Military scenario … and Resilience[1]

..by top management is not exercised by … but by using scenarios. Scenario as a Leadership Tool … Scenario process is reinforced.[2] In Shell, … use scenarios …. A Nation … physical and cyber critical infrastructure remain secure and resilient, … reduced vulnerabilities, minimized consequences, threats identified & disrupted & response and recovery hastened.[3]

Building military force (force planning / structures) [4] and endurance.

Hint: read from top to bottom, starting from national interest and threat-to-interest blocks to assess cost and risk. [5] 

The diagram above is [6]US Army War Coll’s version of the force requirements framework. Without scenarios (middle block) it is difficult to describe the strength & capability format itself, deployment, time, enemy capabilities/potentials, forms of warfare, engagement areas (for example SSC), etc. plus classification is very possible (plausible) to precisely build responses. A block of force requirements appears plus an evaluation of past strength development evaluations (for example SSC / small scale conflict) – a defense program block appears (+ risk assessment and a variant of the structure constructed or procured (acquisition = not bought)) or alternative – good review framework.

The simplest scenario is the exercise / if-yudha scenario. Scenario architecture stands on assumptions,[7] exemplified before 1942 a young US officer suggested the assumption of the Japanese attack on Hawaii while discussing the coming conflict, unfortunately, rejected.[8] Situation awareness is difficult, but what tools can be used to calculate the risk and consequences of recovery after a man-made or natural disaster (terrorism, pandemic, war) [9]… while resilience can answer. Whereas the center of anxiety for state resilience is critical infrastructure.[10] That is why critical infrastructure (idem obvitnas?) Is a protection priority. [11] The trend of resilience as a system of sustainability (sustainable science) will involve humans and the environment.[12] National readiness system, begin to prevent (prevention) focus on threats (T, threat), protection (protection) on weaknesses (V, vulnerability, mitigation & response (M & R) in order to minimize the entire spectrum of consequences (C, Consequences) and recovery (Recover) is peak-lock.[13] 

Endurance is an attribute of immediate recovery & ability to overcome weaknesses, threats and consequencesà T, V, C are elements of risk management/analysis (flat line) and Resilience is a subset of risk management [14] They will be faced with national readiness (vertical lines) from prevention, protection, mitigation, etc. to recovery.[15] The Response, Prevent, and Security System effort model opposes T, V, C, check the image below.[16]

Hint: pay attention to the position of risk group 1> risk group 2>, risk group 3 à the closer the effect is to the target (government) the greater the consequences.

The upright line reflects the probability function (T & V) and the flat line is the price of Consequence (C). The position of critical asset owners (the government) works starting from the top right-hand corner. Response efforts are flat lines towards T and V at the highest level, meaning that they focus on the highest probability of damage. Prevent downward, when risks and consequences are low. The security system leads to downward pressing probabilities (T, V) and downward risk groups. T can be measured with product Capability (attacker) * Will (attacker) * Weakness (defense).[17] Under [H1] is a NATO version of the long-term military power calculus framework (best practice)[18]

Framework[H2] military calculus which is able to demonstrate the crucial role of scenarios in the management and concentration of any Defense Minister (note the use of the cost-effectiveness method has long been used – middle left block (4)).

Risk Assessment, Risk management = f (Risk analysis), and Resilience.

Risk analysis is growing rapidly in the business environment, manufacturing, environmental protection, maritime, disaster & catastrophic, etc. The analysis algorithm (figure below) can be adopted as a practical guide[19]. Risk analysis works on steps 1 – 3, assessment risk up to step to4 Hazards identification (step-2) is a feature of traditional risk analysis,[20] … finally, where hazards are unknown, risk analysis is impossible [21], continued Park[22]; there is a strong link between risk and resilience. Analysis begins with identification (probability) hazards, and the model will stop (completed) when reached a significant reduction level as expected (adequately reduced).

The orientation of military risk analysis is safety, efficiency, sustainability, optimality, and security. Military risk management is the process of recognizing and assessing the potential hazards of operational factors and making balanced decisions between the benefits and costs to be incurred to bear those risks (again, cost-effectiveness).[23]Risks consist of mission risk & force/unit risk and for operational level commanders focus on the mission. Risk probability, sequential; [1] often, [2] it seems, [3] rarely, [5] it does not. Whereas impact categories, consisting of [1] catastrophic, [2] critical, [3] marginal, [4] can be ignored. Risk assessment is as follows: [1] very extreme risk (E), [2] high risk (H), [3] middle (M), [4] low (L).[24] Check the probability matrix below.

Capable military risk analysis evaluates the current strategy (defense review).[25]Protecting military power can be done through security. It means success-security will protect military strength, otherwise, it can be used to exploit the enemy’s weaknesses.[26]The level of security control is inversely proportional to the level of risk – the more secure the situation is, the smaller the risk. Lots country utilizes security-based risk metrics to measure the effectiveness of military operations. This concept applies in NATO COPD[27], US and Marines, British and Swedish military. This security concept can be used as special risk management for NATO IT / Cyber ​​operations and the NATO military force protection doctrine. Risk, evaluation, and control will face uncertain, long-term situations (defense, economic issues, etc.) – relying on the sharpness of the quality of the scenario. The engine (driving) scenario relies on a trained team (Srena) reading well ahead(visioning expert). [28] Management risk becomes a working format for military decision-making, risk analysis, and a defense review for the Ministry of Defense.[29] The defense/military strategy framework starts from the national interest [30] (for the survival of the nation), escorted organized by all strategies national strategies power instruments (known as national security strategies)[31]responsible for achieving the objective of national interests. National interest objective (at the tip of the arrow)[32], encouraged by all the strategies of national power instruments, among others: economic, political, military, etc., organized in a platform called a large strategy (national strategy or national security strategy) oversees the achievement of national interests.

The word resilience itself was born from a study of the risks and negative impacts (divorce & traumatic) of children’s lives, and inadvertently the issue arises with the words “Resilience”, “Stress-resistance”; or “Invulnerability”. Resilience is trending and adopted in the Hyogo Declaration by the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) as a positive movement.[33]Birth of resilience is followed by demands for efforts to maintain and cope with disasters (as a result of T, V, C) from the lowest to the frightening scale such as catastrophic — for example; pandemics, poison gas attacks, terrorists, etc … plus how to get back up. Resilience covers a variety of aspects from the national level to the sector, sector (social, community), and finally(most important)[34] in the concept deconstruction versus disaster and impact reduction. Deconstruction of this concept is popular for national interests and the military. Disaster (anatomy)arises because there is a potential conflict (hazards, danger, harmful, terrorist) with vulnerability (disaster in the middle).[35]

Zakour & Gillespie develop disaster events as dynamic models[36](below, not fully illustrated – the focus of disaster relationships, hazards, and resilience). Zakur et al. Refer to the concepts of resilience and vulnerability as complementary to one another. Vulnerability is a status variable[37] dynamics considering being in an insecure status, always interacting, and cumulatively stimulating disaster.[38] Disasters arise due to collisions of vulnerabilities and hazards (image below). 

Resilience is supported by resource utilities to respond to disasters (resilience process) ßresources characteristics & resources economics further enhance resilience. Resilience is increasingly forged and measured after a disaster (under disaster). Improvement diagram the effort can be illustrated as below.

Resilience as a function of vulnerability and capability (can) be moved away from vulnerability and approaching capacities with certain resilience measures (for example R (esilience) from 0% to 100%).[39]Vulnerability can be described on a flat-line scale, as well as capability (line upright) with scale. Since the understanding of resilience has been accepted by the UN as a disaster discourse — a culture of disaster response was born.[40]Isn’t the issue of insecurity and the destruction of human life in the domain of disaster? All cone into a sustainable science (sustainable science) with the resilience that cooperates with risk and vulnerability. This reason makes humans pursue maximum resilience, integrated and able to recover (recover) again, and honestly evaluate its vulnerabilities, risks, and consequences. Risk can be translated as probabilities that change organisms, systems, or sufferers exposed to more distress … because of the potential that is able to have a negative outcome impact, namely hazards, danger, harmful and threat.[41] They are agents who are capable of hurting national assets. 

Systemic risk is the level of ability to limit natural/artificial, social, economic, health, domestic interests and prepare to cross-regional or international boundaries. Risk assessment, vulnerability, resilience, resilience (the antonym word for vulnerability, or vulnerability) is an interrelated element. The situation is called risky, if and only if there is one (1) event that may occur in the future, but decision experts and decision-makers/policies do not know for sure (likelihood) are realized or not. Risks can be seen in terms of potential losses, losses, damage vs. uncertain events, or future actions (prospective) – risks are seen as a function of uncertainty and preference,[42] the following picture explanation. 

Resilience is the alternative (A), probability (p) function of each alternative (pi, j) per each event (E = events, Ei, j) and the product’s expected value (v) — v ( Ei, j) – hope as anti-shock versus threatening effect, as f = r (A, p, and E) can be mapped in the cognitive space of risk (right block of upper image — f = r (A, p, and E), r is a risk. Vulnerability is critical because it is easily disturbed. Vulnerability and easy exposure (exposure) are dynamics – can change at any time. The figure below (left block) explains the relationship between vulnerability and resilience[43]? The best resistance is the anti-shock capability, able to cross the threshold and recover after exposure to danger. Vulnerability is maintained if it is in the best scale status[44]

Reference: Ibid, page 5, … illustrated as … a roadmap of concepts: risk as a function of uncertainty and preferences; probability and utility as the operationalization of uncertainty and preferences; vulnerability as an extension of risk that is complementary to resilience.

Risk Position, faced with potential hazards (Hazards), durability, exposure or impact (exposure), as well as Risk = R * E * H products in the Venn diagram:[45]

The West chooses critical infrastructure elements as priority objects of protection, use maintaining the level of national resilience is assisted by risk management — called CIP (Critical Infrastructure Protection).[46]The CI is; agriculture, banking & finance, chemical industry, emergency services, energy, food, government, information & telecommunications, postal & shipping, public health, transportation & drinking water.[47] The following model of the attributes (performance) of resilience is supported by success factors (CSF / contributing success factors); [48] with two (2) echelon, echelon-1 with CSF-1, CSF-2, CSF-3, each CSF attribute is supported with answers, ranging from risk understanding to redundancy (for support). [49]

Scenario

This is where scenario planning comes into play. We use the term scenario to refer to a plausible combination of possible long-term future developments. Scenario planning is the development of one or more scenarios via a methodology that incorporates multiple possible future outcomes.[50] The scenario is … “an internally consistent view of what the future might turn out to be is not a forecast, but one possible future outcome.” [51]… Scenario planning as that part of strategic planning which relates to the tools and technologies for managing the uncertainties of the future. [52]

The developing scenario.

The evolution of the success of the 1950-1970 scenario is illustrated below[53]and all of them are classified as “plausible”. Scenarios begin with human or organizational anxiety when they collapse, are destroyed, (not) the ability to survive (endurance), and respond.

Such a wide range of scenario issues is explored because it involves all the dynamic variables discussed previously in scenario analysis such as risk, vulnerability, etc., including environmental discipline and sustainability. The basic idea needs to look ahead (anticipate) or “vision”. Helped by using the “backcasting” model[54] (below) by re-tracking the picture (vision) of the “goal” back to the present moment – scenario, [55] plus alternatives that appear in between (hint: all scenarios based on “backcasting”).

Hint: backcasting scenario technique, which means determining in advance what happens next (3), then gradually pulling backward (left arrow, or from 1-2, 2-1, 2-3, 3-2, 3 – 4) until the current situation (1)àdiscover the phenomenon of what actually happened. Resilience & as needed (3) observed, even in the long run. By understanding the impact of damage or collapse of an organization & critical infrastructure (2) – efforts to be prepared and maintain resilience?

Paths no.3 and 4 appear to be only one (1) route, actually consisting of many alternative routes. In practice, in one period there might be alternative scenarios that need to be watched out. A simple concept; by reversing the path (backcasting) back to its current position, the routing scenario is built up. The positive owner of the scenario is innovative, suggestive, brave, and optimistic about carrying out the plan – at least encouraging (enhancing) staring and challenging the future. The frame of risk management is the desire to understand and measure the level of resilience to impacts, damage, and opportunities for the collapse of critical infrastructure, including paying the consequences and recovery efforts. The following scenario sketches (+ alternative), on the way to hope (desired future) as part of the decision-making model (choose theory — scenario 1, 2, 3 … n). It could be alternative scenarios as a reference to national strategies down to alternative scenarios that have little chance or could increase again (more plausible) in the following period.[56]

Herman Kahn, RAND Corpt & Air Defense System Missile Command expert is a scenario pioneer.[57]Scenarios are a future picture, with conditions that can be different – there is a narrative supporting or opposing the government’s “policy”. Each period is developed, evaluated against key actors in all layers, and the compromises needed per each condition with its shortcomings (risks) and impacts.[58]Kahn said that military planning had no logical expectations – the great influence of Kahn in the 1950s remained great at the Pentagon. Out of the RAND & Pentagon in the 60s made the scenario easy to develop and transmitted it to non-military environments.

Use of scenarios

Kahn’s ideas such as encouraging the Pentagon to find the standard concept of choosing large & expensive & risky projects versus the development of technology & science. Add doubts about choosing capabilities & building military power[59] versus uncertainty, the will of politicians [60], lack of information technology, and effectiveness measures [61]sista bloc east. The system analysis method was popular at that time[62] with “cost” as a consequence of supporting performance (measurable benefits or effectiveness). [63] The concepts of cost-benefit (civil) and cost-effectiveness (military), developed rapidly in line with limited resources.[64]This concept forces decision-makers to understand budget space and be realistic in responding to the future balance of resources, risks, transparency (portfolio), and future portrait needs — scenarios. An example scenario, South Korea regards Korea’s reunification based on 3 alternative conditions, namely based on peaceful, collapse, and conflict towards the future[65] with initials unification stages.

Peace-based scenario (below), going to stage (3rd?), When? ..and freezing WMD (dismantling)[66]. The right conditions (restoring essential services, supporting development, etc.), follow the 4 (four) parameters of the US combined stabilization operations model.

Pay attention to each step (flat lines, for example, defensive operation, several variants of scenarios) Is the condition still like that? The three conditions do not specify the possibilities that occur in the alternative scenarios … per period (confidential). What about the collapse condition? Note the difference with the image below.

Rumors call a scenario like a fictional story series but it makes sense and is accepted by the real world 3 – 20 years into the future. The rationalization of the scenario is really important and leads to credibility. Military scenario; oriented towards involving military forces with the best intelligence injections; and supporting counter-terrorism operations and peace support or trade, economic issues, etc. together with other national power instruments in the national security strategy platform. So important was the scenario that the Korean Defense Analysis Institute (KIDA), in ’16 developed a scenario-based defense strategy, planning, and defense management with the help of the US Institute of Defense Analysis (IDA)[67]. MJ Mazarr, et al also made recommendations to improve the US scenario (even though it has been running for 50 years).[68]Large countries demonstrate the role of scenarios as a basis, approach to study & analysis to help senior/elite decision-makers in the field of defense and be open to scholars or scientists. M. Fitzsimmons said there was a shift in the concept of traditional & independent scenarios towards centralization (intended/single solution – the table below). Table[69]is part of the SSA (strategic support analysis) for the Ministry of Defense which demonstrates the shifting of the orientation of the “wants” Angkt-based scenarios to a Joint orientation. The right column implies a new orientation towards joints that is far more efficient and helps (or tests) sub-scenarios to build joint strengths (hint: Conops = concept of operation).

Scenario methodology.

The root of scenario planning actually starts with planning military studies versus high uncertainty.[70] Herman Kahn responded with the idea “thinking the unthinkable” and suggested a scenario as a predictive business. M Lindgren & Hans Band hold to respond to it; “The scenario is different from the prognosis, forecast, and vision. Scenarios are descriptions of future opportunities (plausible) “. The following table is a difference between the three words, with each approach:

The table uses 6 criteria, such as perspective, variables, etc., as a comparison;

                    

Scenarios are a combination of quantitative models (Battle, Morphology, FAR, etc.), qualitative, and independent models among them. Scenarios must be reasonable, trusted, and logical per each step, phase, period, and every alternative that is built. The military scenario becomes the basis for the projection of military power, justification of the context with effectiveness[71]and the need for military operations, geographical, military, diplomatic assumptions, legal conditions in the scenario space, and desired end states. Scenarios are the basis of capability planning[72]power. NATO study mentions 9 intensive countries to use and utilize as a basis for the needs of the capabilities of military power.[73] The popular methodology used is morphology (pictured below) by constructing [74]route (pathways – alternative route scenario), by finding the response paths starting from Q1, Q2, .. Q4 (Q = questions that will involve the narrative scenario, for example; Demographies, Economics, etc.). Each Q path is handled by a team of experts, for example, Q1 with the Demographic issue, the Demographic team / Delphi team understands better, analogous to the Q2 expert team, etc. (points are alternatives).

Scenarios appear X (from 1,2,2,1) and Y, Z, etc., follow the path according to the picture, and create a total of sub-scenarios (number of sub-blocks Q1 * number of sub-blocks Q2 * number of sub-blocks Q3 * … Qn Each sub-scenario route has its own probability scale.

US, UK and other countries scenarios

USA (oldest with 50 years experience), Australia[75], Norway [76] even other NATO countries [77]use scenarios as a basis for future use of military force (read structure) – almost all countries are assisted by outside agencies. The US uses the military standard (US Mil-Std) 882-D which provides instructions in 8 stages, starting with recommendations to overcome the tracking of potential hazards until the following development, this procedure is also used in military operations.[78] The basic prerequisite for developing scenarios is to unite the ideas of the government and the military that are integrated into the government’s vision, goals, or wishes. Scenarios are commitments, consensus, and strategic documents (documented, known by the government & parliament) and covered by national policies. The cost-effectiveness approach is used as a tool — without this it is difficult to guarantee consistency, transparency, and portfolio.[79]This scenario is widely used to support studies and analysis, including risk analysis and alternative analysis (known as AoA), even as an approach for strategic studies. Scenario framework (guidance into force structure) that is used as below:[80]

Hint: For guidance, check the left block Guidance (NMS = National Military Strategy, NSS = National Security Strategy, and NDS = National Defense Strategy).

Demand-based planning sub-format [81]consists of two (2) approaches, namely capabilities based and threat-based (both having profit or loss), both of which use one scenario – controlled by one large scenario. MinDef UK began in 1998, dealing seriously with the basis of this scenario and there are at least 30 alternative scenarios maintained. MinDef UK (Kemhan) and the UK National Council of Scientific Advisers work together in a Joint Risk Management Policy;[82] used to ensure that risk management works across all British military units. British priority (simple) only divides the criteria “core” and “non-core”. “Core” is used to build military strength and capability.[83]Policies adopted for either force structure or capability analysis must use two typical scenarios. The use of scenarios is now evenly distributed in the MinDef environment and is used for technology planning, strength structure, capability, and acquisition planning. Mindef’s success, due to the support of senior leaders to build. It must also be acknowledged that the role of Mindef’s partner role, namely the Defense Science & Technology Laboratory (DSTL) which supports this program is getting better and more stable —[84]ditto the performance of DSTO Australia (or DRDC Canada). How is the development of Korean design scenarios that are said to have been running for 6 years, assisted by IDA? There is no clearer news yet.

Conclusion 

Scenarios are needed as a basis for building strength. The US & UK succeeded in equipping senior leaders – policymakers, senior decision-makers with (the objective is the physical success of scenarios) management of risk analysis, evaluation and consequences, alternative losses, examining options (alternative decisions), and allocation of resources via swalnutso who woke up. Scenario[85] involves environmental and sustainable issues so as to stimulate strategic programs between departments/ministries integrated. Resilience is very important related to the protection of critical infrastructure (obvitnas?). The national readiness system (The National Preparedness System) applies in non-military and military environments.[86]It should be integrated with the status of the national security system (for example a pandemic can be used as a level of national security in a “red” zone or degree 1 or whatever the code is) with the controller (as the daily national security & disaster lakshar who monitors disasters – Defense Minister (Defense Minister) ?)). Learning (maybe) to authorize independent strategic thinkers or institutes at the outside. For the US Defense Ministry, Australia, Canada, Korea, Sweden, Norway, etc., the agency is an innovator actor for each Ministry of Defense and actively acts as an injector and innovator. Need a giftTheorythe concept of a scenario plus cost-effectiveness[87] and the acquisition system (life cycle cost) within the TNI and undergraduate S1 levels (STTAL), S-2 / S-3,STTAL and University high defense as platform of modernization and transformation of knowledge. 

  [1]To enrich the material of risk, scenario, resilience, vulnerability, etc., especially students about Han issues, please read illustrations and enrich the scenario: a. Structure of military strength (FS / Force Structure) -Sarioos and some internal problems, by Budiman Djoko Said, QD, v.10, n.3, May 2016, b. Evolution of the power planning methodology: learning from other countries, by Budiman Djoko Said, QD, v.7, n. 3, Sept 2013, c. (Calculating) calculus of defense forces … pursuing capability, by Budiman Djoko Said, QD, v.13, n.7, August 2019). Risk: The potential for loss or harm due to the likelihood of an unwanted event and its adverse consequences. It is measured as the combination of the probability and the consequences of an adverse event, ie, threat. When the probability and consequences are expressed numerically, the expected risk is computed as the product of those values ​​with uncertainty considerations. Insecurity, the risk is based on analysis and aggregation of three widely recognized factors: threat, vulnerability, and consequence. Resilience: The ability to prepare for and adapt to changing conditions, and withstand and recover rapidly from disruptions. Conditional risk: A measure of risk that focuses on consequences, vulnerability, and adversary capabilities, but excludes intent. It is used as a basis for making long-term risk management decisions. The adversary capabilities, countermeasures, and residual vulnerabilities are often combined into a measure of the likelihood of adversary success. Consequence: The outcome of an event occurrence, including immediate, short-and long-term, direct and indirect losses and effects.Threat: Any indication, circumstance, or event with the potential to cause the loss of, or damage to, an asset or population. In the analysis of risk, the threat is based on the analysis of the intention and capability of an adversary to undertake actions that would be detrimental to an asset or population. Vulnerability: Any weakness in an asset’s or infrastructure’s design, implementation, or operation that can be exploited by an adversary. Such weaknesses can occur in building characteristics, equipment properties, personnel behavior, locations of people, equipment and buildings, or operational and personnel practices. Critical Infrastructure – Systems and assets, so vital that the destruction of which would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health, or safety.

[2] Kees van der Heijden, Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation, (John Wiley & Sons, 2005), page 8. 

[3] National Protection Overview, National Protection Framework, and NIPP 2013, (DHS, FEMA, July 2014), ..

[4]Eric V Larson, Force Planning Scenarios, 1945-2016: Their Origins and Use in Defense Strategic Planning, (RAND, 2019), p. 1, … Force planning is the same as defense planning built by the Defense Minister, the main understanding is “strategic analysis” or “strategic planning”; involve or translate national security policies and national military strategies more operational into military targets (military ends), the ways used (means) and resources (means) that must be controlled and allocated by the Minister of Defense … This is not to be confused with the more detailed “operational planning” related to operations plans (OPLANs) and concept plans (CONPLANs) developed by combatant commanders, or with “crisis response planning,” which is necessarily more ad hoc while also having an operational orientation.

[5] John F. Troxell, Force Planning in an Era of Uncertainty: Two MRCs as a Force Sizing Framework, (Strategic Study Institute, US Army War Coll, Monograph, Sept 15, 1997), p. 38. 

[6] DSS = decision support system is an algorithm or interactive computer program that can be used to help decision-makers make justifications, considerations, choose several alternatives, and input, can even be run with the following completion program.

[7]Hannah Kosow, et-all, Methods of Future and Scenario Analysis. Overview, Assessment, and Selection Criteria, page 12, check https: //www.researchgate.net/publication/258510126… These assumptions are indicative of comprehensive mental outlines and models of the future, “mental maps or models that reflect different perspectives on past, present and future developments”.

[8]James A Dewar, Assumption – Based Planning: A Tool for Reducing Avoidable Surprise, (RAND Corpt & Cambridge University, 2004), page 1 … A group of US military officers gathered in 1940 to look into the future to identify events that could lead to conflict. One of them suggests an air attack by Japan on a US Navy base in Hawaii — a suggestion that is dismissed out of hand.

[9]David R Pedersen, Maj USAF, Operational Risk Management Problems in Air Combat Command Units: Misguided Risk Quantification and Lack of Integration Could Impede Implementation, (Air University Research, 1999), pages 1, 3 … Risk analysis will begin with a Hazards assessment — different from dangers, harms, etc.) it is necessary to understand that Hazards are every potential (or real) that causes missions to run down, decline, accidents, injuries, damage, even death for humans or their equipment, dictionary Indonesia does not distinguish between Hazards, Danger, Harmful, whereas prices and impacts are different. Risk assessment is the application of quantitative or qualitative measures to determine all levels of risk associated with a specific hazard and defines the probability, severity, and exposure (exposed,

[10] DHS in The National Preparedness goals … mentions critical infrastructure …The Nation’s critical infrastructure provides vital services that underpin our society; managing risks to this infrastructure is essential to America’s security and resilience.

[11]THE INFRASTRUCTURE – INEQUALITY – RESILIENCE NEXUS, Global Sustainable Development Report 2016, page 22 … Infrastructure, in the broader sense, is a means to fulfill a human need. It is composed of basic assets and objects that, in the aggregate, are deemed essential for the functioning of society and the economy. The scope of infrastructure is considered to consist of basic services (critical infrastructure) such as water, sanitation and energy, and infrastructure connectivity, including roads, transport systems, and information and communication technologies.

[12] Roland W. Scholz, Risk, vulnerability, robustness, and resilience from a decision-theoretic perspective, Article in Journal of Risk Research · March 2012, DOI: 10.1080 / 13669877.2011.634522, page 2 … mentioning this trend is still not clearly integrated.

[13] ICF, Assessment of Large Power Transformer Risk Mitigation Strategies, 2016, page 13.

[14] M. Ettourney, Ph.D., Resilience and Risk Management, explains the dynamic Resilience graphic from the Plan, Mitigation, Response to Recovery in one index/scale. The figure illustrates the relationship of five (5) national preparatory programs (Prevent, Protection, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery – erect grs) and Risk elements, namely threats (T), vulnerability (Vulnerability), and consequences (Consequences – flat line). Risk – assessed as a function of consequence, vulnerability, and threat. Consideration is given to the potential direct and indirect consequences of a terrorist attack or other hazards, known vulnerabilities to those threats or hazards, and the nature and magnitude of the threat. Threat – natural or manmade occurrence, individual, entity, or action that has the potential to harm life, information, operations, the environment, and/or property. Vulnerability – physical feature or operational attribute that renders an entity open to exploitation or susceptible to a given hazard. Consequence – the effect of an event, incident, or occurrence. Graphic shows that Prevent activities are closely related to efforts to overcome Threats, measure Vulnerability activities, Response and Recovery activities in order to minimize (costs) the consequences that must be paid due to disruption of the three elements. Mitigation covers all the spectrum of risks (risk spectrum means that the risk is obtained from the point of acquisition (benefits) without risk (risk-free) to the top). Graphik illustrates that Prevent and Protection efforts are very closely related to Security. Responsiveness (Response) & recovery (Recovery) is closer to Resilience (Resilience).

[15] https: //emilms.fema.gov/is0860c/groups/36.html#.

[16]DHS (Dept. of US Homeland Security), Maritime Security Risk Analysis Model; USCG Presentation to Area Maritime Security Committee, Slide # 12.

[17] Steven Heffington, Adam Oler, David Tretler, A National Security Strategy: A Primary, (National Defense University, Washington, 2019), page 12.

[18] RTO Technical Report 69, NATO, 2003, Handbook on Long Term Defense Planning, page iv.

[19] https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enID793ID793&sxsrf=ALeKk03lD1zCE0qyYcQlh2YBPZD32ftb6w:1585617880236&q=images,+process+of+risk+assessment&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjS2ID0xsPoAhWA63MBHTJxC6EQsAR6BAgKEAE&biw=1280&bih=619

[20] J. Park, et-all, (5 persons), Integrating Risk and Resilience Approaches to Catastrophe Management in Engineering Systems, DOI Risk Analysis: 10.1111 / j.1539-6924.2012.01885.x, page 4.

[21] Ibid,

[22]Jeryang Park, et-all, (4 peoples), Lessons in Risk-Versus Resilience-Based Design and Management, (Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2011, Volume 7, Number 3), pp. 396–399.

[23] College of Maritime Operational Warfare, Maritime Staff Reference Guide, (US Naval War Coll, April 2019), page 29.

[24] Ibid, page 30.

[25] Strategy is the one that binds the means (resources), by means of being pursued ie (ends or end-state), very sensitive to the presence of a rapidly changing strategic environment, one of which is technologyà very significant.

[26] Hans Liwang, et-all, (3 persons), An Examination of the Implementation of Risk-Based Approaches in Military Operations, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266265759, Risk and military organizations View the Swedish National Defense project, page 2.

[27] COPD is a Comprehensive Operations Planning Directive’s

[28] Govt Office for Science, UK, The Futures Toolkit: Tools for Thinking and Foresight Across UK Government, (UK Government, Office of Science, November 2017), page 50. This book is a good guide to building scenarios in a simple way complete with simple steps as well.

[29] Ibid, abstract. 

[30] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Modified-version-of-Army-War-College-national-strategy-planning-model-Bartholomees, fig1,238792046. Something that is closely related to the life force of the nation and comes from external pressures, for example, issues of sovereignty, security, economic well being, etc. are usually the contents of national interests. Strategy experts agree that the national interest is the best thing that must be guarded by the nation and the state, especially for survival.

[31] National security strategy protects national interest (national interest), domestic security strategy protects domestic interests (domestic interest or public interest).

[32] J Boone Bartholomees, Jr., US Army War College Guide to National Security Issues, Volume – I: Theory of War and Strategy, (US Army War College, SSI, 2012, 5th edition, June 2012), page 9.

[33] Siambabala Bernard Manyena, The concept of resilience revisited, Journal Disasters, 2006, 30 (4): 433-450, pages 434.

[34] Infrastructures …the basic physical and organizational structures and facilities (eg buildings, roads, power supplies) needed for the operation of a society or enterprise, check, https: // www. google. com / search? q = infrastructure + definition & rlz = 1C1CHBFenID793ID793 & oq = infrastructure + definition & aqs = chrome..69i57j0l7.15030j1j8 & sourceid = chrome & ie = UTF-8

[35] Oxfam, The Disaster Crunch Model: Guidelines for Gendered Approach, (Oxfam GB May 2012), page 5.

[36] Michael J. Zakour & David F. Gillespie, Community Disaster Vulnerability: Theory, Research, and Practice, (Springer, 2013), page 69 … characteristics of dynamic models of movement from a variable (characterized by its status) to other states can be negative or positive.

[37] Variables in dynamic systems mean variables that are described dynamically with a certain status.

[38] A positive sign (+) in a dynamic system shows a strong influence to increase, enlarge, increase the status of the intended object – increasing the status of hazards will increase the status of a disaster (disaster).

[39]Timothy J Pettit, et-all; (3 persons), Ensuring Supply Chain Resilience: Development and Implementation of an Assessment Tool, Journal of Business Logistics, 2013, 34 (1), page 53.

[40] Team, Resilience Resource Guide: The Need for Resilience, (IRGC), page 42. 

[41] “Hazards” can be translated as potentially dangerous, different from “danger” (KBI does not distinguish Hazards vs Danger even the word Harmful. Indonesian Dictionary does not explain the difference.

[42] Roland W. Scholz, Yann B. Blumer, and Fridolin S. Brand, Risk, vulnerability, robustness, and resilience from a decision-theoretic perspective, page 5.

[43] Ibid, fig 1, page 5.

[44] Ibid, page 5.

[45] Omar Kammouh, et-all (3 persons), Quantitative Framework for Asses Resilience and Risk at the Country Level, (ASCE-ASMEJ Risk Uncertainty Eng Syst, Part A: Civ: Eng; 2018.4 (1): 04017033.

[46]Dimitris Gritzalis, Marianthi Theocharidou, George Stergiopoulos, Critical Infrastructure: Security and Resilience Theories, Methods, Tools and Technologies, (Springer, 2019), page 5, … Critical Infrastructure (CI) is defined … as an asset, system or part thereof located in the Member States which is essential for the maintenance of vital societal functions, health, safety, security, economic or social well-being of people, and the disruption or destruction of which would have a significant impact in a Member State as a result of the failure to maintain those functions. The West and the Commonwealth say critical infrastructure protection (CIP) whereas we call PAM Obvit-same or not? Maybe comparative studies can be done as an evaluation. CI is a critical infrastructure.

[47] Equal and identical to 13 Western infrastructure with the distribution of obvitnas?

[48] CSF = Contributing success factors.

[49]K. Oien, et-all, 4 persons), Development of Early Warning Indicators based on Resilience Engineering, (Paper at PSAM 10, June 7-11 2010, Seattle, USA), fig. 3

[50] Johanna Zmud, et-all, The Future of US Mobility, RAND Corp, 2013, page 1.

[51] Gill Ringland, Scenario Planning: Managing for the Future, (Wiley & Sons, 1998), page 2.

[52] Ibid, 

[53]Ibid, page 13. … Fig 1.1, .SRI = standford research institute.

[54]The Backcasting model was invented by John B Robinson, in 1990, from Waterloo University. … the method is to sort events from a vision or goal, back into position now to find the scenario route.https: // www. google. com / search? q = meaning + backcasting & rlz = 1C1CHBF_enID793ID793 & oq = meaning + backcasting & aqs = chrome..69i57j69i60l2.4341j0j8 & sourceid = chrome & ie = UTF-8

[55]Yusuke Kishite, et-all, (6 pers), Designing backcasting scenarios for resilient energy futures, Journal Elsevier, Feb 2017, fig no. 2

[56] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Scenario-planning-in-the-decision-making-process_fig6_274733766

[57] Gill Ringland, Scenario Planning: Managing for the Future, (Wiley & Sons, 1998), page 12. The word scenario was proposed by the film writer Holywood. 

[58] Govt Office for Science, UK, The Futures Toolkit: Tools for Thinking and Foresight Across UK Government, (UK Government, Office of Science, November 2017), pages 51, 52.

[59] Ibid, page 797.

[60] Ibid, page 797.

[61] The concept of cyst called effectiveness is how far the cyst will be built can complete its task, not by design such as and with measures of effectiveness (MOE), for example, MOE al: the concept of kill chain (KC) or probability of destroying given about targets. 

[62]System analysis is often combined with the discipline of OR (operations research), with the OR being more concerned with issues that are more structured while system analysis is not structured. Both are still classified as hard OR families, now developing softer OR techniques.

[63]During this time the cost is a benchmark for a project or program, leaving the performance tangible benefits or effectiveness that is not asked for the answer … is the concept fair? System analysis gives the magnitude of each alternative choice how much effectiveness and how much cost consequence must be used. Breaking down the myth so far that the cost is an obstacle and the only one who must bear the responsibility (Finance Tax).

[64]The concept that combines the benefit criteria (benefit – notation B) with each partner’s cost (cost-C) -B1 / C1 compared to B2 / C2. Etc. or E1 / C1. E2 / C2. And so on … choose the best (highest) lowest cost the criteria for decision making. In the case of the military it is difficult to merge costs for things like troop attacks, amphibious incursions without including the number of people estimated to be victims (or damaged material such as the number of ships sinking, the number of planes so that it is more appropriate to use cost-effectiveness). Military cost-effectiveness is built considering that not all alternative consequences of decisions can be realized, for example; the number of ships sinking, the number of planes destroyed, or the number of casualties, etc.

[65] Chung Min Lee and Kathryn Botto, Reconceptualizing the US-ROK Cooperation in Korean Unification: A Stabilization Framework, (2019 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved), page 9.

[66] WMD = weapons of mass destruction.

[67] One of the partners of the US Ministry of Defense who is professional and trusted by the US Ministry of Defense, in addition to RAND Corps, Brooking, etc. 

[68] Michael.J.Mazarr, et-all, (6 persons), The US DoD Planning Process: Components and Challenges, (RAND CORPT, 2019), Recommendations, page xii.

[69] Michael Fitzsimmons, Scenario Planning and Strategy in the Pentagon, (US Army War Coll, Strategic Study Institute, January 2019), page 7.

[70] Fernando Menéndez Pastor, Exploring Scenario Planning Processes – Differences and similarities, (Lund University, 2009), page 1. 

 

[71]Effectiveness (the price obtained from the range of effectiveness measures or MOE = measures of effectiveness) means how far the strength or the system used against the target really meets the expectations of the owner. Missiles can be counted from the kill-chain sequence, special forces can be from a series of ramps, hilly, swamps, probability of shooting a human target per each firing position, etc. All of this must be measured to ensure the real capability of the combat unit and vice versa the established effectiveness measures will become the unit’s training base — as well as the unit’s evaluation material.

[72]Capabilities are not “by design”, for example, the design of AKS ships, directly defined as having anti-submarine capabilities – which submarines, electric or nuclear diesel, conventional, modern, coastal, etc. – are very different. Capability is the ability (ability) to complete a mission in accordance with its mission with a measure of its impact (outcome) on targets or enemies — by research, experience, or research & test fields. MORS community formulates as C = A + “outcomes”, provided C is capability, A is an ability, outcomes is impact or measure of target destruction.

[73] Iver Johansen, Scenario modeling with morphological analysis, (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.016, Received 9 February 2017; Received in revised form 13, page 2. … Scenarios are basic to the planning of military capabilities. A NATO study (Campbell, 2010) observed that all of the nine nations were contributing … to the study of used scenarios in some way or other for defining future force requirements.

[74] Michel Godet, The Art of Scenarios and Strategic Planning: Tools and Pitfalls, page 15.

[75] MT Nguyen, M Dunn, Some Methods for Scenario Analysis in Defense Strategic Planning, (Joint Operation Division, DSTO, Australia, 2009), page 1. Ronnie Gori, et-all, (3 persons), Model-Based Military Scenario Management for Defense Capability, (DSTO, DoD, Canberra, Australia), page 1.

[76] Iver Johansen, Scenario modeling with morphological analysis, (Norwegian Defense Research Establishment, FFI, PB 25, 2027 Kjeller, Norway, Journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techfore, 2017), page 1.

[77] Ibid, — Iver mentioned the presence of Campbell’s study (in 2010) on the use of the NATO country scenario. 

[78] Ibid, page 13.

[79] Martin Neill, Wade P. Hinkle, Gary Morgan, An Analysis of Their Use by the United States, United Kingdom, and the Republic of Korea, (Institute of Defense Analyses, US, Feb 2016), pp. 6,7, 8. 

[80]Michael J Mazarr, et-all, (6 persons), The US DoD Defenses’ Planning Process; Components and Challenges, page 8.

[81] Mazarr explained in great detail about the advantages and disadvantages.

[82] CW Johnson, Military Risk Military Assessment: From Conventional Warfare to Counter Insurgency Operations, (University of Glasgow Press, 2012), page 10.

[83] PK Davis, about (force structure), Analytic Architecture for Capabilities-Based Planning, Mission System-Analysis, and Transformation, (RAND CORPT, USA, 2002), … 

[84] Martin Neill, Wade P. Hinkle, Gary Morgan, An Analysis of Their Use by the United States, United Kingdom, and the Republic of Korea, (Institute of Defense Analyses, US, Feb 2016), p. 28.

[85] Peter N. Duinker, et-all, (2 persons), Scenario analysis in environmental impact assessment: Improving exploration of the future, (Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27 (2007), pg 206-219,

[86]Chris. W. Johnson, University of Glasgow, Strengths, and Weaknesses of Risk Management as the Primary Tool for US Military Strategic, Tactical and Operational Decision Making: Will the Enterprise Risk Assessment Model, Composite Risk Management and Associated Techniques Provide the Predicted Benefits ?, (See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242138831, 2014), page 1 … Check Abstract; … Risk management provides the most important single framework for both strategic and tactical decisions making across the US Military. The annual statement of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Congress now uses the notions of likelihood and consequence to assess the nation’s military preparedness. At the same time, pressure from the US General Accounting Office and the Quadrennial Defense Review has the Department of Defense to restructure its work around an Enterprise Risk Assessment Model (ERAM). At an operational level, Composite Risk Management (CRM) has been introduced as the main framework for decision making. For example, Field Manual 5-19 extends the scope of risk assessment to cover training exercises, combat and peacekeeper operations,

[87]Cost effectiveness programs may be fair enough to hold the benefits or the effectiveness of projects, programs, proposals accompanied by the cost consequences — just choose, and not just from financial accountability (PjkKeu). Effectiveness will be documented as a format for accountability. Cost-Effectiveness will almost certainly help every project, program or proposal be more efficient. The Cost-Effectiveness Program has become department specialization in the OR Dept.the Post-graduate AL (NPS) and AU-AS (AFIT). Guidance and implementation in the military environment of developed countries have long been carried out and even has published a manual on Cost-Effectiveness in each environment, which combines da (2) skills, namely building a model of effectiveness and a model of cost estimation (cost estimate can be approached from 4 techniques/ways). 

 

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap