Table 7 Evaluating the resource gap for each option and their sub-ordinate tasks
From: Using systems thinking to design actionable futures: a nuclear weapons example
| Factor Sub-category | From | To | Resource Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| F3 Weak Islamic faction | F4 Ineffective Islamic faction | ||
| Focused military strikes on enemy leadership | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| L2 Strong Loyalist | L1 Dominating Loyalists | ||
| Provide military training to Loyalists | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| Form coalition with US and India so as to leverage their military assets | 2 | 3 | 1 |
| I5 No intervention | I1 Welcomed and effective intervention | ||
| PR campaign that supports an international intervention | 2 | 3 | 1 |
| Build a coalition for an intervention | 2 | 4 | 2 |
| Focus international community on risk of unsecured nukes to garner support | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Lobby UN in support of intervention | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| M3 Supported but weak militants | M1/3 Supported / not supported but weak militants | ||
| Eliminate support links between Islamic Faction and Militants | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| N2 Known and unsafe nuclear weapons | N1/3 Known or unknown and Safe nuclear weapons | ||
| Use SF to locate nuclear weapons | 1 | 4 | 3 |
| S3 Shaky internal stability | S2 Stable internal stability | ||
| Deploy humanitarian forces to stabilise Pakistan | 2 | 2 | 0 |