This article focuses on scenarios for war. It explains first why scenarios need to be mutually exclusive. Then it provides logical templates for building scenarios dealing with war. Finally it offers an updated bibliography of scenarios for Syria over time.
This text is part of a series that seeks to practically speed and ease the methodology to analyse future security threats, including scenario-building, yet without sacrificing quality. Throughout this series we thus share ways to fulfil the challenging criteria demanded by our time for future and risk analysis.
We clarified with the previous article the approach and mindset for the building of scenarios. Now, we address the practical part, how to concretely help speed the process of scenarios-building using logical ideal-type categories. Here, we focus on scenarios for war. With the next article, we move to scenarios for situations qualified as non-violent crises.
Mutually exclusive scenarios
- The New Space Race (1) – The BRICS and Space Mining
- Uranium for the U.S. Nuclear Renaissance: Meeting Unprecedented Requirements (1)
- Fifth Year of Advanced Training in Early Warning Systems & Indicators – ESFSI of Tunisia
- Towards a U.S. Nuclear Renaissance?
- AI at War (3) – Hyperwar in the Middle east
- AI at War (2) – Preparing for the US-China War?
- Niger: a New Severe Threat for the Future of France’s Nuclear Energy?
As a preamble, it is necessary to emphasize a crucial rule. To quote Glenn and The Futures Group International:
“When a set of scenarios is prepared, each scenario usually treats the same or similar parameters, but the evolution and actual value of the parameters described in each scenario are different.”
Glenn, Jerome C. and The Futures Group International, “Scenarios,” p.4
This is a premium article. To access this article, you must become one of our members or have registered for an online course. In these cases, please, log in.
Featured image: 3 Possible scenarios of the Soviet invasion of Iran from the same CIA estimate 1985 by Central Intelligence Agency Office of Public Affairs Washington, D.C. [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.
Thank you for this interesting assessment, very useful for a better understanding of war developments. You could also make a similar analysis for potential reasons for going to war.
Thank you Carmen! Definitely… and actually this is what I plan to do with the next post :)
Helene hi, in your earlier posts, do you cover why you are doing this, for example, in order to force structure or to prosecute a campaign. It looks very useful but my interest lies in Australia’s situation where the development of scenarios might be used to test force structures that are developed to cover the unpredictable. Hope that makes sense. Rgds Jim
Hi Jim,
In the first post of the series https://redanalysis.org/2013/11/18/operational-methodology-security-threats/ I indeed explain why I am revisiting the methodology. Those scenarios are meant to uncover possible futures for specific issues. Thus you should be able – if i understand you well – to use the methodology to develop scenarios that will then be “used against” different force structures. This should give you weak and strong points. By force structure do you mean military? If yes, then it seems to me that the key point, before to elaborate the scenarios, is to identify all possible issues where forces could/should be employed, thus to use the Australian defense and security perspective etc.
I hope I answered your question,
All the best
Helene
Helene: I really appreciate reviewing the work posted on this site. Today I was especially pleased to have been exposed to the work of Charles W. Taylor–very helpful to my research and approach to scenario development!
Happy New Year!
Thank you very much Jerry! It seems that Taylor’s work is very appreciated :-). I am glad you find it useful.
All the best and A happy New Year to you too!