When I was in my late teens, I was begining to get into strategy games on the computer. My friend, through our examinations, had this addictive game running but I can’t remember its name. You played the part of a Russian president making decisions that had an impact on your relations with the rest of the world in the quest to become the most powerful nation.

Before that I was really into the then-revolutionary Dune 2, the first strategy game I’ve played to really layout tactical combat on a larger scale. Ever since then, I’ve loved watching out for consequences and trying to map them in my head for given situations.


Later in college I encountered the use of hypotheticals in moral philosophy to test the limits of hypotheses and/or moral theories; the one everyone’s heard about would be the choice to save the world from catastrophe with the willful murder of a single innocent, for example. If you say you would, you could be basing your decision on utilitarian concerns, or you could say no and base your reasons on other fundamental moral considerations.

Either way, you learn the extent to which your theory remains consistent, or some such consideration. There is situation, then there is an escalation represented by a ‘difficult choice’, but the consequences are known beforehand. What’s important for these hypotheticals is to test your rationale.

There was a period when I became obsessed about hypotheticals, the ghastly “what if”, and maybe I still am. When I went through my chess obsession phase, I gave up half-way because I suddenly realized how unbelievably difficult it would be to hold up to 20 possible moves - if not more - in your head, learn opening strategies, mid-game and endgame strategies, things like pawn placement, control of the board, etc.

My point is, I began realizing the possibilities of a more future-directed application of these thought experiments on global events, which interested me more. This is not new, and anyone who’s watched “Wargames” would know what I’m talking about; it’s just exciting on some level.

If you’ve watched ‘Thirteen Days’, about the days during which the Cuban Missile Crisis played out, you’d hear JFK turning to Robert McNamara asking him scenarios that were ‘gamed’. The classic example of a piece of scenario development is the report from Iron Mountain, which you can read here. About 3 years ago, a friend passed me a weblink with the text document of the file, but I’ve since lost it with other documents when my computer broke down. It is my understanding that the distribution of this report is ‘restricted’… ooh.. too much cloak-and-dagger drama!

It’s been found to be a hoax, a satire and such, but Section 3 is interesting, with the following opening paragraph:

SCENARIOS, as they have come to be called, are hypothetical constructions of future events. Inevitably, they are composed of varying proportions of established fact, reasonable inference, and more or less inspired guesswork. Those which have been suggested as model procedures for effectuating international arms control and eventual disarmament are necessarily imaginative, although closely reasoned; in this respect they resemble the “war games” analyses of the Rand Corporation, with which they share a common conceptual origin.

What still frustrates me to this day is not knowing how these people carry out “war game analyses”. How do they depict scenarios? What variables do they look at? Is there a framework for study? Are all scenarios and prescriptions thereto goal-orientated?

The books I’ve seen on Amazon so far point to scenario management as a matter of business strategy planning, but I’m sure it’s not restricted to just business. In fact, I’m sure we do this all the time: we plan for the future of our kids, how to secure ownership of a property, how to prepare for trips, etc.

Mostly, it’s a mental process: I secure my kids’ future by buying endowment policies now, for example, or I begin saving a sum of money for a deposit on a house, and then plan to rent said house to cover installment payments. There are situations, events, contingencies, and opportunities. But what framework?

Do people study this when they study game theory? Do they study this when they take read business degrees? I don’t know. Must research more into this area. In the meantime, I’ve given this some thought and have listed some considerations of a typical scenario, though I think it has some gaps and needs to be pared down considerably:-

  • Situation: this would represent the current state of events. This could include ideas about the current state of affairs of politics in the country, or maybe situations in a market. I’m not sure whether to term this particular aspect the actual “problematic”. I’m sure that in games, for example chess, the situation really is the problematic: the situation is a board with pieces, but if the goal is to win, is the problematic here “how to win”? Not sure. In any case, information, at this stage (if not throughout thinking through the scenario) is vital.
  • Event: this would refer to a hypothetical, for example, what if the prices of oil rises beyond USD 80.00 per barrel? Or even, what if Opposition members start demanding for the English medium to be used for all subjects in school? Does the problematic lie here? It is, after all, the question that drives the examination. Or maybe not? Should the goal of analysis of present actions for future benefit the problematic?
  • Escalation/Consequences: like the above, it maps out a reasoned set of consequences that might arise from events. I think this would be determined according to the aspects of the “situation” that are considered. For example, we might want to consider the economic consequences of a political coup, or the political consequences of an abdication of authority to the legislative branch of the government by the executive, etc.
  • Opportunities: these would involve the examination of plans of action as either contingencies or to secure benefits depending on goals.

Hmm. Goals are definitely needed in any formulation of a scenario. If there are no goals, then there is no drive or need to consider present actions for future benefit, and thus no requirement for the formulation of scenarios in the first place. Hmm. Do you have any thoughts on the matter?