the same (all Y_{max}(λ)
interceptors). The upper interceptor
limit increases __monotonically__ (and continously) as λ
decreases. Hence, if we are allocating
for a complete defense, partial attack, there is only __one__ value of
λ which will meet the defense level constraint. Hence we have the correct solution (i.e., the
solution which is simultaneously optimal for both attacker and defender) in the
complete defense case (X_{min}(λ) __<__ X __<__ X_{max}(λ)).

Note that there may be __no choice__ of (μ,λ)
corresponding to the specified defense and attack levels. For example, in the complete defense, minimal
attack situation, the minimal attack resource level may exceed the specified
attack resource level. In this case, we
have no solution to the problem for the specified resource levels, by the
Everett-Pugh __double__ Lagrange multiplier technique. It is nevertheless possible to determine an
optimal solution in this case using the __single__ Lagrange multiplier
technique, by the following reasoning.
Consider the complete defense, minimal attack situation, in which the defender
defends all Case 1 and Case 2 targets, and the attacker attacks all such
targets at the minimal level (x_{1}').
The attacker deploys X_{min}(λ) weapons in this case. If the attacker wishes to use fewer than X_{min}(λ)
weapons, he must allocate his weapons so that the marginal payoff per weapon is
the same for all targets. That is, he
chooses a new value of λ, greater than λ', and chooses x' so that
g'(x') = λ'. Clearly, he will
attack all targets with a number of weapons that is less than x_{1}',
and hence less than the number of interceptors.
Since this is the case, the defender has no need to adjust his
defense. He can maintain the same
defense no matter how many weapons (less than X_{min}(λ)) the
attacker allocates, since in every case there are fewer weapons than
defenders. Additional interceptors have
absolutely no effect on the payoff. The
problem hence reduces to one of simply allocating the attacker's weapons, using
g(x) for the payoff function. Since the
total number X(λ) of attackers allocated, given λ, is a monotone
decreasing function of λ. this is easily accomplished. Note that the defense can rearrange his
allocation any way he pleases, so long as y __>__ x on every target, and
the resulting allocation is still optimal.
Only X(λ) of the interceptors are actually needed.

Thus we have the correct solution in the case in which X
< X_{min}(λ).

The final case to consider is the complete attack case in
which X > X_{max}(λ).
For a specified number of defended targets, both Y(λ) and
X(Y(λ),λ) increase as λ decreases. However, there may be several different
numbers of defended targets for which λ = λ' can be chosen so that
X(Y(λ'),λ') = X and Y(λ') is close to Y. (Owing to the discrete nature of targets, it
in general will not be possible to meet the interceptor constraint
exactly.) In the unlikely event that
Y(λ') is the same for two different values of λ', the better solution
corresponds to the allocation resulting in least damage. In general, however, we will have several
possible solutions, each using a different number of interceptors and resulting
in a different level of damage. The
correct optimal solution is the solution with Y(λ') __<__ Y which
has least damage. The situation is
illustrated in Figure A-11.

For both Case 1 and Case 2 targets, the damage in the
optimal attack (complete attack case) is a function of λ only, i.e.,

Damage = f(x - y,y) = f(λ) = P(1 -
λ/Pβ).

We observe that the damage is a decreasing function of
λ. Therefore, if there are several different
λ's for which the weapon constraint is met and for which the interceptor
constraint is not exceeded, then the defender will choose the defense
corresponding to the largest λ.
Referring to Figure A-11, the optimal solution is hence the rightmost one
(corresponding to total resource levels X, Y_{2}), in which the maximum
number of targets is defended.

A useful way to summarize the several preceding observations
is to plot the payoff for optimal solutions corresponding to varying attack
levels for a fixed defense level. Such a
plot is shown in Figure A-12.

Before summarizing the nature of the solutions corresponding
to the different sections of this curve, we recall the nature of the Lagrangian
solutions on the three types of targets.

For Case 1 targets, the defender chooses a number, y, of
interceptors and the attacker chooses a number, x, of weapons, such that the
tangent line to the damage curve at x is of slope λ, and the tangent line
passes through the origin. (See Figure
A-8.) For Case 2 targets, the defender
chooses y, and the attacker chooses x_{2} > y, so that the tangent
line to the curve at x_{2} is also tangent at a point x_{1}
< y; furthermore, this tangent line is of slope λ. (See Figure A-9.) Case 3 targets are neither defended nor
attacked. (See Figure A-10.)

Not all of the points described above correspond to optimal
solutions. Depending on the
circumstances (to be described) the attacker may be required to attack only at
the higher level, or the defender may be required to defend only at the higher
level. We shall now describe the
situation using Figure A-12, which depicts total damage, H(X,Y) as a function
of X, for fixed Y.

In the first section of the curve, all Case 1 and Case 2
targets are defended, and all are attacked.
The defense is greater than necessary in this region, for there are more
interceptors than weapons on each target.
The defense is somewhat arbitrary here; it can be rearranged in any
fashion so long as there are always more interceptors than weapons on each
target. The attack corresponding to a
specified X is unique. Both the
interceptor and weapon constraints are met exactly.

In the second section of the curve, all Case 1 and Case 2
targets are defended, and the defense is unique (or "stable"). The attacker may attack each target at either
the low level or the high level, and he does so in any fashion which enables
him to meet his weapon constraint, X.
The interceptor constraint, Y, is met exactly, but the weapon constraint
may only be approximated, owing to the discrete nature of weapons and
interceptors. (We refer to this error as
the "small change" effect.)
Thus there are actually only a finite number of Lagrangian solutions
along the linear portion of the curve corresponding to all possible
combinations of attacks at the high or low attack levels on each target. Payoffs corresponding to total attack levels
lying between these points lie slightly below the line defined by the payoffs
of the Lagrangian solutions.

The first two sections of the curve represent what is called
a "defense dominant" situation.

In the third section of the curve, all Case 1 and Case 2
targets are attacked at the higher level, but only a subset of the Case 2
targets are defended. The defended targets
have the following property. Let λ
denote the value of the (attacker's) Lagrange multiplier in the optimal
attack. Suppose, now, that no targets
were defended, and that this same value of λ were used to determine the
number of weapons to be allocated to each target. Let us denote the damage to the i-th target
in such an attack by D_{i}, and the number of weapons by N_{i}. Consider the ratio R_{i} = D_{i}/N_{i}. If all Case 1 and Case 2 targets are arranged
in decreasing order of R_{i}, then the defended targets of the optimal
attack are at the beginning of this list.
In other words, the defender defends targets in decreasing order of
their undefended damage per weapon.

Both the defense and the attack are unique in this section
of the curve. The weapon constraint is
met exactly, but the interceptor constraint may only be approximated. This section of the curve represents the
"attack dominant" situation.

In the third section of the curve, there may be several
different values of λ, corresponding to different numbers of defended
targets, which enable us to meet the weapon and interceptor constraints. The defender naturally chooses the defense
allocation which corresponds to the least damage. In the present problem, this happens to the
solution corresponding to the largest value of λ, since in the attack
dominant case the damage on the i-th target is given by

P_{i}(1 - λ/P_{i}β_{i})
.

It is of some interest to describe the nature of the
solution as a function of the Lagrange multiplier λ. We summarize the situation in Figure A-13
through A-17 (ignoring the "small-change" effect caused by discrete
weapons and interceptors).

Figures A-14 and A-15 illustrate the ranges of total defense
and attack levels corresponding to optimal attacks for different values of
λ.

Note that it is not possible to obtain an optimal solution
for every choice of X and Y, by the method of double Lagrange multipliers. If Y is very large and X is very small, there
may be no value of λ for which X_{min}(λ) < X and Y < Y_{max}(λ). (This region is called a
"gap". Regions such as this,
which are inaccessible by the Everett-Pugh procedure of min-maxing the
Lagrangian function (as opposed to zeroing its derivative, in the case of
continuously differentiable functions), represent "inefficient"
solutions. (See Reference 2 for a
discussion of gaps.) As discussed
previously, however, we were able in the present problem to find an optimal
solution over this gap. (Another type of
gap occurs since the discrete nature of targets prohibits meeting both resource
levels exactly. This "small
change" effect is generally small, however, for problems involving several
targets and large numbers of weapons and interceptors.)

Figure A-16 is a plot of the payoff (denoted by H(X,Y_{max}(λ)))
corresponding to all possible optimal attack levels, for constant λ and Y
= Y_{max}(λ). (This plot is
simply the middle section of Figure A-12.)

Figure A-17 is a plot of the payoff (denoted by
H(X(Y,λ),Y)) corresponding to all possible optimal defense levels, for
fixed λ.

The plot of Figure A-17 is a level line since f(Δ_{λ},y) = (Δ_{λ},0), as discussed previously.

In view of the preceding characteristics of the optimal
solution, a reasonable procedure for finding the optimal solution
(corresponding to Σ x_{i} = X, Σ y_{i} = Y) is the
following:

1.
Determine the largest value of λ such that Y_{max}(λ)
= Y. Compute X_{min}(λ) and
X_{max}(λ).

2.
Complete defense, partial attack case.
If X_{min}(λ) __<__ X __<__ X_{max}(λ),
then the optimal solution is obtained by attacking a sufficient number of the
(Case 1 or Case 2) targets at the higher level (x_{2i}') to satisfy the
weapon constraint, X. (Any such
collection of targets is satisfactory.
This is the case since the additional damage caused in going from x_{1i}'
to x_{2i}' weapons on the i-th target is λ(x_{2i}' - x_{1i}'). Thus the additional damage caused by the x_{2i}'
- x_{1i}' weapons, above the damage caused by the x_{1i}' weapons,
is the same linear function of the additional weapons allocated, for all
targets.) Since weapons are allocated to
targets in groups, it will in general not be possible to meet the weapon
constraint exactly.

3.
Complete attack, partial defense case.
If X > X_{max}(λ), then decrease λ to the largest
value of λ such that X_{max}(λ) = X. An optimal solution is obtained by defending
a sufficient number of the (Case 1 or Case 2) targets to satisfy the
interceptor constraint, Y. The targets
to be defended must be selected in order of decreasing ratio in the no-defense
case, of damage to weapons, until Y interceptors are used. Unfortunately, however, if some defendable
targets are not defended, then fewer weapons are allocated (see Figure
A-11). Hence our weapon constraint is
not met. We must hence decrease the
value of λ (giving us new values of Y_{max}(λ) > Y and X_{max}(λ)
> X), and choose a new set of targets to be defended. As before, we select targets to be defended
in the (new) order of decreasing ratio, in the no-defense case, of damage to
weapons, until Y interceptors are used.
We compute, for this defense allocation, the corresponding number, X(Y),
of weapons. We decrease λ until
X(Y) = X. Since interceptors are
allocated to targets in groups, it will in general not be possible to meet the
interceptor constraint exactly. There
may, however, be a number of different solutions (corresponding to different
numbers of defended targets) using fewer than Y interceptors, and we should
choose the one resulting in least damage (largest λ).

4.
Complete attack, unnecessarily large defense. If X < X_{min}(λ), no
solution can be found by the method of double Lagrange multipliers. Either fewer than Y interceptors must be
used, or more than X weapons must be used, to obtain an optimal solution by
this method. To find the optimal
solution for the specified Y, we instead use the single Lagrange multiplier
method, and proceed as follows. Accept
the defense allocation corresponding to X_{min}(λ), Y_{max}(λ)
= Y. Then, increase the value of λ,
and compute the corresponding attack allocation. Denoting the number of weapons deployed by
X(λ), adjust λ so that X = X(λ).
This allocation is the optimal attack allocation. Denoting the number of weapons deployed by
X(λ), adjust λ so that X = X(λ).
This allocation is the optimal attack allocation. Any defense allocation for which the number
of interceptors on each target exceeds the number of weapons is optimal. Hence, in particular, the defense allocation
corresponding to X = X_{min}(λ), Y = Y_{max}(λ), is
optimal.

A computer program has been written to perform the above
computations.

The derivation presented above of the optimal solution
includes a number of implicit relationships.
The solution will now be explicitly derived.

If f'(0,0) __<__ λ, no weapons or interceptors
are allocated to the target.

We have

f(Δ,y) = P(1 - exp(-βΔ -
αy))

so that

f'(Δ,y) = Pβexp(-βΔ
- αy)

and

f'(0,0) = Pβ .

Thus if Pβ __<__ λ, no weapons or
interceptors are allocated to the target.

In this case, Pβ > λ and g'(0) __<__
λ. We have

g(x) = P(1 - exp(-αx))

so that

g'(x) = Pαexp(-αx)

and

g'(0) = Pα .

Thus if Pα __<__ λ, the situation is that of
Case 1. In this case, we wish first to
determine x,y > 0 such that the tangent line at the point x is of slope
λ and passes through the origin.
That is, find x,y such that

f'(x - y, y) = λ

and

f(x - y,y)/x = λ .

The first relation implies

Pβexp(-β(x - y) - αy) =
λ

or

exp(-β(x - y) - αy) =
λ/Pβ .

Substituting this into the second relation, we have

P(1 - λ/Pβ)/x = λ

or

x = P(1 - λ/Pβ)/λ .

The first relation then yields

y = (ln(λ/Pβ) +
βx)/(β - α).

If y = 0, then x must satisfy

f'(x,0) = λ

i.e.,

Pβexp(-βx) = λ

or

x = (-1/β) ln(λ/Pβ) .

Case 2 corresponds to Pα > λ (Pβ >
holds since α < β). In this
case, we wish first to determine x_{1}, x_{2}, and y, where x_{1}
< y < x_{2}, such that the tangent line at the point x_{2}
is of slope λ, the tangent line at the point x_{1} is of slope
λ, and these tangent lines are in fact the same line. That is, we want x_{1}, x_{2},
y such that

g'(x_{1}) = λ

f'(x_{2} - y,y) = λ

(f(x_{2} - y,y) - g(x_{1}))/(x_{2}
- x_{1}) = λ.

The first relation yields

exp(-αx_{1}) =
λ/Pα

or

x_{1} =
-(1/α)(ln(λ/Pα)) .

The second relation yields

exp(-β(x_{2} -
y))exp(-αy) = λ/Pβ .

Substituting the first two relations into the third hence
yields

(P(1 - λ/Pβ) - P(1 -
λ/Pα))/(x_{2} - x_{1}) = λ

or

x_{2} = x_{1} +
1/α - 1/β .

The second relation yields

y = (ln(λ/Pβ) + βx_{2})/(β
- α) .

In the case in which y = 0, we wish to find x such that

f'(x,0) = λ .

As is Case 1, we obtain

x = -(1/β)(ln(λ/Pβ)) .

1. Hugh Everett, III,
__Defense Models XI: Exhaustion of
Interceptor Supplies__, Lambda Paper 17, Lamdba Corporation, Arlington,
Virginia, 1968. (Lambda Corporation later became a subsidiary of General
Research Corporation, McLean, Virginia.)

2. Hugh Everett, III,
"Generalized Lagrange Multiplier Method for Solving Problems of Optimum
Allocation of Resources," __Operations Research__, 11:399-411, 1963.

3. George E. Pugh,
"Lagrange Multipliers and the Optimal Allocation of Defense
Resources," __Operations Research__, __12__:543-567, 1964.

4. Robert L.
Goodrich, __Defense Models V: Ivan II,
A Detailed Model for Preferential Defense__, Lambda Paper 7, Lambda
Corporation, Arlington, Virginia, 1968.