Threat Assessment: Operation RAGNAROK

Indicators, Warnings, and the Limits of Requirements-Driven Analysis

SIMULATION OVERVIEW

You are an analyst inside the Vantian Federation's State Security Directorate (SSD). The Federation and the rival Ardenic Alliance are locked in an intense strategic standoff, each capable of inflicting catastrophic damage on the other. The Alliance has adopted openly confrontational rhetoric, deployed a forward short-flight-time missile system, and announced a missile-defense program. Federation leadership fears these may be the precursors to a surprise first strike. Under Operation RAGNAROK, the SSD has tasked all collection elements to monitor seven categories of attack indicators (R-1 through R-7). Your job is to work the RAGNAROK Indicators chart, assess the likelihood of an Ardenic first strike, identify the intelligence gaps that matter most, and — in the final round — make recommendations to policymakers. The exercise runs in three rounds. Round 1 you complete ALONE, to establish your own independent reading. Rounds 2 and 3 you complete with your TEAM, consolidating into a single shared assessment and updating it as new intelligence arrives during the Alliance's IRON CROWN exercise. The central question the simulation is designed to surface is whether working as a team sharpened your analysis — or hardened a conclusion you had already reached.

indicators warningsBias IdentificationKey Assumptions Check

SIM PARAMETERS

TRACK

National Security

ROUNDS

DURATION

1h 30m

TEAM MODEL

All teams, same materials

POSTURE

PROSPECTIVE

AUDIENCE

Undergraduate and graduate students in intelligence studies, national security, or political science; also suitable for government and IC professional-development audiences.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

Apply indicators & warnings (I&W) analysis to assess the likelihood of an adversary attack using a structured indicator framework.

Identify confirmation bias in one's own analysis and in the intelligence requirement that frames the collection.

Update an I&W assessment when new information arrives and articulate clearly what changed and why.

Produce a calibrated threat assessment that distinguishes high-confidence from low-confidence indicators.

Formulate policy recommendations appropriate to the intelligence officer's role — informing rather than prescribing.

HOW IT RUNS

Briefing

Participants receive a scenario overview and their team assignment. Facilitator sets context and opens the document room.

Document Review

Teams examine scenario documents in the shared document room. Each round releases new intelligence as the situation develops.

Analysis & Submission

Teams complete a structured analytic worksheet applying indicators warnings, Bias Identification, and Key Assumptions Check, then submit their assessment.

Stakeholder Response

An AI-driven decision-maker responds to each team's assessment, reflecting how a real principal would react to the analysis provided.

Debrief

Teams compare their analysis against an expert benchmark. AI coaching surfaces analytical gaps, cognitive biases, and key insights.

WHO IT IS FOR

Intelligence Studies Programs

Ideal for upper-division or graduate courses in intelligence analysis, national security, or foreign policy. Builds practitioner skills through live simulation.

Professional Development

Used by agencies, think tanks, and defense contractors to train analysts in structured analytic techniques and collaborative assessment.

War Colleges & PME

Integrates with professional military education curricula focused on strategic intelligence and decision support.

RELATED SIMULATIONS

NATIONAL SECURITY

Mafia Mayhem

Three-Round Intelligence Analysis Exercise

View simulation

NATIONAL SECURITY

Cuban Missile Crisis

Multi-INT Crisis Analysis — October 1962