a. In 1973, the Department of Defense (DoD) created the Office of Net Assessment (ONA) with a charter and unique approach to strategic analysis. This approach questioned the suitability of systems analysis to assess long-term, dynamic competition between complex military organizations, and turned to more qualitative methods as analytic alternatives. Developments in computing technology and modeling methods over the last two decades, most notably agent-based modeling (ABM), provide new opportunities to address the central analytic questions that motivated the original development of net assessment as a distinctive practice of strategic analysis. By employing ABM to simulate and analyze the behavior of strategic, adaptive, boundedly rational actors, which have previously frustrated mathematical analysis, a new generation of computational models can provide opportunities to add rigor to net assessment.
MarshallAW. The nature and scope of national net assessments. Department of Defense, 16August1972.
2.
GreenDPShapiroI. Pathologies of rational choice theory: a critique of applications in political science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996.
3.
BrownME. Rational choice and security studies: Stephen Walt and his critics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000.
4.
ColanderD (ed.) Post Walrasian macroeconomics: beyond the dynamic stochastic general equilibrium model. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
5.
ShapiroI. The Flight from reality in the human sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009.
6.
CohenEA. Net assessment: an American approach. Tel Aviv: Jaffe Center for Security Studies, 1990.
7.
PickettGERocheJGWattsBD. Net assessment: a historical review. In: MarshallAWMartinJJRowenHS (eds) On not confusing ourselves: essays on national security strategy in honor of Albert and Roberta Wohlstetter. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991, pp.158–185.
8.
RosenSP. Net assessment as an analytical concept. In: MarshallAWMartinJJRowenHS (eds) On not confusing ourselves: essays on national security strategy in honor of Albert and Roberta Wohlstetter. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991, pp.283–301.
9.
BrackenP. Net assessment: a practical guide. Parameters2006; 36: 96.
10.
KrepinevichAFWattsBD. The last warrior: Andrew Marshall and the shaping of modern American defense strategy. New York: Basic Books, 2015.
11.
MarshallAW. Problems of estimating military power. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1966.
12.
Secretary of Defense and Director of Central Intelligence. US and Soviet Strategic Forces: Joint Net Assessment. United States Government, 14November1983, declassified 30September2007.
13.
HermanM. Entropy-based warfare: a unified theory for modeling the revolution in military affairs. McLean, VA: Booz Allen & Hamilton, 1997.
14.
RosenSP. The impact of the office of net assessment on the American military in the matter of the revolution in military affairs. J Strat Stud2010; 33: 469–482.
15.
AugierM. Thinking about war and peace: Andrew Marshall and the early development of the intellectual foundations for net assessment. Comparat Strat2013; 32: 1–17.
16.
MarshallAW. Competitive strategies - history and background. Washington, DC: Department of Defense, 1988.
17.
RosenSP. Competitive strategies: theoretical foundations, limits, and extensions. In: MahnkenTG (ed.) Competitive strategies for the 21st century: theory, history, and practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2012, pp.12–27.
18.
GranovetterM. Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. Am J Soc1985; 91: 481–510.
19.
KirmanAP. Whom or what does the representative individual represent?J Econ Persp1992; 6: 117–136.
20.
HartleyJE. Retrospectives: the origins of the representative agent. J Econ Persp1996; 10: 169–177.
21.
ColanderD. Beyond DSGE models: towards an empirically based macroeconomics. Am Econ Rev2008; 98: 236–240.
22.
GeorgeAL. The “operational code”: a neglected approach to the study of political leaders and decision-making. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1967.
23.
CollinsMJ. Cold war laboratory: RAND, the Air Force, and the American state, 1945–1950. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2002.
24.
MirowskiP. Machine dreams: economics becomes a cyborg science. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
25.
SoloveyMCravensH (eds) Cold War social science: knowledge production, liberal democracy, and human nature. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.
26.
FreedmanL. Social science and the cold war. J Strat Stud2015; 38: 554–574.
27.
HeyckH. Age of system: understanding the development of modern social science. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2015.
28.
AugierMMarchJG (eds) Models of a man: essays in memory of Herbert A. Simon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004.
29.
Crowther-HeyckH. Herbert A Simon: the bounds of reason in modern America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005.
30.
MahnkenTG (ed). Competitive strategies for the 21st century: theory, history, and practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2012.
31.
BessnerD. Weimar social science in Cold War America: the case of the political military game. Bull German Hist Inst2014; 54: 91–109.
32.
MarshallAW. Further thoughts on future net assessments. Department of Defense, 9May2000.
33.
BestRAJr.The National Counterterrorism Center. NCTC - responsibilities and potential congressional concerns. Congressional Research Service, 19December2011.
DahlEJ. A Homeland Security net assessment needed now!Strat Stud Q2015; 9: 62–86.
36.
JervisR. System effects: complexity in political and social life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997, p.6.
37.
AndoAFisherFMSimonHA. Essays on the structure of social science models. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1963.
38.
CampbellJKO’RourkeMSlaterMH (eds) Carving nature at its joints: natural kinds in metaphysics and science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011.
39.
MitchellM. Complexity: a guided tour. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, pp.297–298.
40.
SawyerRK. Social emergence: societies as complex systems. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp.148–149.
41.
MillerJHPageSE. Complex adaptive systems: an introduction to computational models of social life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007, p.115.
42.
HeyckH. Producing reason. In: SoloveyMCravensH (eds) Cold War social science: knowledge production, liberal democracy, and human nature. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, pp.99–116.
43.
PageSE. Computational models from A to Z. Complexity1999; 5: 36.
44.
MarshallAW. Some thoughts on military revolutions - second version. Department of Defense, 23August1993.
45.
KrepinevichAF. Cavalry to computer: the pattern of military revolution. Natl Interest1994; 37: 30–42.
46.
MurrayWMillettAR (eds). Military innovation in the interwar period. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
47.
KrepinevichAF. Why no transformation?Joint Forces Q1999–2000; 23: 91–101.
48.
WeaverW. Science and complexity. Am Sci1948; 36: 537–540.
49.
RonfeldtD. Tribes, institutions, markets, networks: a framework about societal evolution. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1996.
50.
BrafmanOBeckstromRA. The starfish and the spider: the unstoppable power of leaderless organizations. New York: Portfolio, 2008.
51.
SimonHA. The sciences of the artificial. 3rd ed.Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996, pp.184–193.
52.
BarrassGS. U.S. competitive strategy during the Cold War. In: MahnkenG (ed.) Competitive strategies for the 21st century: theory, history, and practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford Security Studies, 2012, pp.71–89.
53.
OkashaS. Philosophy of science: a very short introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002, pp.10–11.
54.
BuilderCHBankesSC. Artificial societies: a concept for basic research on the societal impacts of information technology. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1991.
55.
WaldropMM. Complexity: the emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992.
56.
EpsteinJMAxtellR. Growing artificial societies: social science from the bottom up. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press & MIT Press, 1996.
57.
HollandJH. Complexity: a very short introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.
58.
SchellingTC. Models of segregation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1969.
59.
SchellingTC. Models of segregation. Am Econ Rev1969; 59: 488–493.
60.
GardnerM. Mathematic games: the fantastic combinations of John Conway’s new solitaire game ‘life.’Sci Am1970; 12: 20–23.
61.
SchellingTC. Dynamic models of segregation. J Math Soc1971; 1: 143–186.
62.
GranovetterM. Threshold models of collective behavior. Am J Soc1978; 83: 1420–1443.
63.
SaamNJ. Simulating the micro-macro link: new approaches to an old problem and an application to military coups. Soc Meth1999; 29: 43–79.
64.
GilbertNConteR (eds) Artificial societies: the computer simulation of social life. New York: Routledge, 1995.
65.
HollandJH. Hidden order: how adaptation builds complexity. New York: Basic Books, 1995.
66.
AxelrodR. The complexity of cooperation: agent-based models of competition and collaboration. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997.
67.
EpsteinJM. Generative social science: studies in agent-based computational modeling. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006, pp.5–6.
68.
AxtellR. The complexity of exchange. Econ J2005; 115: F193–210.
69.
MayfieldJE. The engine of complexity: evolution as computation. New York: Columbia University Press, 2013.
70.
CormenTH. Introduction to algorithms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009.
GeanakoplosJ. Getting at systemic risk via an agent-based model of the housing market. Am Econ Rev2012; 102: 53–58.
85.
FrankAB. Computational social science: past, present and future. The Human Dimension, Army Science Planning and Strategy Meeting, Potomac, MD, November 2013.
86.
FuturICT. FuturICT: participatory computing for our complex world, http://futurict.inn.ac/ (accessed 26 October 2016).
87.
IlachinskiA. Artificial war: multiagent-based simulation of combat. River Edge, NJ: World Scientific, 2004.
LaverMSergentiE. Party competition: an agent-based model. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012.
90.
GraubardMHBuilderCH. New methods for strategic analysis: automating the wargame. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1982.
91.
DavisPKWinnefeldJA. The RAND Strategy Assessment Center: an overview and interim conclusions about utility and development options. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1983, p.2.
92.
DavisPK. Analytic wargaming with the RAND Strategy Assessment System (RSAS). Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1987.
93.
BennettBW. Main theater warfare modeling in the RAND Strategy Assessment System (3.0). Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1988.
94.
SchwabeW. Sam and Ivan: automated agents for analytic war gaming. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1988.
95.
ShlapakDA. Green agent user’s guide. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1988.
96.
DavisPK. Some lessons learned from building red agents in the RAND Strategy Assessment System (RSAS). Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1989.
97.
DavisPKHoweRD. Representing operational strategies and command-control in the RAND Strategy Assessment System (RSAS). Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1990.
98.
SchwabeWWilsonB. Analytic war plans: adaptive force-employment logic in the RAND Strategy Assessment System (RSAS). Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1990.
99.
BennettBW. RSAS 4.6 summary. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1992.
100.
HanleyJTJr.On wargaming: a critique of strategic operational gaming. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1991.
101.
BennettBW. Theater analysis and modeling in an era of uncertainty: the present and future of warfare. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1994.
102.
Naval Studies Board, National Research Council. Post-Cold War conflict deterrence. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1997.
103.
PrietulaMCarleyKGasserL (eds). Simulating organizations: computational models of institutions and groups. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press, 1998.
104.
LomiALarsenER (eds) Dynamics of organizations: computational modeling and organizational theories. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press, 2001.
105.
NorthMJMacalCM. managing business complexity: discovering strategic solutions with agent-based modeling and simulation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
106.
CarleyKMPrietulaMJ (eds). Computational organization theory. New York, NY: Psychology Press, 2014.
107.
SimonHA. The business school: a problem in organizational design. J Manag Stud1967; 4: 1–16.
108.
Ross AshbyWWest ChurchmanCGuetzkowH . In: StogdillRM (ed.) The process of model-building in the behavioral sciences. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1972.
AxtellRL. 120 million agents self-organize into 6 million firms: a model of the U.S. private sector. In: Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multiagent Systems Singapore, Singapore9–13 May 2016, pp.806–816.
HolcombeM. Large-scale modeling of economic systems. Complex Syst2013; 22: 175–191.
121.
LevinthalD. Organizational capabilities in complex worlds. In: DosiGNelsonRN (eds) The nature and dynamics of organizational capabilities. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp.363–380.
LustickISMiodownikDEidelsonRJ. Secessionism in multicultural states: does sharing power prevent or encourage it?Am Pol Sci Rev2004; 98: 209–229.
124.
IlachinskiA. Artificial war: multiagent-based simulation of combat. River Edge, NJ: World Scientific, 2004.
125.
AllenTB. War games: the secret world of the creators, players, and policy makers rehearsing World War III today by Thomas B. Allen. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1987.
126.
PerlaPP. The art of wargaming: a guide for professionals and hobbyists. Annapolis, MD: US Naval Institute Press, 1990.
127.
HermanMLFrostMD. Wargaming for leaders: strategic decision making from the battlefield to the boardroom. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008.
128.
JuddSKearnsMVorobeychikY. Behavioral dynamics and influence in networked coloring and consensus. Proc Natl Acad Sci2010; 107: 14978–17982.
129.
LaverMSergentiE. Party competition: an agent-based model. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012.
MarcusA. Strategic foresight: a new look at scenarios. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009, pp.9–10.
147.
National Intelligence Council. Global trends 2025: a transformed world. Washington, DC: National Intelligence Council, November2008, pp.16–17, 47–49.
148.
WackP. Scenarios: shooting the rapids. Harvard Bus Rev1985; 85617: 9.
149.
MontgomeryEB. Defense planning for the long haul: scenarios, operational concepts, and the future security environment. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2009, pp.14–15.
150.
DavisPKShaverRDBeckJ. Portfolio-analysis methods for assessing capability options. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2008.
151.
DavisPK. Lessons from RAND’s work on planning under uncertainty for national security. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2012.
152.
LempertRJPopperSWBankesSC. Shaping the next one hundred years: new methods for quantitative long-term policy analysis. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2003, p. 35.
153.
AndersonCBonabeauEScottJM. Evolutionary testing as both a testing and redesign tool: a study of a shipboard firemain’s valve and pump controls. In: Congress on evolutionary computation 2004 (CEC2004), Portland, USA, 19–23 June 2004, pp. 1089–1097. IEEE.
154.
FrankAB. Transforming producer/consumer relations through modeling and computation. In: ArcosRPhersonRH (eds) Intelligence communication in the digital era. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015, pp.88–109.
155.
LempertRJGrovesDGPopperSW. A general, analytic method for generating robust strategies and narrative scenarios. Manag Sci2006; 52: 514–528.
156.
GrovesDGLempertRJ. A new analytic method for finding policy-relevant scenarios. Global Environ Change2007; 17: 73–85.
157.
LempertR. Can scenarios help policymakers be both bold and careful? In: FukuyamaF (ed.) Blindside: how to anticipate forcing events and wild cards in global politics. Washington, DC: Brookings, 2007, pp.109–119.
158.
TetlockPEBelkinA. Counterfactual thought experiments in world politics: logical, methodological, and psychological perspectives. In: TetlockPEBelkinA (eds) Counterfactual thought experiments in world politics: logical, methodological, and psychological perspectives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996, pp.1–38.
159.
ElmanCElmanMF (eds). Bridges and boundaries: historians, political scientists, and the study of international relations. New York: MIT Press, 2001.
160.
MurrayWSinnreichRH (eds). The past as prologue: the importance of history to the military profession. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
161.
GaddisJL. The landscape of history: how historians map the past. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002, p.66.
162.
TetlockPELebowRNParkerG. Unmaking the middle kingdom. In: TetlockPELebowRNParkerG (eds) Unmaking the west: “what-if?” Scenarios that rewrite history. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2006, pp.1–13.
163.
SabinP. Lost battles: reconstructing the great clashes of the ancient world. New York: Continuum, 2009.
164.
SabinP. Simulating war: studying conflict through simulation games. New York: Continuum, 2012, p.56.
165.
FrankAB. Agent-based modeling and intelligence analysis. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University, 2012, pp.389–420.
