Table 5 Evaluating the risk of system components on the achievement of the objective
From: Using systems thinking to design actionable futures: a nuclear weapons example
|  | Description | Impact (0–100) | Likelihood (0–10) | Risk | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Â | Loyalist | ||||
R1 | No social support | 70 | 2 | 140 | 11 |
R2 | Unable to maintain public law and order | 50 | 3 | 150 | 8 |
R3 | Unable to suppress Islamic Faction | 80 | 5 | 400 | 3 |
R4 | Infiltration by Islamists | 20 | 6 | 120 | 13 |
| Â | Militants | ||||
R5 | Have widespread social support | 50 | 3 | 150 | 8 |
R6 | Can effectively exploit media and information systems | 30 | 4 | 120 | 13 |
R7 | Have international assistance | 50 | 6 | 300 | 5 |
| Â | Islamic Faction | ||||
R8 | Are willing to employ nuclear weapons | 90 | 3 | 270 | 7 |
R9 | Are able to counter capability of Loyalists | 80 | 5 | 400 | 3 |
| Â | International Intervention | ||||
R10 | India conducts first strike | 20 | 5 | 100 | 15 |
R11 | India not supportive | 60 | 1 | 60 | 18 |
R12 | US not supportive | 70 | 1 | 70 | 16 |
R13 | Internal resistance to intervention is high | 70 | 6 | 420 | 2 |
| Â | Internal Stability | ||||
R14 | Low level of support for democracy or Loyalists | 70 | 2 | 140 | 11 |
R15 | High negative impact of global warming | 10 | 7 | 70 | 16 |
R16 | Loss of law and order functions | 50 | 3 | 150 | 8 |
| Â | Nuclear Capability | Â | Â | Â | Â |
R17 | Unable to locate all nuclear threats | 90 | 8 | 720 | 1 |
R18 | Willingness to utilise for short term gains | 100 | 3 | 300 | 5 |