About this Blog

During the semester, I shall post course material and students will comment on it. Students are also free to comment on any aspect of the presidency, either current or historical. There are only two major limitations: no coarse language, and no derogatory comments about people at the Claremont Colleges.

Search This Blog

Sunday, April 12, 2026

Mini-Simulation on April 22

On Monday and Wednesday of next week (April 20 and 22), we will do mini-simulations about presidential decisions and foreign policy.  You will not have to write a paper, but each of you will prepare for a different role in each mini-simulation. 

See general description here.

The second simulation will be a threat to Taiwan.

Preparing for your role

Before this Wednesday's class, let me know if you have a preferred role in either or both simulations.  If more than one student wants the same role in the same simulation, I will choose by lot, using a random-number generator. If you do NOT want a particular role, also let me know.  Selection for the remaining roles will be by lot, but nobody will play the same role twice.

Roles:

  • The President
  • INSTRUCTOR PLAYS National Security Advisor — Facilitates the discussion and manages the clock; synthesizes options and guides the president toward a decision without pushing their own agenda.
  • Vice President — Political and constitutional backstop; advises on domestic public opinion and congressional dynamics around a war with China.
  • Secretary of State — Manages U.S. alliances (Japan, South Korea, Australia, Philippines) and diplomatic off-ramps; central voice on whether to negotiate or confront.
  • Secretary of Defense — Principal defense policy advisor; assesses the feasibility and risks of military options, from naval deployments to full intervention.
  • Secretary of the Treasury — Advises on economic consequences of war, including financial sanctions on China and the impact on global markets and U.S. debt held by Beijing.
  • Secretary of Energy — Addresses nuclear weapons policy and energy security, including disruption to global semiconductor and energy supply chains.
  • Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — The highest-ranking member of the U.S. military; advises the president on specific military options and the corresponding risks, benefits, and implications. Assesses what a defense of Taiwan would actually require militarily.
  • Director of National Intelligence — Presents the intelligence picture: how certain is the attack, what are China's goals, how long could Taiwan hold out?
  • Attorney General — Gives the president advice and opinions on the legal aspects of policies under consideration, including the War Powers Resolution, the Taiwan Relations Act, and the legal basis for military action.
  • Secretary of Homeland Security — Addresses domestic risks: cyberattacks on U.S. infrastructure accompanying the Taiwan invasion, port security, and protection of the U.S. defense industrial base.
  • U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations — Outlines policy steps available to the United States at the UN and advises NSC participants on what the Security Council can and cannot do  — including the reality that China holds a veto.
  • Director of the CIA — Provides covert options and deep intelligence on Chinese leadership intentions, PLA capabilities, and Taiwan's political will to resist.
  • White House Chief of Staff — Manages the domestic political dimension: congressional authorization, public opinion, and the president's political survival.
  • U.S. Trade Representative — Advises on trade war escalation with China, tariffs, export controls on semiconductors, and the economic interdependence that complicates a military response.
  • NSC Indo-Pacific Coordinator — Specialist role focused on U.S. alliances in the region — whether Japan and South Korea will grant basing rights, and how AUKUS and the Quad factor in.
  • Secretary of Commerce — Addresses the TSMC/semiconductor crisis: Taiwan produces the majority of the world's advanced chips, and a Chinese takeover would be a strategic catastrophe.
  • Under Secretary of Defense for Policy — Provides the granular strategic options — from positioning carrier groups to a full Article 5-style commitment — and the second- and third-order consequences of each.


No comments: