Capability-based planning as an approach to defense planning is an almost infinitely complex engineered system with countless nodes and layers of interdependency, influenced by state and non-state diplomatic activities, information, military and economic actions creating secondary and third order effects. The main output of capability-based planning is the set of capability requirements needed to achieve the expected end-state. One revitalized qualitative technique that allows us to gain insights into unstructured and fuzzy problems in the military is wargaming—in its simplest form this involves manual wargaming. At the same time, there has been a push to bring computer assistance to such wargaming, especially to support umpire adjudication and move more generally towards full automation of human elements in wargames. However, computer assistance in wargaming should not be pushed, regardless of cost, towards quantitative techniques. The objective complexity of a problem often does not allow us to replicate the operational environment with the required fidelity to get credible experimental results. This paper discusses a discovery experiment aiming to verify the concept of applying a qualitative expert system within computer assisted wargaming for developing capability requirements in order to reduce umpire bias and risk associated with their decisions. The innovation here lies in applying system dynamics modelling and simulation paradigms when designing the theoretical model of capability development, which forms the core of the expert system. This new approach enables qualitative comparisons between different sets of proposed capability requirements. Moreover, the expert system allows us to reveal the effects of budget cuts on proposed capability requirement solutions, which the umpire was previously unable to articulate when comparing individual solutions by relying solely on his own knowledge. Players in the wargame validated the proposed concept and suggested how the study might be developed going forward: namely, by enabling users to define their own capabilities and not being limited by a predefined set of capabilities.

Capability-based This article has an aim to overbridge this gap using a logical link between a package of required capabilities and existing hierarchy of goals, measures and tasks exploring a functional areas (DOTLMPFI) tool. Considering an idea the capability is a dynamic issue having its own specific life cycle it is necessary to think over various phases of its life. These phases influence directly a real level of the capability. Hence various phases have their own demands on allocated resources it is not sufficient to plan resources just for achievement of an appropriate level of the needed capability but itis also necessary to pay attention to other parts of the life cycle, especially sustainment.

No abstract

There is an increasing number of non-state actors acting recently as well as present armed conflicts aside of state actors when non-state actors being endowed with more economic and “military” power than smaller states what enable them a broad spectrum of activities in all domains explored by human civilisation. Nowadays even an inner space belongs already to activities of non-state actors. Cyber space is an arena of these actors since the beginning of its exploitation. Putting together, it is necessary to expect a growing number of frictions among various state and non-state actors having their own interests in the same areas and time. These frictions may lead to conflicts, even armed conflicts being presented by other activities than engagement of traditional armed forces against property or interests of both, state or non-state actors with an aim to gain some advantage. Actions in an inner space or in a cyber space could be more serious than small scale armed conflict. These actions might be considered as simple criminal or terroristic acts or as casus belli, like consequences of the 11th September 2001 situation. Who is in charge of judging a nature of the offensive actions between two non-state actors? What state is authorised to declare “war against terrorism” (or criminality?) towards one or all belling parties, which are non-state actors? This situation can arise more questions and this article has an ambition to elaborate some of them to address new challenges in the field of future state defence.