indicators that suggest that assumptions may no longer be valid or developments are taking a different course, calling for new assessments.
Neither modeling nor gaming can predict outcomes with any confidence. However, modeling and gaming can provide useful insights to strengthen deterrence programs. They are particularly useful in understanding the dynamics of deterrence that often are not apparent in static analysis. Modeling can integrate a wide set of variables and may be particularly helpful in understanding key relationships and linkages that may not otherwise be apparent. Modeling also can help in understanding the likely consequences of alternative strategies. Similarly, gaming with expert surrogates provides opportunities to observe the interplay between two or more sides and to understand the rationale behind key responses in different value systems.
Both of these analytic tools can be useful in examining important strengths and weaknesses of all sides-essential information for effective deterrence. Both can and should be applied a priori to anticipate potential crisis situations and the field of possible responses. They can be especially helpful to the group of ''strategic worriers" called for above and for familiarizing strategic decision makers with situations and possible responses they may actually be called upon to face during their tenures.