With interviews featuring Leon Panetta, Frank Kendall, Michael A. Brown, @spettyjohn.bsky.social, Paul Scharre, @mchorowitz.bsky.social @aaronbateman.bsky.social, @michaelkofman.bsky.social, Kate Epstein, Thomas G. Mahnken, Benjamin Jensen, Jack Shanahan, James Roche and many more

#autonomy #unmanned #ukraine #iran #mines #drones #missile #china #military #innovation #militaryinnovation

www.amazon.com/Rise-Unmanne...

Thanks Kerry!

For more- check out my work in Foreign Affairs www.foreignaffairs.com/united-state...

4) Look not just at outcomes of games, but why they occurred. It's the why that is the real value-add of wargames. And if you want to know the why, then you need to not only read the after action report but the raw data, player insights, and exit interiews/surveys.

3) Games can never model how effective a weapon is. That's what testing, experimentation, modeling, and exercising is for. Games can show how humans, organizations, campaigns change based on assumptions we put into about weapons capabilities.

2) One wargame is never enough proof. Look across games, run by different organizations, played by different players, and with different assumptions about adversaries, weapons capabilities, and outcomes.

1) Be wary of wargames that "validate" programs services have already been lobbying hard for. That's not to say that the wargame doesn't support the need for those games, but that you need to be extra careful at looking at the rules, players, and scenarios used to prove the system.

And sometimes, done appropriately, validating and invalidating programs and weapons systems is exactly what wargames do. But often games don't tell the whole story behind buying and adopting the right technology. Here’s my take on using games to buy defense tech.

Wargaming.Hoover.org