Military performance must be evaluated, and one of the most critical concepts to measure involves the lethal capabilities of a military force. However, there are multiple challenges that complicate any accurate performance assessment, including theoretical issues of measurement due to statistical irregularities and practical limitations due to the military context. Here, we describe the lethality paradox, which states that measuring lethality could be a self-defeating exercise despite its necessity. Specifically, the value of any collected metric may be inherently reduced by the act of measurement while, also, creating operational vulnerabilities for a military force. This paradox is conceived as an extension of Goodhart’s Law and incorporates the same challenges of a personnel gaming a set standard rather than developing the skill set supposedly measured by this standard. Our discussion identifies the limitations and applications of Goodhart’s Law to lethality while also concluding with several proposed solutions to different paradoxical challenges.
GreenspanLMcLellanBAGreigH.Abbreviated injury scale and injury severity score: a scoring chart. J Trauma1985; 25: 60–64.
13.
AllenderL.Modeling human performance: impacting system design, performance, and cost. Simul Ser2000; 32: 139–144.
14.
SilvermanBG.Toward realism in human performance simulation. Sci Simul Hum Perform2004; 5: 469–498.
15.
SilvermanBGJohnsMShinHet al. Performance moderator functions for human behavior modeling in military simulations. Los Angeles, CA: Defense Modeling and Simulation Office, 2000.
BlountEMRinglebSITolkAet al. Incorporation of physical fitness in a tactical infantry simulation. J Defen Model Simul2013; 10: 235–246.
19.
MuirheadHOrrRSchramBet al. The relationship between fitness and marksmanship in police officers. Safety2019; 5: 54.
20.
BrownSTMcNamaraJAMitchellKB.Static versus dynamic marksmanship task: a performance assessment comparison. J Sci Med Sport2017; 20: S116.
21.
BrownSAVillaJHusseyEKet al. Simulated marksmanship performance methodology: assessing lethality, mobility and stability across the preparation, execution and recovery stages of a military field training exercise, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-20148-7_1
22.
HowellG.Improving readiness: preventive maintenance of the human operating system that drives readiness and lethality. Milit Med2020; 185: 12–16.
23.
FordM.The epistemology of lethality: bullets, knowledge trajectories, kinetic effects. Eur J Int Secur2020; 5: 77–93.
24.
PalmerCJBigelowCVan EmmerikRE.Defining soldier equipment trade space: load effects on combat marksmanship and perception–action coupling. Ergonomics2013; 56: 1708–1721.
25.
ThomasMPohlMBShapiroRet al. Effect of load carriage on tactical performance in special weapons and tactics operators. J Strength Cond Res2018; 32: 554–564.
26.
AdamsHEForresterRE.CARMONETTE: a computer-played combat simulation. McLean, VA: Research Analysis Corporation, 1961.
27.
De LaquilP. Sabres II: an individual resolution small arms combat simulation model. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Library, 1980.
28.
MonahanRHDuBoisEL.An assessment of available security system simulations to support the TNFS2 program. Menlo Park, CA: Sri International, 1979.
29.
BiggsATHirschDA.Using Monte Carlo simulations to translate military and law enforcement training results to operational metrics. J Defen Model Simul2022; 19: 403–415.
30.
GagniucPA.Markov chains: from theory to implementation and experimentation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2017.
31.
RobertsGO.Markov chain concepts related to sampling algorithms. In: WRGilksSRichardsonDSpiegelhalter (eds) Markov chain Monte Carlo in practice. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1995, p. 45.
32.
CadyA.Using the National Training Center instrumentation system to aid simulation-based acquisition. Santa Monica, CA: The Pardee RAND Graduate School, 2017.
