Developments in Minnesota closely mirror a scenario explored in a 2024 exercise conducted at the Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law at the University of Pennsylvania, which I direct
To be fair OP just copied the headline. Also table topping or wargaming has become more popular for militaries around the world. Govt contractors running these games are making a ton of money. Wish the author linked her research findings, it seems she had former or active military as part of the exercise.
Sorry, my criticism was of the article, not OP. Unless OP writes the headlines for the guardian, in which case it was indeed for them.
Armies have always wargamed, but the difference is that wargames rely on the “hard” factors - things that are quantifiable. How do you position tanks, how do you ensure supply deliveries, how do you convoy ships, how do you ensure pilots have adequate sleep, how do we coordinate communication in disaster response, things of that nature.
What they’re describing here is entirely about the unquantifiable “soft” factors - how will a population respond to actions taken by a government, and that’s (despite what the CIA would like you to believe) entirely the realm of guesswork. Informed, authoritativly stated guesswork, but at it’s heart its still just sitting around a table with a bunch of people and role-playing what you think will happen. Without some expansion on why the results of this have merit it’s not something we should be taking seriously, which is why its disappointing the article didn’t include any explanation of the process or expand on the credibility of the “high level” simulation.
To be fair OP just copied the headline. Also table topping or wargaming has become more popular for militaries around the world. Govt contractors running these games are making a ton of money. Wish the author linked her research findings, it seems she had former or active military as part of the exercise.
Sorry, my criticism was of the article, not OP. Unless OP writes the headlines for the guardian, in which case it was indeed for them.
Armies have always wargamed, but the difference is that wargames rely on the “hard” factors - things that are quantifiable. How do you position tanks, how do you ensure supply deliveries, how do you convoy ships, how do you ensure pilots have adequate sleep, how do we coordinate communication in disaster response, things of that nature.
What they’re describing here is entirely about the unquantifiable “soft” factors - how will a population respond to actions taken by a government, and that’s (despite what the CIA would like you to believe) entirely the realm of guesswork. Informed, authoritativly stated guesswork, but at it’s heart its still just sitting around a table with a bunch of people and role-playing what you think will happen. Without some expansion on why the results of this have merit it’s not something we should be taking seriously, which is why its disappointing the article didn’t include any explanation of the process or expand on the credibility of the “high level” simulation.
Wargaming was popular in the military before it was widespread among the general population.