Vojenské Rozhledy

Czech Military Review

Vojenské rozhledy / Czech Military Review Nr. 3/2015: 48-61

Back to the Future: Counterfactuals and Scenarios in Defense Research and PlanningReviewed - Review

RNDr. Jan Kofroň, Ph.D.

Defense planning and research has to engage with questions about future developments quite often. Solutions to these questions tend to be hazy due to (I) the missing data, or due to (II) the necessity to build long-term prognoses, which are - by their very nature - only remotely related to any current or historical empirical cases. Under these conditions counterfactuals and their specific - future- oriented - form: scenarios, offer a valuable tool. Nevertheless, counterfactuals and scenarios, due to their limited empirical embeddedness, demand explicit and rigorous application of a theory. The article highlights often overlooked resemblance of scenarios and counterfactuals and derives from this fact some methodological implications for scenario building enterprise. Beyond that, it aims at demonstrating possible contributions as well as obstacles inherent for the use of scenarios and counterfactuals in our defense policy debates.

Keywords: Scenarios, Counterfactuals, Defence Planning, Theory.

Published: September 15, 2015  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Kofroň, J. (2015). Back to the Future: Counterfactuals and Scenarios in Defense Research and Planning. Czech Military Review, 96(3), 48-61
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. GRAY, Colin. Strategic Thoughts for Defence Planners. Survival. 2010, č. 42(3), s. 159-178.
    2. JUNIO, Timothy a Thomas MAHNKEN. Conceiving of Future War: The Promise of Scenario Analysis for International Relations. International Studies Review. 2013, č. 15(3), s. 374-395.
    3. BOOTH, Charles et al. Scenarios and counterfactuals as modal narratives. Futures, 2009, č. 41 (2), s. 87-95.
    4. Mičánek, F., Procházka, J., Koncepční rozvoj AČR - přístupy a strategická východiska, Vojenské rozhledy, 2015, roč. 24 (56), č. 1, s. 4-19.
    5. Hoďánek, O., Nejenom o dlouhodobém plánování v rezortu MO ČR (Příspěvek do diskuse o systému obranného plánování) Vojenské rozhledy, 2015, roč. 24 (56), č. 1, s. 20-25.
    6. CHERNOFF, Fred. Theory and Metatheory in International Relations. New York: Palgrave, 2007 [7] Pro detailnější diskusi viz LEWIS, David. Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell, 1973.
    7. SYLVAN, David a Stephen MAJESKI. A Methodology for the Study of Historical Counterfactuals. International Studies Quarterly. 1998, č. 42(1), s. 79-108.
    8. FEARON, James. Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing in Political Science. World Politics. 1991, č. 43(2), s. 169-195.
    9. DODDS, Klaus. Counter-Factual Geopolitics: President Al Gore, September 11th and the Global War on Terror. Geopolitics. 2008, č. 13(1), s. 73-99.[11] HARVEY, Frank. President Al Gore and the 2003 Iraq War: A Counterfactual Test of Conventional "W"isdom. Canadian Journal of Political Science-Revue Canadienne De Science Politique. 2012, č. 45(1), s. 1-32.
    10. KOBER, Avi. The Israel Defense Forces in the Second Lebanon War: Why the Poor Performance? Journal of Strategic Studies. 2008, č. 31(1), s. 3-40.
    11. BIDDLE, Stephen a Jeffrey FRIEDMAN. The 2006 Lebanon Campaign and the Future of Warfare: Implications for Army and Defense Policy. Carlisle: United States Army War College, 2008.
    12. VAN EVERA, Stephen. Guide to methods for political scientists. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997. [15] LEVY, Jack. Counterfactuals and Case Studies. In: BOX-STEFFENSMEIER, J., H. BRADY a D. COLLIER (ed.). Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008, s. 627-644.
    13. KING, Gary a Langche ZENG. When Can History Be Our Guide? The Pitfalls of Counterfactual Inference. International Studies Quarterly. 2007, č. 51, s. 183-210.
    14. GERRING, John a Rose MCDERMOTT. An Experimental Template for Case Study Research. American Journal of Political Science. 2007, č. 51, s. 688-701
    15. DITRYCH, Ondřej. Scénáristika jako metoda v mezinárodních vztazích. Mezinárodní vztahy. 2012, č. 47(4), s. 93-107.
    16. blíže BRADY, Henry. Causation and Explanation in Social Science. In: BOX-STEFFENSMEIER, J., H. BRADY a D. COLLIER (ed.). Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008, s. 217-270.
    17. GRAY, Colin. Nuclear Strategy: The Case for a Theory of Victory. International Security. 1979, č. 4(1), s. 54-87.
    18. WALTZ, Kenneth. The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better. Adelphi Papers. 1981, č. 171. [22] GLASER, Charles. Rational Theory of International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010. [23] Viz např. BIDDLE, Stephen. Military Power, Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modern Battle. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004.
    19. KIRBY, Maurice a Matthew GOODWIN. Operational Research as Counterfactual History: A Retrospective Analysis of the Use of Battlefield Nuclear Weapons in the German Invasion of France and Flanders, May-June 1940. Journal of Strategic Studies. 2008, č. 31(4), s. 633-660.
    20. MEARSHEIMER, John. Why the Soviets Can´t Win Quickly in Central Europe. International Security, 1982, č. 7(1), s. 3-39.
    21. Bílá kniha o obraně. Praha: Ministerstvo obrany České republiky odbor komunikace a propagace, 2011, 167 s.
    22. KOLEKTIV AUTORŮ POD VEDENÍM MINISTERSTVA ZAHRANIČNÍCH VĚCÍ ČR. Bezpečnostní strategie České republiky. Praha: Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí České republiky, 2011.
    23. EICHLER, Jan, Mezinárodní souvislosti války na Ukrajině, Vojenské rozhledy, 2015, roč. 24 (56), č. 1, s. 5-19.
    24. MEARSHEIMER, John. Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: Norton & company, 2001.
    25. MEARSHEIMER, John. Why is Europe Peaceful Today? European Political Science. 2010, č. 9, s. 387-397.
    26. MEARSHEIMER, John, Future of the Army: The Rise of China and the Decline of the U.S. Army,U.S. Army War College Strategy Conference, April 10, 2013 [Transkript dostupný z http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/Future%20of%20the%20Army%20Transcript.pdf]
    27. ROSATO, Sebastian. Europe United. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2011.
    28. AVEY, Paul a Michael, C. DESCH, What Do Policymakers Want From Us? Results of a Survey of Current and Former Senior National Security Decision-makers, International Studies Quarterly, č. 58(4), s. 227-246.
    29. Komárek, Jaroslav, Úskalí profesionalizace armády České republiky, Vojenské rozhledy, 2014, roč. 23(55), č. 4, s. 75
    30. REISS, Julian, Causal Inference in the Abstract or Seven Myths About Thought Experiments. Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science Causality: Metaphysics and Methods. Technical Report 03/03. London: London School of Economics, 2002.

    Return to the content