Mr. John H. Southworth <email@example.com>
Dr. Parker Rossman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Mr. Donald B. Straus <email@example.com>
Mr. Myron Nordquist <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Ben I. Haraguchi <email@example.com>
(1) Many thanks for your msgs (ATTACHMENT I and II).
your cordial invitation to your very interesting class.
Although I cannot assure my time for the dialogue of your class, I will
try with my best.
(2) Yesterday, I could visit your NiceNet successfully.
seems much *nicer* than Electronic Information Exchange System
(EIES) of New Jersey Institute of Technology which you and I often used
almost two decades ago.
(3) I read your Chapter 7
at <http://trib.net/~prossman/> with great
interest. This was greatly improved from your original draft
(ATTACHMENT III), though there are still typo's.
I suggest you to run it with spelling checker.
(4) I would strongly suggest
that you remove the following sentence as you
agreed (ATTACHMENT IV).
The Japanese navy would be on its way to the mid-Pacific to stop
by force an American company that was mining on the sea floor. The
American navy was coming to stop the Japanese navy. Negotiators
online would need to resolve the crisis before the navies
confronted each another."
This subject may be related with the Law of the Sea"
project which you mentioned in 7.7. SHARED AND OPEN DATA
BASES" of your original draft (ATTACHMENT III) and in 7.6.
SHARED AND OPEN DATA" in your revised version.
Myron published a very academic book on this subject with a
fund from Ben's foundation.
were more serious and academic with renowned professors,
such as Professor Lester C. Thurow of M.I.T., Provost William Nordhaus
of Yale, Mr. Keith Johnson of Townsend and Greenspan Company on the US
side, and Professor Onishi of Soka University, and President Shishido of
International University in Japan side -- see ATTACHMENT V.
organizer of the event, I have Fred Campano's scenario of the
simulation/gaming. It was a serious US/Japan trade issue based on the
sudden rise of crude oil price, which was a main newspaper subject at
You may replace it with;
One question raised by Donald Straus (President Emeritus of
American Arbitration Association) was the effect of raising
military expenditures in Japan to the American level while
lowering those of the U.S. to the present Japanese level.
Simulation ran overnight predicted that the balance of trade would
thus be even by the year 2000, with necessity of cooperation,
rather than competition, by both countries in the future (Nikkei
Shimbun, Aug. 8, 1986 in Japanese and with English translation).
This clearly indicated the cost and dilemma of American's nuclear
umbrella protecting Japan's economic prosperity, thus threatening
American's economic prosperity."
Teaching truth is the very basic principle of education.
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 10:11:21
From: John Southworth <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: email@example.com, Utsumi@columbia.edu
Subject: Parker Rossman's "What's Peace Gaming?" Electronic Field Trip
It just occurred to me that you might like to sit in on the events
of my University of Hawaii Lab School Computer/Technology Class the
first couple of weeks of April.
I am using Nicenet
and ISDN for this venture that Parker has kindly
agreed to be a guest participant. In order to plan for a relatively
short project we picked the Chapter 7 (Peace Gaming) from his on-line
draft of his book.
has been given a copy of Chapter 7 (with web listing of
the whole book if they are interested in learning more) and assigned a
SUB SECTION. After they read it, they are supposed to post a message
on the "What's Peace Gaming?" topic Parker set up in my C/T class
(April 13) we are planning a live teleconference by
ISDN (Honolulu, HI, to Mexico,MO) for the students to meet and discuss
more with Parker.
Because of his
many references to you, we thought you might like to
signon our class site to observe how we are using it to coordinate the
I don't remember
if you had a chance to participate in the Nicenet
site we set up for John Hibbs Global Learn Day II. There we had each of
our Hawaii-Pacific participants post a Power Point presentation that was
given and linked by phone teleconference. In this case, our ISDN will
be separate from the Nicenet asynchronous discussion.
Below I am attaching
the registration info (assuming you don't
current have a Nicenet USERNAME and PASSWORD. If you do, then sign on
first and simply click JOIN A CLASS and add the Class Key of SZ5582Z47.)
I think you might
find interesting the varieties of Electronic Field
Trip models we have used. My usual objective is to have both
asynchronous Nicenet interaction and a synchronous finale with ISDN,
Lumaphone, CU See Me, NetMeeting, etc. Hope you can join us now or
<<April 10, 2000>> Removed the rest by T. Utsumi,
From: John Southworth <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Takeshi Utsumi, Ph.D." <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Parker Rossman's "What's Peace Gaming?" Electronic Field Trip
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 20:32:59 -1000
Tak, Tried replying but not sure it got sent. Let me try again. JHS
On Fri, 7 Apr 2000, Takeshi Utsumi, Ph.D. wrote:
> Dear John:
> (1) What do you expect from my participation? -- i.e., what should I do?
Mainly observe as an example of
providing global awareness and
interaction for our isolated students in Hawaii. The attempt is to expose
them to an acclaimed author and have a chance to interact with him via
Nicenet and ISDN next week.
> (2) How long the time will last? -- and from when to when? >
The students got their assignments
(i.e. sub sections of Chapter 7) that
they are to read and post a summary and reaction/questions/comments on
the "What's Peace Gaming?" CONFERENCING topic on Nicenet. Next Thursday
is the essential finale when they will have a chance through ISDN to
meet "face-to-face" synchronously with Parker....followed by Nicenet
posted thank yous and impressions and something they learned.
> (3) I haven't read Parker's Chapter 7. Where is it?
Aha...just register onto my Nicenet
class and look at the CONFERENCING
topic "What's Peace Gaming?" and you will find Parker has introduced
himself and the book...complete with URL link to the book.
Hope you can join us. Let
me know if you have any problems getting on.
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 17:30:11
From: Tak Utsumi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Rossman Parker <email@example.com>
cc: Utsumi Takeshi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Your Chapter 7
(1) Hope you had a wonderful trip to Germany.
(2) Attached is your Chapter 7 with my comments/corrections in << >>.
(3) Sorry I don't have time to read other chapters yet, though they
must be very interesting.
Hello to Jean.
Sept. 14, 1997
Chapter 7. PEACE GAMING ON THE SCALE OF PENTAGON WAR GAMES
"The directors of the `Second Generational
(2GMO) project have already spoken with U.S. Military Institutes
about adapting state-of the-art war game strategies for
peacekeeping..." -Sarah Lum.
New transdisciplinary forms of research
"are less institutionalized;
people come together in temporary work teams and networks which
dissolve when a problem is solved or redefined." --Gibbons 1994.
time has come to play a game, in a sense to brainstorm
about how to bring together new powerful tools to resolve one of
humanity's most intractable problems: war. We begin by recalling TV
Star Trek episodes in which war is replaced with games, somewhat in
the spirit of the ancient story of David and Goliath in which the
boy uses some new technology (his sling shot) and skill to defeat
Bremer (1977) expressed the hope that his decision-making
computer model was "the first pier" for a much needed bridge in the
field of international relations. Many more piers have since been
constructed that increase the <<the>> potential role of gaming and
simulations for resolving international crises.
We began here six chapters ago by asking how information-age
technology can help researchers do more about human society's most
intractable problems. In five chapters we examined powerful tools
now coming together: vast databases of better organized knowledge,
technology such as the internet to facilitate larger research,
enlarging experience with bringing many minds together for more
creative thinking, tools like satellite imaging which help empower
our research co-laboratories, and computer simulations, modeling and
gaming to try out alternatives without risk.
We suggest that humanity now has the components for putting
together powerful planning/action tools that could also be used to
empower alternatives to violence in solving disputes. For war
prevention? Could there be more comprehensive planning to transcend
the inadequate patchwork solutions that are put together for each
new global crisis?
7.1. GAMING TO DISCOVER CONSEQUENCES
Awesome complexity complicates human thought and action about
problems such as war and peace, world hunger and global economic
development. Political leaders have yet to learn--and organize--what
they need to know--and often miss a whole range of possibilities.
Humans often fight because war is simpler than solving massive human
problems and crises that cause wars. It has been easier to kill
those who revolt because they are hungry or suffer injustice than
it is to feed them or give them justice.
Can we play a peace game on the scale of Pentagon war games
without radar, battleships, or tanks? Just with computer Web and
simulations? In 1997 the U.S, military and allies conducted the
Joint Warrior Interpermeability Demonstration. Thousands of military
and civilian personnel were involved in testing informations systems
and satellite communications under simulated warfare conditions.
Previous games like that had already profoundly changed many ways of
doing things, and in 1997 that project coordinated the messaging
systems of the USA. Canada, France, Australia, New Zealand and
Spain. If the military were able to do that with "commercial off-the-shelf
equipment" then civilians could also play games on a
In April, 1997, the United States Institute of Peace (USIP)
had a conference on `virtual diplomacy.' It began with the
presupposition that new information technologies are dramatically
changing how diplomats negotiate to prevent war. Digital
communications "now link diverse cultures, economies and create new
relationships that disregard conventional <<conventional>>
boundaries, hierarchies, time zones. and geopolitical boundaries."
(USIP 1996). This increases the number of people who can cause
conflicts and the speed at which events move from potential problem
to crisis. The Peace Institute in 1994 had a conference on managing
chaos. It explored "the pivotal role that "new `conflict managers'
can play in international conflict resolution.
The next step was to examine how global-scale information
tools might be used more effectively in preventing crises through
conflict resolution, peacekeeping, preventive diplomacy and
humanitarian assitance in turbulent regions. A preparatory meeting
examined case studies of real instances, including a series of
online dialogues between experts in the United States and Japan on
Asian policy issues, an online human rights database, a system to
monitor human rights treaties, a computer-based negotiating training
model, software developed at M.I.T. on patterns in regional
conflicts, and a data base on the role of non-governmental
organizations in peacekeeping operations.
Now suppose there could be (1) a large online coalition of
university departments and experts in many fields, (2) supported by
massive data bases of all the information needed for a war-preventing
simulation, (3) software to implement the use of
collective intelligence for more creative and imaginative thinking
about alteratives to war. (4) Could we then--in a vast World Wide
Web co-laboratory--play a peace game on the scale of Pentagon war
games? And (5) do so with computer simulations and modeling so as to
play out all alternatives without risk? (And at modest cost!)
7.2. PREVIOUS ONLINE PEACE-GAMING
Online collaborative peace gaming <<(a term coined by Takeshi
Utsumi in 1971)>> began in 1972 when Professor Bob <<Noel>> of the
University of California, Santa Barbara, planned to conduct a
political game over ARPANET (predecessor of Internet). He assigned
other schools to play the roles of diplomats of the Soviet Union,
etc. When he assigned California students to play Japan <<,>>
Takeshi Utsumi <<protested -- suggested>>: "No matter how much
Americans study Japan they cannot understand the Japanese," he said.
And he proposed that University of Tokyo students should play the
role of Japanese government. This was done and then students in
London and Brussels were also enlisted.
The scenario for this 1972 game assumed a border incident
between Iran and Iraq. During e-mail negotiations the Japanese team
proposed that the United Nations act to make the Maraca Strait an
international zone to secure Middle East oil. Some political
scientists have since noted that when Iran and Iraq did later
actually go to war, the plan proposed by this peace game might have
been quite successful.
One of the graduate students who participated in that 1972
game was Jonathan <<wilkenfeld>> who later enlarged that first peace
gaming simulation into the International Communications in
Negotiation with Simulation (ICONS) project at the University of
Maryland. ICONS has been described as a continuing `global
classroom project' in which students play simulation/negotiation
games, acting out scenarios--in part been prepared by the U.S. State
Department--in arms control, nuclear proliferation, human rights
issues, etc. (<<wilkenfeld>> 1983.)
Prof. Leopoldo Schapira of the University of Cordoba in
Argentina used e-mail for a similar gaming simulation on drug
trafficking with colleagues around Latin America. Since e-mail alone
was found to be inadequate for such gaming, and since international
satellites were expensive, Utsumi began experimenting with real-time
computer conferencing with slow-scan TV over ordinary telephone
lines. Participating in some of his experimental demonstrations
were Robert Muller, Honorary Chancellor of the United Nations
University of Peace and Wassily Leontief, Noble Laureate in
In 1996 Utsumi was proposing a global peace game to train
negotiators for dealing with environmental/economic conflicts.
(Utsumi 1996) He felt that the game should be conducted by a global
university consortium and that it should "promote peace through
joint research" and experimentation to create a globally distributed
decision-support system for win/win alternatives to conflict and
war. Its design phrase would use computer networks for planning by
experts in various countries. At the same time technologists would
review `state of the art' systems--hardware and software--for a
project as large as a Pentagon war game. Plans and technologies for
synergetic convergence are described in Utsumi (1996)
7.3. A 1986 GAME
Utsumi's first major experiment with global-scale peace gaming
was at the World Future Society's 1986 conference on complexity.
Discussions there about scientific and technological explorations
were reporting new ways to deal with complexities in many fields and
disciplines. There was, for example, talk about how Mandlebrot and
others were implementing a new understanding of chaos, the study of
turbulence and disorder in a whole range of phenomena. There was
discussion about McCorduck's (The Universal Machine), reports on how
computers were being used to empower human intelligence and to
create fantastic tools for use in global politics as well as in
Suppose, it was asked, society spent as much on peace as is
spent on defense and war. That was seen to be a futile question
because more hundreds of billions of dollars would not be available.
Now, however, Utsumi's panelists suggested, there was a new
alternative: computer networking and simulations which could explore
alternatives to war without much cost and risk. Online negotiators
could: (1) create and use mutually agreed-upon data bases; (2)
define and clarify areas of disagreement and agreement; (3) simulate
alternative ways to resolve disagreements; and (4) model historic
decisions and actions such as those that have led to war and
Instead of arguing theoretically with skeptics at the
complexity conference, Utsumi and Parker Rossman conducted a
demonstration of a global-scale peace game. It began with an online
experiment in using collective intelligence--in advance of the
complexity conference--to develop ideas, theory and procedures. The
resulting demonstration involved connections between experts and
students at several universities. American negotiators in the game--Provost
William Nordhaus of Yale and Dean Lester Thurow of M.I.T--were electronically
interconnected with counterparts at Japanese
universities for three days of computer-assisted negotiations on a
The game used the sophisticated FUGI `world computer model' at
Soka University in Japan which included data on more than sixty-two
nations. Klein (1995) reports that the FUGI global model was used in
a simulation of the relationship between arms reduction and growth
in the global economy. In New York Utsumi brought together
combinations of technology--including slow-scan TV and computer
conferencing--to create a kind of co-laboratory. New York was linked
with Honolulu, Tokyo and Vancouver, B.C. and participants from Asia
and Canada were linked for real time participation in the peace
7.4. THE SCENARIO
A United Nations staff member prepared the scenario for the
1986 game: <<The Japanese navy is on its way to the mid-Pacific to
stop by force an American company that is mining on the sea floor.
The American navy is coming to stop the Japanese navy. So
negotiators on line must resolve the crisis before the navies
confront one another.>>
I don't recall such a scenario made by Fred Campano at that
was so successful that while in process <<it
was discussed by the Japanese government.
<<I don't know about this either.>>
Utsumi showed how United Nations
officials--facing an emergency
which had to be resolved quickly--could in New York make immediate
use of such interconnected tools: for testing and trying out
alternative strategies for dealing with global issues; to enable
more creativity and imagination in the process of global decision-making; for
better political management; and, most important, to
involve scholars and citizens of at least three countries,
interactively, in the process.
Computer conferencing made it possible for a large numbers of
participants on two continents to comment, make suggestions and ask
questions. This participation could be read on large electronic
screens by groups gathered in several countries, including the
negotiators. Thus, people in all of the locations, or on computer
screens at home, could read the input and comments of all
This interactive technology even made it possible for the
negotiators to deal creatively with disruption by a protester who
stormed into the conference room to demand to speak to the
international online audience. In a way that would not disrupt the
official negotiating process, the intruder was invited to type his
protest onto a computer so that it could be read everywhere on the
big screens and on home computer screens.
On the foundation of this demonstration, the theory of peace
gaming has been enlarged. Games can explore action alternatives to
deal with specific controversies in the Middle East, Northern
Ireland, or terrorism, for example, in a much more comprehensive and
interactive <<ay ?>>.
Now what is required for a much larger peace game, much more
influential because it is on the scale of Pentagon war games.
7.5 WHY PLAY SUCH GAMES?
Tens of millions are trained and equipped to wage war and very
few are trained to wage peace. There are tens of thousands of highly
trained military officers and strategists, but few are trained in
the arts of negotiation and other ways for peaceful resolution of
disputes. The internet can be used at very small cost for what if
peace gaming and training of negotiators Military forces are
increasingly used as peacekeepers, but the art is as yet very
primitive. Could we simulate a larger system on the scale of
astronomy/outer space models, or the world weather and oceanographic
Monitoring systems are being put in place to give advance
warning of possible conflicts. As the Pentagon tries out possible
battle strategies, can researchers experiment with global-scale
technologies to discover better strategies for peace? For example,
new alternatives to ineffective sanctions or ways to make sanctions
more effective? Other such ideas and questions were proposed at the
U.S. Institute of Peace virtual diplomacy conference--and subsequent
online discussion--in April, 1997.
PeaceNet--the computer conferencing system that brought
together most peace organizations and data bases--can mobilize tens
of thousands of people simultaneously for anti-war protests. One of
the action networks of the Institute for Global Understanding, it
now reaches to every continent to coordinate data bases and action
of hundreds of peace organizations. That global computer network has
included, for example: a Peace Law cases database, work and plans
for peace research and action groups, news and conferences of the
peace research and action organizations, planning and mobilization
for peace actions, and much more. Can it be used for simulations to
examine the effectiveness of various kinds of political action?
Easier-to-use software for peace gaming is being created, for
example for the UNESCO sponsored GENIe project at Case Western
Reserve University and the ICONS project at the University of
Maryland. Software has been proposed for simulations of United
Nations structure and assemblies, for mock world court simulations
for airing grievances that may lead to conflict; for diagnosis and
dramatization of potential crises through `global TV political
theater' and for simulations of crisis management alternatives.
7.6. UNIVERSITIES ROLE
The beginnings of an "electronic" consortium of political
science departments of universities in many countries (Utsumi 1986)
is seen in collaboration as in the ICONS project "international
diplomacy simulation." It early connected twenty universities
worldwide so that Students could play the roles of diplomats in
simulation/negotiation games. ICONS has used scenarios--in part been
prepared by the U.S. State Department--in arms control, nuclear
proliferation, human rights issues, etc. (<<wilkenfeld>> 1983.)
Action/research, already a significant dimension of the
emerging virtual electronic university, may be the beginning of
"virtual" Departments of Political Science, Diplomacy, Mediation and
Negotiation within the "global virtual university. Many students
today are unwilling to sit passively while lecturers just theorize
and talk about action to deal with problems when the internet makes
interactive involvement in real actions possible.
The use of Big Science for research on war prevention, peace
making and peace building, however, requires much more than a
`virtual' consortium of political science departments. Such a
consortium in the global virtual university also needs to involve
departments of economics, law, sociology and much more. If this kind
of research/action project--which requires collaboration among many
disciplines-- accomplished nothing else, it could stimulate trans-disciplinary
discussion and enlarge the imagination in seeking
alternatives to violence. Peace gaming in the university context
might then become more holistic and comprehensive in scope than
Pentagon-style war games, dealing more with the causes of war.
7.7. SHARED AND OPEN DATA BASES
An adequate data base for peace gaming can be created by also
bringing together resources now available in other data bases such
as those of the National Security Network Virtual Library. It
connects data bases, for example, on arms control, international
law, human rights, ecology, migration, terrorism and crime networks.
The existing data, in many places, is organized as a decentralized
catalog. It is hosted at the Center for Security Studies and
Conflict Research in Switzerland and is part of the World Wide Web
International conflict often results from poor decisions,
often resulting from poor information and complexity. No head of
government has comprehensive enough information for adequate
decision-making, and most citizens are less well informed. More
effective peace negotiations are now possible because of more
comprehensive and complex data bases and better strategies for
organizing and using information in the decision cycle. New
technologies can therefore empower the process of discovering,
elaborating, and testing new alternatives for diplomatic action.
The value of building simulations upon competent data bases
was demonstrated when graduate students at M.I.T., for example,
developed a computer model which made it possible for United Nations
"Law of the Sea" negotiations to be much more successful than
otherwise might have been possible. (McCorduck 1985) The M.I.T.
computer model made it possible for all countries, even the poorest
and weakest, to participate with the major powers as equals in the
negotiations. All nations had equal access to sophisticated data and
to modeling which examined the probable results of various
alternatives. (Antrim 1986.) Even if negotiations are totally
secret, scholars everywhere can continue to add alternative
suggestions to the data banks, and the computers can continue to
cross-index and process all such information for the negotiators to
7.8. EXPANDED TECHNOLOGIES
One missing element in the 1986 peace game was software such
as that for a global problem-solving program developed at Case
Western Reserve University (Mesarovic 1988). Demonstrations at the
United Nations showed that the system could be used to explore
alternatives and the consequences of various kinds of actions that
might be taken to solve a particular crisis. In time, those involved
in negotiations over specific international conflicts can continue
to fine tune such computer models so as to tailor them for use in
that particular conflict. Systems for Computer-Aided-Negotiations
can include the counsel of experts--with `expert systems" as one
component--is a computer-conferencing `think tank.'
Utsumi proposes to construct a "Globally Distributed Decision
Support System" for a plus sum peace game. This system will draw
together many computers, in various locations, to share together in
the development of--and gaming with--already prepared simulation
submodels. His system would include: a "meta-language" for improved
communication among users of submodels; the development of
distributed systems; a new scheduling algorithym, the Virtual Time
concept which allows for the organization and exchange of
information among dispersed, dissimilar computers; and other
technologies for truly global-scale gaming.
7.9. EMPOWERED COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE
Morton Kaplan in Toward Professionalism in International
Theory, says that although great individual minds may have been
responsible for spectacular human advances at times, from now on
human progress will require a community of minds in which theories
are collectively developed, criticized, applied, and tested. Until
that happens, he says, human thought in the areas of war, peace, and
international relationships will continue to be too simplistic and
inadequate. As the bulldozer becomes one component in a system for
empowering human hands to do physical work--to move mountains--so
now the internet can be used to empower human minds to deal with
overwhelmingly complex "mental mountains" that limit the human
vision in internatinal affairs.
When we speak of `peace games,' some people visualize some
nintendo-scale game. But millions of brains must mobilize to wage
war. So must not successful alternatives to war also mobilize minds
and resources on a similar scale to wage peace? Utsumi therefore
proposes gaming simulations on a very large scale to help decision
makers deal with interwoven problems. He calls for a "Globally
Distributed Decision Support System" with autonomously managed
simulation submodels at distributed locations. He wants mind-empowerment tools
to help people do better thinking. Politicians can
be aided in examining the political models--often in the
unconscious--which have led too often to war.
7.10. CO-LABORATORIES FOR PEACE
When legislation was proposed for a U.S. Peace Academy, like
West Point and Annapolis, many asked what peacemaking skills it
would teach? In its 1997 conference on `virtual diplomacy' the
United States Institute of Peace was exploring one possibility: the
training of conventional state department personnel or negotiators.
Thus we see signs that a truly global co-laboratory is coming
into existence as such peace institutes and academies in many
countries begin to interconnect and cooperate online with
universities, first perhaps those which have peace studies
departments. All kinds of possibilities for waging peace can be
explored more holistically with greater precision, including the
diagnosis of problems and the definition of issues and alternatives
in the most complex situations.
War games, the nations feel, must be secret and official,
where the quest for peace can be a more open process. Mandelbrot
suggests that human beings have missed a whole range of
possibilities because researchers have not previously had the tools
needed to deal with complexity, to understand chaos, turbulence, and
disorder. "Less war" requires the ability to cope with and manage
complexity; and massive increases in research findings and
information lead to greater and greater complexity. Yet it is
increasingly possible to organize and manage a great deal of
sophisticated data. This may help negotiators overcome what Barbara
Tuchman has called the pursuit of folly (political weakness leads to
The value of computer peace simulations, to paraphrase Seymour
Papert, will be determined by their success in helping us ask the
most fundamental questions and solve the most desperate of human
global problems. Gilpin, in discussing war games, says that the
economic and military changes which result from the use of computer
and other advanced technologies are bringing human society into an
age wherein more is to be gained through cooperation and an
international division of labor than through strife and conflict.
For in our electronic global society all people will either lose or
Brother Austin David Carroll, exploring the use of simulations
at a Catholic Peace Center, proposed models of how human minds
function-- especially those of diplomats--in matters of peace and
war. He saw a proposed `war control" modeling system as being like
the system of ground control which regulates air traffic.
A major obstacle to effective use of large-scale modeling,
Licklider observed, is that even the most sophisticated computer
model is not sufficient if it is disconnected from the real world.
Exploration can be carried out within simulated environments, of
course, but validation is impossible without real world connections.
Global planning would require an extensive hierarchical system of
models reaching out and connecting to the real environment. The
network model," he pointed out, "is susceptible of development in
either of two modes." One features cooperation, sharing, meetings of
minds across space and time in a context of responsive programs and
readily available information.
The other is characterized by supervision, regulation,
constraint, and control. It is clear, he said, that the first can be
realized only through a long, hard process of deliberate study,
experiment, analysis, and development, whereas the second can merely
evolve under the pressure of economic competition and the criterion
of local gain. What is urgently needed, therefore, is a broad and
sustained program aimed at formulating the concept in terms of the
public interest and in developing it accordingly."
7.11. SIMULATING A TRANSFORMATION
OF THE WAR SYSTEM?
A very large simulation and game might model possible ways to
transform the war system itself into a more successful peace -development
system<<,>> especially in countries where the military
overthrow democracies or where soldiers loot people's homes. So far,
the most advanced technologies have mostly been used politically to
empower military defense and not for ideas and methods for
successfully winning peace and supporting democracy. Fernbach calls
symbolic processing the "sleeping giant" of the future which can
make it possible for problems to be examined and solved on a larger
and larger scale. Can it be used to discover and explore new kinds
of power which can be used in defense of justice, human rights, and
A holistic gaming system, we suggest, would need to
incorporate solutions to many other of society's most intractable
problems, such as those we will explore next.
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:04:18 -0500
From: "G. Parker Rossman" <email@example.com>
To: Tak Utsumi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Your Chapter 7
Thanks, Tak, for reviewing my chapter
It was Compano who gave me that scenario. I have tried to get in touch with
him again but my letter was returned, no longer at that address.
Perhaps he is back in the Philippines. I will drop that section of the
I am getting good help from various people I have sent chapters to, and many
helpful suggestions for revisions. We had a veryw int eresting time in
Germany, including conferences on the future of the university with the former
president of Hunmboldt University. Also a very good day in Poland.
I continue to be impressed with
your progress and projects. When I get
this done I hope to write a third volume, comparing what 2 or 3 specific
unviersities are doing. Peace
3 Lemmon Drive author, EMERGING WORLDWIDE ELECTRONIC
Columbia MO 65201 UNIVERSITY (Praeger, 1993)
home page: http://www.trib.net/~prossman
"Electronic Global University System and Services"
Part I/Chapter 2/Section 1.1 GLH in July, 1986
1.1 GLH in July, 1986
The GLOSAS project began with a
demonstration of global-scale peace-gaming at
the conference on "Crisis Management and Conflict Resolution" by the World
Future Society (WFS) in New York City, in July of 1986. It was one of the
largest and perhaps most successful demonstration of global gaming/simulation
organized so far. The event was a global gaming simulation sessions on a
crisis scenario involving the U.S.-Japan trade and economy issues. The
multimedia teleconferencing sessions used voice, slow-scan TV [SSTV], computer
text and data, graphics, and a simulation model. Nearly 1,500 persons took
part, in New York, Tokyo, Honolulu and at the World's Fair in Vancouver, B.C.
Fred Campano of the United Nations wrote a game scenario, and Akira Onishi of
Soka University in Tokyo supplied his FUGI model of the world economy 
(Onishi, A., 1986).
Noted U.S. economists (Professor
Lester C. Thurow of M.I.T., Provost William
Nordhaus of Yale, Mr. Keith Johnson of Townsend and Greenspan Company) were
panelists of this event and electronically interconnected with Japanese
counterparts (Professor Onishi of Soka University, and President Shishido of
International University) for three days of computer-assisted negotiations.
Several hypothetical policies were examined. One question raised by Donald
Straus (President Emeritus of American Arbitration Association) was the effect
of raising military expenditures in Japan to the American level while lowering
those of the U.S. to the present Japanese level. Simulation ran overnight
predicted that the balance of trade would thus be even by the year 2000, with
necessity of cooperation, rather than competition, by both countries in the
future (Nikkei Shimbun, Aug. 8, 1986 in Japanese and with English
translation). This clearly indicated the cost and dilemma of American's
nuclear umbrella protecting Japan's economic prosperity, thus threatening
American's economic prosperity.
This gaming simulation lasted three
evenings. At the end of each session,
Onishi executed new economic parameters on his FUGI model which parameters
were discussed and agreed by both parties in New York and Tokyo, and sent his
computational results back to New York at the next session for continuing
discussions. All participating sites had Colorado Video's slow-scan image
transceiver which were connected through a telephone bridge so that all sites
could receive/send their images. Audio/voice could be sent through the same
POTS line, except while transmitting images. Onishi's computer outputs were
sent to New York by fax via another telephone line. As soon as it arrived, it
was copied to transparencies, and projected on to a large screen which was
then transmitted by the slow-scan transceiver to all participating sites. We
used real-time chatting feature of EIES for back-stage coordination.
This event with combined use of
inexpensive delivery systems afforded an
opportunity to see how academic departments might become linked across
national boundaries for the purpose of joint study, research and planetary
problem-solving without expending high cost for satellite video. After this
successful sessions, several former high ranking officers of the U.S./Japanese
governmental agencies expressed their strong interest in a similar multi-media
teleconferencing on a more regular basis to establish an early warning system
of the both countries' ever-closely interwoven economic and trade
relationships. Systems analysis for systemic change at the global level is a
precondition for any significant resolution to today's global-scale problems,
as has been advocated by the GLOSAS Project since it was originated in 1972.
>From this initial effort, a series
of "Global Lecture Hall (GLH)" (TM) has
commenced, spanning many countries around the world.
List of Distribution
Mr. John H. Southworth
Distance Education Director
UH Laboratory School
Curriculum Research & Development Group
University of Hawaii Laboratory School
1776 University Avenue
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822
Dr. Parker Rossman
3 Lemmon Drive
Columbia MO 65201-5413
FAX: 314-876-5812 (emergency)
Mr. Donald B. Straus
Somes Meadow, Somesville
Mt. Desert, ME 04660
Mr. Myron Nordquist
U.S. Senator Conrad Burns' Office
187 Dirksen Senate Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-2603
804-924-7573 -- at the U. of VA.
Fax: 804-982-2622 -- at the U. of VA.
Ben I. Haraguchi
Foundation for the Support of the United Nations (FSUN)
809 United Nations Plaza, Suite 1200
New York, NY 10017
Tel: +1-212-986 8114
Fax: +1-212-986 8131
* Takeshi Utsumi, Ph.D., P.E., Chairman, GLOSAS/USA *
* (GLObal Systems Analysis and Simulation Association in the U.S.A.) *
* Laureate of Lord Perry Award for Excellence in Distance Education *
* Founder of CAADE *
* (Consortium for Affordable and Accessible Distance Education) *
* President Emeritus and V.P. for Technology and Coordination of *
* Global University System (GUS) *
* 43-23 Colden Street, Flushing, NY 11355-3998, U.S.A. *
* Tel: 718-939-0928; Fax: 718-939-0656 (day time only--prefer email) *
* Email: email@example.com; Tax Exempt ID: 11-2999676 *
* http://www.friends-partners.org/GLOSAS/ *
Return to: Global University System Early 2000 Correspondence
Web page by Steve McCarty, World Association for Online Education President