by Ed Beakley
There are two critical elements missing from most current HLS/HLD training programs. First is the notion of dedicated opposing force and second, the need to include non-scripted decision making situations.
… is there a need and a receptive ear for a Scream of Eagles II from the first responder community? If so, we have suggested that resolution would be in context of a TOPGUN or “combat training center” type approach for homeland security and defense education, training, and exercises.
We have asked, and now in Part 1, a small group, experienced from New York to LA, to waters of the North Atlantic, to Jerusalem, to New Orleans, to Fallujah have discussed.
The next step – scenario design impact on breaking “associative barriers,” and learning ‘how’ not ‘what’ to think.
The term scenario has its origins in the theatrical world, where it usually refers to an outline or synopsis of the plot of a play, a novel or other work. In the context of exercises and training, it is a credible hypothetical situation or chain of events that creates an internally complete and consistent world so that participants and later audiences are willing to suspend their inherent disbelief in hypothetical situations.
The “Scenario” creates the conditions necessary to allow player activities and decision-making opportunities necessary to meet the exercise’s objectives – indeed to allow learning to take place.
Education, training, learning for response to hyper complex disaster occurences requires scenarios that not only reflect reality as closely as possible (“train as you intend to fight”) but also and most importantly, those that assist in breaking down “associative barriers” to creative exploration. These last may be counter-factuals or even pure fantasy but are a key element for changing “how you think” and learning adaptability.
They are essential for a “bloodless” battlefield and for educating, training, and learning “to the ‘Ace’ level. to the Ace Level discussion continues.
The following subpages provide several scenarios gathered from multiple rersources and provided by the discussion group. Feasible, realistic, even technically/scientifically correct is not the issue. As possibilities, as what the citizens of this country might fear, as counter factuals for exploration, they are provided as worth considering as how they might provide education and training for the low probability high impact event.
[For Part 3 see: II. [Part 3] Methodology – To the ‘Ace’ Level]
This page has the following sub pages.