"Wargaming: how to turn vogue into science" Topic
1 Post
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Remember that you can Stifle members so that you don't have to read their posts.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the History of Wargaming Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Link
Featured Showcase Article Sometimes at a convention, you can be just dead lucky and find a real bargain.
Featured Workbench Article The Editor learns about downloading, printing, and binding a ruleset.
Featured Profile Article Looking for inexpensive paint?
|
Tango01  | 16 Apr 2020 9:51 p.m. PST |
"In early March 2017, a US congressional committee called a hearing about Russian military capabilities in Europe. Ever since Russia's military intervention in Ukraine in 2014, NATO countries have been on edge that a similar scenario could happen in the Baltic Republics of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. The congressmen gathered in the hearing room were deeply concerned about whether NATO forces could stand up to a Russian invasion. David Shlapak, a RAND Corporation defense researcher, had a clear message for them: "NATO does not have in place an adequate conventional deterrent to Russian aggression." Russian forces, Shlapak warned, could crush NATO defenses in the Baltic within 36-60 hours. If NATO had more resources such as three heavy brigades with tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and self-propelled artillery, the alliance could withstand an attack and significantly alter Moscow's calculus. How did RAND come to these predictions and proposed solutions? The answer shares something in common with many people's favorite childhood pastime: board games. Shlapak's method for analysis was a series of operational-level wargames played by representatives from NATO allies as well as members of the US defense and intelligence communities…"
Main page
link
Amicalement
Armand
|
|
