Author
UK Ministry of Defence — Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC)
2 reading cards from 2 books · 2017–2021.
2 cards
Wargaming Handbook · 2017
A wargame shows what is plausible, not what is probable.
The 2017 British handbook defines wargaming as a decision-making technique that offers structured but intellectually liberating, safe-to-fail environments — a place to find out what works and what does not, usually at low cost. At its core are the players, the decisions they take, the narrative they create, their shared experiences and the lessons they carry away. The handbook separates analytical, discovery wargames from training, learning ones; for analysis the first kind matters, from planning games to games that inform real executive decisions. The steps: frame the question (what you want to find out, not what you want to prove); choose the players, including a capable opposing side that is free to win; set the rules and an umpire who adjudicates the effects of moves; run the game, then conduct a rigorous post-game analysis. The handbook is explicit that wargames are not predictive and that a single run risks false lessons, which is why several games are played. It pays off when the adversary reacts to what you do — an interaction a static analysis cannot see. The trap is the game staged to confirm the plan, with an opponent who is not allowed to win.
“Wargames can illustrate that something is plausible, but will not be able to definitively predict that it is probable.”
Red Teaming Handbook (3rd Edition) · 2021
The red team challenges your plan; the red cell plays the adversary.
The British handbook separates four notions that are easily blurred. Red teaming is the activity: the independent application of structured, creative and critical thinking techniques so the decision-maker chooses better. A red team is a team formed specifically to subject an organisation's plans, programmes, ideas and assumptions to rigorous analysis and challenge. A red cell is something else: it adopts the viewpoint or even the persona of an adversary or key stakeholder, estimates what they would do, and can role-play them in wargames. NATO calls a closely related approach alternative analysis: the deliberate application of independent, critical thought and alternative perspective. The third edition adds the red team mindset — quick techniques used routinely by anyone who decides, not only by a separate team. How it is applied: the team works for a specific decision-maker, the end user in the definition; it stays independent of the plan's authors; it picks the techniques that fit the question; it hands over findings the decision-maker can actually use. It pays off before large, hard-to-reverse decisions. The traps: a red team is not immune to groupthink — the handbook devotes a section to it — and a team that wins by demolishing the plan, instead of making it more robust, has missed the point.
“Red teaming is defined as: the independent application of a range of structured, creative and critical thinking techniques to assist the end user make a better-informed decision or produce a more robust product.”