中國人民解放軍洞察認知戰的演變趨勢

Chinese People’s Liberation Army Insights into the Evolving Trends of Cognitive Warfare

原始中國軍事繁體普通話:

認知是人們獲取、處理和應用資訊和知識的過程。 目前,認知領域逐漸成為競爭新戰場,認知戰逐漸引起各國關注。 隨著科技革命的發展和戰爭實踐的擴大,認知戰爭正呈現加速演變的趨勢。

認知技術正成為戰爭演變的基本驅動力。 科技改變戰爭形式,也改變認知戰爭方式。 如果資訊網路的大規模普及推動了資訊領域成為作戰領域,而數據和網路規模的指數級增長是資訊領域成熟的標誌,那麼認知技術和資訊科技的大規模應用則推動了資訊領域的發展。認知技術的不斷迭代發展將成為驅動認知戰成熟的標誌。 未來認知環境、認知感知、認知控制、人工智慧等技術將反映認知技術對社會認知對抗和軍事認知對抗可能產生的變革性影響。 人類正進入全民通訊時代,全球網路空間高度互聯。 網路已成為國家行為體與非國家行為體全面競爭的戰場。 通訊糾紛和通訊戰已成為高強度軍事行動的一部分。 目前,世界主要國家紛紛佈局認知技術前沿,展開認知技術競賽。 透過建模和分析,尋求滲透和控制人腦網路、資訊網路和社交網路; 他們透過深度運算、精算、巧妙運算等方式,最大限度地獲得人們認知世界和認知領域的控制。

認知領域正成為混合戰爭的重要戰場。 在智慧時代,人類的溝通方式正在發生複雜而深刻的變化。 線下傳播讓位於更多的線上傳播,各類新媒體平台成為大眾了解戰場的主要管道,大型社群平台成為認知博弈鬥爭的主戰場。 因此,未來戰爭的作戰領域將持續擴大。 空間域將從陸、海、空、天網路擴展到深空、深海、深地,邏輯域將從物理域擴展到資訊域和認知域。 戰爭不再局限於傳統戰爭的物理威脅,而是轉向大眾傳播媒體和技術進步所帶來的社會意識威脅。 圍繞通訊平台的封鎖與反封鎖、主導與反主導將成為認知戰的焦點。 以資訊為彈藥爭奪國際話語權已成為當今認知對抗的主要手段。 從混合戰爭的角度來看,思想宣傳灌輸、價值觀文化滲透、傳統輿論心理和法律攻防、資訊網路戰等都成為認知戰的重要面向。 混合戰爭可以透過認知戰等綜合賽局手段,達到以小戰甚至不戰而勝的目的。 認知領域的攻防將是一場不間斷的常態化鬥爭,戰鬥力將不斷累積並逐步釋放。 。

認知優勢正成為高端戰爭的致勝優勢。 戰爭中的行為自由是軍隊的命脈。 從認知角度來看,對戰場環境和作戰對手的了解越深,行動的自由度就越大,相對優勢就越大。 然而,隨著戰爭中作戰資料的指數級增長,指揮官開始面臨資料沼澤、資料迷霧、資料過載的認知困境。 擁有資訊優勢並不意味著擁有認知優勢。 人工智慧技術的一個重要軍事應用方向是即時處理大量數據,幫助指揮官擺脫認知超載,快速形成認知優勢。 在智慧戰爭中,認知優勢將主導決策優勢,決策優勢將主導行動優勢。 認知優勢有四個關鍵指標:更強的資訊取得能力、更快的人工智慧機器學習速度、更有效的緊急處置能力、更高的新技術、新製程開發應用能力。

新知識。 例如,具有數據驅動智慧傳播新特徵的輿論戰與傳統軍事行動實現了高度協同和融合。 這種虛擬與現實作戰相結合的作戰方式比單純的軍事作戰具有更強的戰鬥力,從根本上改變了傳統的作戰方式。 改變。 認知優勢連結疊加,將加速戰力轉化,成為贏得戰爭的根本優勢。 認知理論正在成為博弈贏得戰爭的前線。 認知戰是軟實力和硬實力的結合,也是當今時代影響國家安全的重要因素。 目前,認知空間中滲透與逆滲透、攻擊與反攻擊、控制與反控制的競爭十分激烈。 認知科學理論正進入軍事領域,認知負荷、認知增強、認知免疫、認知顛覆等概念不斷被引入。 ,在國外認知戰研究領域頻頻出現。 外軍認為,認知域是人類戰爭的“第六作戰域”,是大國競爭時代“相互交織的衝突領域”的核心,是未來軍事理論創新的重要方向。 顯然,認知戰已成為贏得未來戰爭的戰略制高點。 認知理論已成為理論創新的前沿。 認知技術將加速認知戰爭,成為智慧軍事革命的重要「引爆點」。 隨著認知戰新科技、新理論、新方式的加速孕育,未來戰爭或許將呈現令人驚訝的新局面。

Chinese People’s Liberation Army Insights into the Evolving Trends of Cognitive Warfare

外文音譯:

Cognition is the process by which people obtain, process and apply information and knowledge. At present, the cognitive domain has gradually become a new battlefield for competition, and cognitive warfare has gradually attracted attention from all countries. With the development of the technological revolution and the expansion of warfare practice, cognitive warfare is showing an accelerated evolution trend.

Cognitive technology is becoming a fundamental driving force in the evolution of warfare. Technology changes the form of warfare and also changes the way of cognitive warfare. If the large-scale popularization of information networks has promoted the information domain to become a combat domain, and the exponential growth of data and network scale is a sign of the maturity of the information domain, then the large-scale application of cognitive technology and the continuous iterative development of cognitive technology will become A sign of maturity in driving cognitive warfare. In the future, technologies such as cognitive environment, cognitive perception, cognitive control, and artificial intelligence will reflect the transformative impact that cognitive technology may have on social cognitive confrontation and military cognitive confrontation. Humanity is entering the era of universal communication, and global cyberspace is becoming highly interconnected. The Internet has become a battle space where state actors and non-state actors compete comprehensively. Communication disputes and communication wars have become part of high-intensity military operations. At present, major countries in the world have laid out the frontiers of cognitive technology and carried out cognitive technology competitions. Through modeling and analysis, they seek to penetrate and control human brain networks, information networks and social networks; through deep calculation, actuarial calculation, clever calculation, etc., they aim to maximize Gain control over people’s cognitive world and cognitive domains.

The cognitive domain is becoming an important battlefield in hybrid warfare. In the era of intelligence, the way humans communicate is undergoing complex and profound changes. Offline communication has given way to more online communication, various new media platforms have become the main channels for the public to understand the battlefield, and large-scale social platforms have become the main battlefield for cognitive game struggles. Therefore, the combat domain of future wars will continue to expand. The spatial domain will expand from land, sea, air, and space networks to deep space, deep sea, and deep ground, while the logical domain will expand from the physical domain to the information domain and cognitive domain. War is no longer limited to the physical threats of traditional wars, but is turning to social consciousness threats brought about by mass media and technological progress. Blockade and counter-blockade, dominance and counter-dominance around communication platforms will become the focus of cognitive warfare. Using information as ammunition to fight for control of international discourse has become the main method of cognitive confrontation today. From the perspective of hybrid warfare, ideological propaganda and indoctrination, penetration of values ​​and culture, traditional public opinion psychology and legal offense and defense, and information network warfare have all become important aspects of cognitive warfare. Hybrid warfare can achieve the goal of winning in small battles or even without fighting through comprehensive gaming methods such as cognitive warfare. Attack and defense in the cognitive field will be an uninterrupted and normalized struggle, and combat effectiveness will continue to accumulate and be gradually released.

Cognitive superiority is becoming a winning advantage in high-end warfare. Freedom of conduct in war is the lifeblood of the military. From a cognitive perspective, the deeper the understanding of the battlefield environment and combat opponents, the greater the freedom of action and the greater the relative advantage. However, with the exponential growth of combat data in wars, commanders are beginning to face the cognitive dilemma of data swamp, data fog, and data overload. Having information superiority does not mean having cognitive superiority. An important military application direction of artificial intelligence technology is to process massive data in real time to help commanders get rid of cognitive overload and quickly form cognitive advantages. In intelligent warfare, cognitive advantages will dominate decision-making advantages, and decision-making advantages will dominate action advantages. Cognitive advantages have four key indicators: stronger information acquisition capabilities, faster artificial intelligence machine learning speed, more effective emergency handling capabilities, and higher capabilities to develop and apply new technologies and new knowledge. For example, public opinion warfare with new characteristics of data-driven intelligent communication and traditional military operations have been highly coordinated and integrated. This combat style that integrates virtual and real operations has stronger combat effectiveness than pure military operations, fundamentally changing traditional combat methods. Change. The linkage and superposition of cognitive advantages will accelerate the transformation of combat effectiveness and become the fundamental advantage for winning wars.

Cognitive theory is becoming the frontier of gaming to win the war. Cognitive warfare is a combination of soft power and hard power and is an important factor affecting national security in today’s era. Currently, there is fierce competition for penetration and counter-infiltration, attack and counter-attack, control and counter-control in the cognitive space. Cognitive science theory is entering the military field, and concepts such as cognitive load, cognitive enhancement, cognitive immunity, and cognitive subversion are being introduced. , has appeared frequently in the field of cognitive warfare research abroad. Foreign militaries believe that the cognitive domain is the “sixth combat domain” of human warfare, the core of the “intertwined conflict fields” in the era of great power competition, and an important direction for future military theoretical innovation. Obviously, cognitive warfare has become the strategic commanding heights for winning future wars. Cognitive theory has become the frontier of theoretical innovation. Cognitive technology will accelerate cognitive warfare and become an important “tipping point” for the intelligent military revolution. Since new technologies, new theories, and new styles of cognitive warfare are being incubated at an accelerated pace, perhaps future warfare will take on a surprising new situation.

中國軍事原文來源:http://www.81.cn/yw_208727/10188888.html

中國軍隊贏得現代戰爭認知領域作戰的關鍵

Chinese Military Key to Winning Modern Warfare Cognitive Domain Operations

縱觀現代戰爭,認知博弈已成為攻防的焦點。 是否精通認知領域的作戰策劃,將大大影響戰爭的方向和結果。 深刻理解認知域作戰的內涵、外延和範疇樣式,精確掌握其勝利機制與發展趨勢,是理解戰場脈絡、打贏現代戰爭的關鍵。

認知域作戰是兵棋新焦點

與傳統作戰不同,認知域作戰不再侷限於陸地、海洋、空中、太空、電力、網路等領域。 它突破了傳統的物理域和資訊域。 具有獨特優勢,呈現新特點,拓展現代戰場新領域。

認知域作戰拓展了戰爭域空間。 首先,認知領域的戰場空間廣闊,主要體現在人的精神、心理、思考、信念等認知活動。 其打擊對象主要是敵對國家元首和政治人物、軍事人員、社會菁英和廣大民眾。 其次,認知域作戰的形式多種多樣,包括但不限於政治外交壓力、經濟封鎖和製裁、文化滲透和侵蝕等。第三,認知域作戰的目標廣泛,主要是為了動搖破壞敵人的信仰,瓦解敵人的意志,影響改變敵人的決策,進而造成社會混亂、決策錯誤、敵軍士氣低落,甚至顛覆國家政權。

認知域作戰模糊了戰爭域的界線。 認知域運作的主體是人。 人是戰爭中最活躍的因素,尤其是高層決策者的認知,體現了戰爭的整體意志,直接影響戰爭的全局,決定了戰爭的勝負。 國家領導人和軍隊將領的認知是認知域作戰的重點目標。 民意、社會基礎、國際輿論通常是認知域作戰的基礎,是推動戰爭進程與方向的關鍵力量。 認知域作戰混合了常規和非常規作戰,模糊了戰場的界線。 它旨在對訊息接收者進行認知誘導和攻擊,繞過傳統戰場,直達最薄弱的環節——人。 戰術行動可以實現戰略目標,從根本上改變戰場環境,改變戰爭結果。

認知域作戰達到最終戰略目標。 中國古代兵法有云:“用兵之道,先攻心,下攻城;先戰心,下戰兵。” 認知域作戰的目的在於佔領認知優勢,影響敵方決策和行為。 以最小的成本取得最大的戰鬥力。 正如克勞塞維茨在《論戰爭》中提到的,「戰爭是迫使敵人服從我們意志的暴力行為」。 由於認知域作戰不是針對有生命力量的硬殺傷,而是針對隱形目標的軟殺傷,因此不僅可以“迫使敵人服從我的意志”,而且客觀上可以使敵人從內部摧毀自己,使其無力反抗。 、瓦解,最終不戰而屈人之兵,實現「全面勝利」的戰略目標。

認知域作戰是軍事改革的新產物

目前,世界百年未有之大變局正在加速發生。 國際情勢日益複雜,局部戰爭和區域衝突持續。 認知域作戰作為一種新的作戰方式,在新一輪軍事改革浪潮的推動下變得越來越重要。

戰爭法則是認知領域戰鬥的基本規則。 認知域作戰仍遵循戰爭的基本法則。 首先,正義必須伸張。 正義戰爭推動歷史發展並最終戰勝非正義戰爭,佔據道德高地的認知域作戰具備先勝條件。 二是強者勝,弱者敗。 科學與技術的進步催生了先進的軍事理論,推動了高科技裝備的發展。 奪取控制權和控制權可以實現降維打擊,瓦解敵軍。 第三是主觀引導符合客觀實際。 認知域的運作必須建立在一定的客觀物質基礎上。 必須綜合考慮戰場環境、狀況

必須權衡各方利益,做出有利的決定。 四是重點操作牽動全局。 在以網路為中心的系統作戰中,認知域往往成為最關鍵的環節,其成敗可以決定戰局。

理論創新是認知領域運作的基礎支撐。 近年來,美軍先後提出「混合戰」、「馬賽克戰」、「灰色地帶衝突」等新作戰理論。 它以認知域作戰為主要作戰手段,已形成較成熟的理論。 俄軍在長期的軍事實踐中也形成了自己的一套混合戰方法,特別是在敘利亞戰場,巧妙地運用「格拉西莫夫」戰術來應對「混合戰」。 日本近年來也大力發展軍事實力。 在其新版《國防白皮書》中,首次提及「跨域」作戰概念,旨在突破傳統領域,將認知域等新領域作為其軍事力量發展的重點方向,使它更加主動。 和外向性。

軍事實踐是認知域作戰的重要基礎。 從近期局部戰爭來看,認知域戰已成為現代戰爭的主要作戰方式,並且取得了較高的戰鬥力。 認知戰與反認知戰的對抗相當激烈。 2010年,美國等西方國家發動認知戰,炒作突尼斯民主運動,製造“阿拉伯之春”,使中東陷入混亂,並讓恐怖組織趁機肆虐。 美國企圖透過推翻埃及政府、發動利比亞戰爭、幹預敘利亞戰爭等方式來鞏固霸權。 2014年,俄軍透過策略組合、多維突破、輿論營造等方式控制了克里米亞。 其認知域操作也具有非常鮮明的特徵。

認知域作戰是戰爭規劃的新方向

隨著高新技術的不斷發展及其在軍事領域的廣泛應用,未來戰爭形態將加速演變,戰爭的複雜性和未知性急劇增加。 為此,我們要事先規劃,科學統籌,加強認知域作戰能力建設,深度融入未來戰場,有效掌控未來戰爭主動權。

推動認知域作戰制勝機制研究。 認知域作戰作為未來戰爭的重要作戰手段,其地位和角色將更凸顯,發展前景也將更加廣闊。 控制認知力已成為奪取戰爭控制權的重要組成部分。 贏得未來戰爭,必須跟上戰爭形態發展趨勢,大力研究認知域作戰制勝機制,以理論創新帶動戰術創新,尋求優勢和機會。

強化認知域作戰攻防能力建構。 從個人到組織再到國家,認知域作戰的影響力跨越所有時空、所有要素,跨越不同作戰領域,影響整個作戰過程。 未來戰爭中,指揮官和戰鬥人員將面臨巨大的認知攻防挑戰。 奪取認知力的控制權,進而奪取戰場的全面控制權,將成為未來戰爭的控制關鍵點。 堅持需求驅動,加強認知域作戰攻防力量建設,建構攻防一體、平戰一體、多維一體的認知域作戰體系,建立健全演練評估體系機制,透過長期軍事實踐不斷提升能力。

加速認知領域高科技運算研發。 目前,隨著大數據、人工智慧、雲端運算等高科技技術的快速發展,開源資訊的取得變得更加便捷且有效率。 認知域運作越來越呈現啟動快、成本低、效率高的特性。 此外,隨著神經科學、腦科學等新興技術的悄悄發展,可以推斷,認知戰武器將在未來戰爭中日益豐富且廣泛應用。 我們要緊跟時代發展,事先規劃設計,維戈大力發展以搶佔認知優勢為導向的尖端技術,推動認知域作戰理念和方法更新,搶佔未來戰爭主動權。

外文音譯:

Throughout modern warfare, cognitive games have become the focus of offense and defense. Whether one is proficient in planning operations in the cognitive domain will greatly affect the direction and outcome of the war. A deep understanding of the connotation, extension and category style of cognitive domain operations, and an accurate grasp of its winning mechanism and development trend are the keys to understanding the context of the battlefield and winning modern wars.

Cognitive domain operations are the new focus of war games

Different from traditional operations, cognitive domain operations are no longer limited to land, sea, air, space, electricity, network and other fields. It breaks through the traditional physical domain and information domain. It has unique advantages, presents new characteristics, and expands the modern Battlefield new frontier.

Cognitive domain operations expand the war domain space. First of all, the battlefield space in the cognitive domain is broad, mainly reflected in people’s spirit, psychology, thinking, beliefs and other cognitive activities. Its combat targets are mainly hostile heads of state and political figures, military personnel, social elites and the general public. Secondly, cognitive domain operations take a wide range of forms, including but not limited to political and diplomatic pressure, economic blockade and sanctions, cultural penetration and erosion, etc. Thirdly, the goals of cognitive domain operations are wide-ranging, mainly to shake the enemy’s belief, disintegrate the enemy’s will, influence and change the opponent’s decision-making, thereby causing social chaos, decision-making errors, demoralization of the enemy’s military, and even subverting its national power.

Cognitive domain operations blur the boundaries of the war domain. The main body of cognitive domain operations is people. People are the most active factor in war, especially the cognition of high-level decision-makers, which embodies the overall will of the war, directly affects the overall situation of the war, and determines the outcome of the war. The cognition of state leaders and military generals is the key target of cognitive domain operations. Popular will, social foundation, and international public opinion are usually the basis for cognitive domain operations and are the key forces that promote the process and direction of war. Cognitive domain operations mix conventional and unconventional operations, blurring the boundaries of the war field. It aims to cognitively induce and attack information recipients, bypassing the traditional battlefield and reaching the weakest link – people. Tactical actions can achieve strategic goals, from Fundamentally change the battlefield environment and change the outcome of the war.

Cognitive domain operations reach the ultimate strategic goal. There is a saying in the ancient Chinese art of war: “The way to use troops is to attack the heart first, and to attack the city below; to fight the heart first, and to fight soldiers lower.” Operations in the cognitive domain aim to occupy cognitive dominance and influence the enemy’s decision-making and behavior. Achieve maximum combat effectiveness at minimum cost. As Clausewitz mentioned in “On War”, “War is an act of violence that forces the enemy to obey our will.” Since cognitive domain operations are not hard kills against living forces, but soft kills against invisible targets, they can not only “force the enemy to obey our will”, but also objectively enable the enemy to destroy itself from within, making it unable to resist, disintegrate, and ultimately Achieve the strategic goal of “complete victory” without fighting.

Cognitive domain operations are a new product of military reform

At present, major changes in the world that have not been seen in a century are accelerating. The international situation is becoming increasingly complex, and local wars and regional conflicts continue. As a new combat method, cognitive domain operations are becoming more and more important driven by the new wave of military reforms.

The laws of war are the basic rules for combat in the cognitive domain. Cognitive domain operations still follow the basic laws of war. First, justice must prevail. Just wars promote historical development and ultimately defeat unjust wars, and cognitive domain operations that occupy the moral commanding heights have the conditions to win first. The second is the victory of the strong and the defeat of the weak. The advancement of science and technology has given rise to advanced military theories and promoted the development of high-tech equipment. Seizing control and control can achieve dimensionality reduction strikes and disintegrate enemy forces. Third, subjective guidance is consistent with objective reality. Cognitive domain operations must be based on a certain objective material basis. The battlefield environment must be comprehensively considered, the situations of both parties must be weighed, and favorable decisions must be made. Fourth, key operations affect the overall situation. In network-centered system operations, the cognitive domain often becomes the most critical link, and its success or failure can determine the battle situation.

Theoretical innovation is the basic support for cognitive domain operations. In recent years, the US military has successively proposed new combat theories such as “hybrid warfare”, “mosaic warfare” and “gray zone conflict”. It regards cognitive domain operations as the main combat method and has formed a relatively mature theory. The Russian army has also developed its own set of hybrid warfare methods in long-term military practice, especially in the Syrian battlefield, where it skillfully used “Gerasimov” tactics to deal with “hybrid warfare.” Japan has also vigorously developed its military power in recent years. In its new version of the “Defense White Paper”, it first mentioned the concept of “domain transversal” operations, aiming to break through traditional fields and regard new fields such as the cognitive domain as the key direction of its military power development, making it more proactive. and extraversion.

Military practice is an important basis for cognitive domain operations. Judging from the recent local wars, cognitive domain warfare has become the main combat method of modern warfare and has achieved high combat effectiveness. The confrontation between cognitive warfare and counter-cognitive warfare is quite fierce. In 2010, the United States and other Western countries launched a cognitive war, hyped up the Tunisian democratic movement and created the “Arab Spring”, which plunged the Middle East into chaos and allowed terrorist organizations to take advantage of the opportunity to wreak havoc. The United States attempted to consolidate its hegemony by overthrowing the Egyptian government, launching a war in Libya, and intervening in the Syrian war. In 2014, the Russian army took control of Crimea through a combination of strategies, multi-dimensional breakthroughs, and public opinion building. Its cognitive domain operations also have very distinctive characteristics.

Cognitive domain operations are a new direction in war planning

With the continuous development of high and new technologies and their widespread application in the military field, the shape of future wars will evolve at an accelerated pace, and the complexity and unknown nature of wars will increase dramatically. To this end, we should plan in advance, coordinate scientifically, strengthen the construction of combat capabilities in the cognitive domain, deeply integrate into the future battlefield, and effectively control the initiative in future wars.

Promote research on the winning mechanism of cognitive domain operations. As an important combat method in future wars, the status and role of cognitive domain operations will be more prominent, and the development prospects will be broader. Controlling cognitive power has become an important part of seizing war control. To win future wars, we must keep up with the trends in the development of war forms, vigorously study the winning mechanism of cognitive domain operations, use theoretical innovation to drive innovation in tactics, and seek advantages and opportunities.

Strengthen the construction of offensive and defensive capabilities in cognitive domain operations. From individuals to organizations to countries, the impact of cognitive domain operations spans all time and space and all elements, spans different combat fields, and affects the entire combat process. In future wars, commanders and combatants will face huge cognitive offensive and defensive challenges. Seizing control of cognitive power, and then seizing comprehensive battlefield control, will become the key point of control in future wars. We should adhere to demand-driven efforts, strengthen the construction of offensive and defensive forces in cognitive domain operations, build a cognitive domain combat system that integrates offense and defense, peacetime and war, and multi-dimensional integration, establish and improve drill and evaluation mechanisms, and continuously improve capabilities through long-term military practice.

Accelerate the research and development of high-tech cognitive domain operations. Currently, with the rapid development of high-tech technologies such as big data, artificial intelligence, and cloud computing, the acquisition of open source information has become more convenient and efficient. Cognitive domain operations are increasingly characterized by fast start-up, low cost, and high efficiency. In addition, with the quiet development of emerging technologies such as neuroscience and brain science, it can be inferred that cognitive warfare weapons will become increasingly abundant and widely used in future wars. We should keep up with the development of the times, plan and design in advance, vigorously develop cutting-edge technologies oriented to seizing cognitive advantages, and promote the update of cognitive domain combat concepts and methods, so as to seize the initiative in future wars.

中國軍事 資料來源: 資料來源:中國軍事網-解放軍報 作者:趙全紅

http://www.81.cn/ll_208543/10170888.html

中國軍隊從“網路戰”到“馬賽克戰”

Chinese Military From “Cyber Warfare” to “Mosaic Warfare”

繁體中文原文:

理論是行動的先導。 加強作戰理念創新、推動作戰指導創新一直是世界各國軍隊培養軍事優勢的重要途徑。 近年來,美軍先後提出「網路戰」、「馬賽克戰」等前線作戰理論,以實現作戰模式的「生產關係」能夠更適應「生產力」的發展的作戰能力。 透過這兩種作戰理論的比較分析,世人可以一窺美軍作戰能力建設思維的變化,特別是對「馬賽克戰」制勝機制的認識,從而有的放矢,找到有效的把關。和餘額。

● 從威脅反應到戰爭設計—

積極塑造並推動作戰能力提升

「基於威脅」或「基於能力」是軍事作戰能力建構的兩種基本方式。 「威脅為本」體現需求牽引,著力解決近中期實際問題,是軍隊作戰能力建構應遵循的基本法則; 「能力為本」體現目標牽引,瞄準未來戰略任務,以新作戰理論支撐戰略理念,是軍事行動的關鍵。 這樣,才能實現能力的創新與超越。 從「網路戰」到「馬賽克戰」的發展,體現了上述兩種方式內在規律的差異和演變,也體現了近年來美軍推進作戰能力建設的思路和理念的變化。

觀念開始改變。 網路空間最初是為了解決人類的交流需求而創建的。 後來逐漸演變為獨立於陸、海、空、天的新作戰域。 由此衍生出以爭奪網路空間主導權為核心的「網路空間」。 相較之下,「馬賽克戰」是美軍為維持戰略優勢、直接針對競爭對手而主動研發設計的新作戰理念。其形成過程體現了需求驅動與能力驅動相結合、戰略性、主動性、牽引力更加突出。

技術應用新思路。 「網路戰」強調發展新一代技術來支持作戰理念的轉變和實施。 《馬賽克戰》突破了這個模式,並不過度強調新一代裝備技術的研發。 更注重軍民共性技術的快速轉化和成熟技術的漸進式迭代。 其基本想法是,依照叫車、眾籌開發等服務平台的應用理念,在現有裝備的基礎上,透過模組升級和智慧化改造,將各種作戰系統單元「鑲嵌」成單功能、可靈活組裝的單元。 、易於更換的“積木”或“像素”,建構動態協調、高度自主、無縫整合的作戰系統,體現新技術驅動的概念。

路徑開發新設計。 「網路戰」是網路空間的一個伴隨概念。 網路空間發展到哪裡,「網路戰」就會隨之而來。 一般來說,我們在進行「主觀」概念設計之前,先考慮「客觀」物質條件。 ,對路徑發展有很強的依賴。 「馬賽克戰」首先從「主觀」演變為「客觀」。 透過開發能夠動態調整職能結構的部隊設計模型,能夠適應不同的作戰需求和戰場環境的變化。

可見,與以往的「網路戰」等作戰概念相比,「馬賽克戰」目標更明確、技術更成熟、路徑更可靠,體現了美軍積極塑造的思維轉變。

● 從網路中心到決策中心—

群體智慧實現系統能量優化釋放

人工智慧技術是資訊時代的關鍵變量,也是「馬賽克戰」體系發展的核心增量。 “網路戰”強調“網路中心”,而“馬賽克戰”緊緊圍繞著人工智慧技術核心,將制勝關鍵從“網路中心”調整為“決策中心”,將作戰系統架構從“從系統級到平台級的聯盟轉變為功能級、要素級的融合,尋求在網路能量充分匯聚的前提下,利用群體智慧技術實現系統能量的最佳化釋放,賦予網路新的內涵。智慧戰爭的致勝機制

時代。

用“快”控制“慢”,在認知上佔上風。 未來戰爭中,戰場情勢瞬息萬變,時間元素的權重將持續上升。 「快」與「慢」可以產生近乎尺寸縮小的戰鬥打擊效果。 「馬賽克戰」利用資料資訊技術與人工智慧技術,提升己方「OODA」循環的單循環決策速度,擴大並行決策的廣度,降低群循環決策的粒度,加快系統運作進度,整體打造領先一步的典範。 「先發制人」的姿態旨在牢牢掌控戰場認知決策的主導地位。

用“低”控“高”,累積成本優勢。 與追求高端武器平台的傳統作戰概念不同,「馬賽克戰」著重於利用人工智慧技術挖掘現有武器平台和作戰資源的潛力並提高效率。 透過在眾多中低階武器平台上載入並運行智慧演算法和特定功能模組,可以實現與高階武器平台相媲美的作戰性能。 這整體提高了武器平台投入產出的成本效益,進而累積成本優勢。

以“散”控“聚”,求可持續生存。 「馬賽克戰」強調運用去中心化思想和非對稱制衡,利用開放的系統架構,在各種有人/無人平台上去中心化配置偵察、定位、通信、打擊等各種功能,實現力量的分佈式部署。 同時利用智慧演算法,提升各平台的自組織、自協調、獨立攻擊能力,進而實現集中火力。 當部分作戰平台被消滅、打亂或剝離時,整個作戰體系仍能正常運行,進而增強部隊集群的戰場生存能力。

用“動”控“靜”,提高系統靈活性。 「馬賽克戰」強調進一步突破各作戰領域的障礙。 透過將不同作戰域的固定“殺傷鏈”變成動態可重構的“殺傷網”,將“OODA”大環拆解為小環,將單環分化為多環。 根據作戰流程和作戰需求的變化,依靠智慧組網,實現作戰力量的動態分割、動態部署、動態組合。 這樣,一方面可以增強作戰系統的彈性和適應性; 另一方面,它也可以抵消複雜網路的節點聚合效應,使對手很難找到關鍵節點來擊敗自己的系統。

「馬賽克戰爭」為智慧戰爭提供了參考原型。 但同時,「馬賽克戰爭」作為一種理想化的力量設計與運用框架,也需要與其密切相關的技術、條令、政策等支撐支撐。 距離完全實現還有很長的路要走。 與傳統戰爭相比,系統共存的局面將長期存在。

● 從要素整合到系統重組—

動態結構增強作戰系統靈活性

結構和關係常常決定功能和屬性。 「網路戰」與「馬賽克戰」建立在資訊時代相同的物質基礎上,遵循相同的演化範式,但係統建構的原理和效果不同。 「網路戰」所形成的架構可以靜態解構,而「馬賽克戰」則依照一定的建構規則動態組合功能單元,形成具有自組織和自適應特性的彈性架構,類似「動態黑盒子」。 常規手段難以追蹤和預測。 這種靈活的結構經常「湧現」新的能力,以增強和提高作戰系統的效率。

網路與雲端融合發展,使作戰空間和時間更具動態性和可塑性。 網際網路和雲端是資訊作戰系統運作的基礎環境。 它們重塑了傳統作戰中的情報、指揮、攻擊、支援等流程要素,同時衍生出新的作戰時空。 「網路戰」主要針對網路空間,其作戰時間和空間相對靜態。 「馬賽克戰」並不限於單一的作戰空間。 在資訊基礎設施網路隨雲而動、雲端網融合的發展趨勢下

無形空間和無形空間可以進一步鉸接,作戰空間和時間的界限更加靈活,作戰資源的配置更加靈活。 戰鬥架構更加動態。

數據跨域流動,使戰鬥控制更加無縫協調。 在指揮控制環節,「網路戰」著重於聯合作戰指揮機構對作戰單位的指揮控制,資料的跨域交換與流動主要集中在戰區戰場。 「馬賽克戰」將聯合作戰的水平進一步降低到戰術端。 透過戰術層面資料的獨立跨域交換和無縫流動,可以將各種資料孤島按需聚集成資料集群,從而產生顯著的「溢出」效應,使得資料的動態、離散、敏捷、並行的特性作戰指揮控制迴路更加明顯,更有利於實現各作戰單元按需敏捷連動、高效協同行動。

演算法穿透各個維度,讓系統運作更自主、更有效率。 演算法是人類意識在網路空間的映射,形成兩種基本形式:意圖轉化的編譯碼和知識轉化的神經網路。 在《網路戰》中,大量使用編譯程式碼,而神經網路僅在本地使用。 在「馬賽克戰爭」中,演算法拓展到塑造規則和提供引擎兩大關鍵功能,應用的廣度和深度更為凸顯。 塑造規則以編譯碼為主,神經網路為輔,建構「馬賽克戰」系統的流程架構與運作邏輯,為其不確定性、適應性和「突現」能力奠定結構基礎; 提供引擎主要整合智慧演算法模型,分送到邊緣要素進行運算,形成知識擴散效應,從而全面提升「馬賽克戰」系統的智慧自主作戰能力。

邊緣能量的獨立釋放,讓戰鬥方式更靈活多元。 邊緣是各種有人/無人作戰功能單元的抽像模型,也是系統能力「湧現」的直接來源。 在「網路戰」體系中,邊緣要素與上級和下級指揮控制流程緊密耦合,處於精確控制狀態。 在「馬賽克戰爭」系統中,邊緣要素的感知、互動、推理、決策能力大幅提升。 其「OODA」循環無需回溯至上級指揮機構,有利於支撐形成高低、有人/無人的分散組合。 優化的作戰集群形態可以賦予邊緣分子更多的自組織權威,顯著增強戰場對抗優勢。

可見,如果說「網路戰」被稱為精密的戰爭機器,那麼「馬賽克戰」則可以被視為一個能夠激發作戰能力動態增長的複雜「生態」。 網路雲、資料、演算法和邊緣設備產生的新技術變化促進了動態且複雜的「架構」的形成。 這種結構反過來又對要素、平台和系統進行反向調節,不斷湧現新的能力,對作戰系統的賦能和演進發揮重要作用。

● 從制度突破到複合對抗——

分析利弊,尋求有效制衡

「馬賽克戰」在某種程度上代表了未來聯合作戰的可能發展方向。 要充分研究掌握「馬賽克戰」制勝機制,將資訊通信領域塑造成為打破傳統戰爭時空界限的新領域,打造雲化作戰新理念,建構強大的資訊通訊領域新格局。國防資訊基礎設施保障能力。 突顯軍事資訊網路安全防禦能力,增強戰略戰役指揮機構運作的基礎支撐能力,不斷完善網路資訊體系。

另一方面,「馬賽克戰」理論的出現,使得傳統作戰手段難以透過搶先並控制有限的目標節點來達到毀點、斷環的系統破局效果。 但也應該看到,任何制度都有其固有的矛盾。 即便是看似“無懈可擊”的去中心化結構的“馬賽克戰爭”,依然能找到有效破解的方法。 例如,掌握系統的複雜性特徵,利用其相關性和依賴性,突顯通訊網路的功能抑制

建構網路和電力複合攻擊路徑,實現作戰系統各單元的拆解和隔離; 掌握其結構的耗散特性,利用其對外部資訊的依賴,凸顯資訊資料的偽裝性和誤導性,促使作戰系統轉變為資訊封閉、資訊過載等異常狀態; 掌握其群體自主特點,利用其對關鍵技術的依賴,凸顯與智慧演算法的對抗,降低效率,抑制各作戰單元的智慧驅動力; 抓住其功能非線性特點,利用其未知漏洞,突出戰場差異化打擊評估,以更高的效率、更快的速度探索和發現作戰系統中的不平衡點,尋找系統中的關鍵弱點進行突破。

(作者單位:61001部隊)

外文音譯:

Chinese Military From “Cyber Warfare” to “Mosaic Warfare”

Theory is the precursor to action. Strengthening innovation in combat concepts and promoting innovation in combat guidance have always been important ways for militaries around the world to cultivate military advantages. In recent years, the U.S. military has successively proposed cutting-edge combat theories such as “cyber warfare” and “mosaic warfare” in order to realize that the “production relationship” of combat mode can be more adaptable to the development of “productivity” of combat capabilities. By comparing and analyzing these two combat theories, the world can get a glimpse of the changes in the US military’s combat capability building thinking, especially the understanding of the winning mechanism of “mosaic warfare”, so that it can be targeted and find effective checks and balances.

● From threat response to war design——

Actively shape and promote the improvement of combat capabilities

“Threat-based” or “capability-based” are two basic ways to build military combat capabilities. “Threat-based” embodies demand traction and focuses on solving practical problems in the near and medium term, which is the basic law that should be followed in the construction of military combat capabilities; “capability-based” embodies goal traction, aims at future strategic missions, and supports strategic concepts with new combat theories, which is the key to military operations. The only way to achieve innovation and transcendence in capabilities. The development from “cyber warfare” to “mosaic warfare” reflects the differences and evolution of the inherent laws of the above two approaches, and also reflects the changes in the US military’s ideas and concepts for promoting combat capability building in recent years.

The concept begins to change. Cyberspace was originally created to solve human communication needs. Later, it gradually evolved into a new combat domain independent of land, sea, air and space. From this, the “cyberspace” with the core of fighting for cyberspace dominance was derived. war”. In contrast, “mosaic warfare” is a new operational concept actively developed and designed by the US military in order to maintain its strategic advantage and directly target competitors. Its formation process reflects the integration of demand-driven and capability-driven, strategic, proactive, and Traction is more prominent.

New ideas for technology application. “Cyber ​​warfare” emphasizes the development of new generation technologies to support the transformation and implementation of combat concepts. “Mosaic warfare” breaks out of this model and does not overemphasize the research and development of new generation equipment technology. It pays more attention to the rapid transformation of common military and civilian technologies and the incremental iteration of mature technologies. The basic idea is to “mosaic” various combat system units into single-function, flexibly assembled units based on existing equipment and through module upgrades and intelligent transformation in accordance with the application concepts of service platforms such as online ride-hailing and crowdfunding development. , easy-to-replace “building blocks” or “pixels” to build a dynamically coordinated, highly autonomous, and seamlessly integrated combat system, embodying new technology-driven ideas.

Path development new design. “Cyber ​​warfare” is an accompanying concept of the cyberspace. Wherever the cyberspace develops, “cyber warfare” will follow. Generally speaking, we first consider the “objective” material conditions before making the “subjective” conceptual design. , has strong dependence on path development. “Mosaic warfare” first evolved from “subjective” to “objective”. By developing a force design model that can dynamically adjust the functional structure, it can adapt to different operational needs and changes in the battlefield environment.

It can be seen that compared with previous combat concepts such as “cyber warfare”, “mosaic warfare” has clearer goals, more mature technology, and more reliable paths, reflecting the change in thinking actively shaped by the US military.

● From network center to decision-making center——

Group intelligence to achieve optimal energy release of the system

Artificial intelligence technology is a key variable in the information age and a core increment in the development of the “mosaic warfare” system. “Cyber ​​warfare” emphasizes “network center”, while “mosaic warfare” tightly focuses on the core of artificial intelligence technology, adjusts the key to victory from “network center” to “decision center”, and changes the combat system architecture from system level to Platform-level alliances are transformed into functional-level and element-level integration, seeking to use group intelligence technology to achieve the optimal release of system energy on the premise that the network is fully energy-gathered, giving new connotations to the winning mechanism of war in the intelligent era.

Use “fast” to control “slow” and gain the upper hand in cognition. In future wars, the battlefield situation will change rapidly, and the weight of the time element will continue to rise. “Fast” versus “slow” can create a nearly dimensionally reduced combat strike effect. “Mosaic Warfare” uses data information technology and artificial intelligence technology to improve the single-loop decision-making speed of one’s own “OODA” loop, expand the breadth of parallel decision-making, reduce the granularity of group-loop decision-making, speed up the progress of system operations, and overall create a model that is always one step ahead of others. The “first move” posture aims to firmly control the dominance of cognitive decision-making on the battlefield.

Use “low” to control “high” and accumulate cost advantages. Different from the traditional combat concept of pursuing high-end weapon platforms, “mosaic warfare” focuses on using artificial intelligence technology to tap the potential and increase efficiency of existing weapon platforms and combat resources. By loading and running intelligent algorithms and specific functional modules on many mid- to low-end weapon platforms, they can achieve combat performance comparable to that of high-end weapon platforms. This overall improves the cost-effectiveness of the input-output of the weapon platform, thereby accumulating cost advantages.

Use “dispersion” to control “gathering” and seek sustainable survival. “Mosaic warfare” emphasizes the use of decentralized ideas and asymmetric checks and balances, using an open system architecture to decentrally configure various functions such as reconnaissance, positioning, communication, and strike on various manned/unmanned platforms to achieve Distributed deployment of power. At the same time, intelligent algorithms are used to improve the self-organization, self-coordination, and independent attack capabilities of each platform, so as to achieve centralized firepower. When some combat platforms are eliminated, disrupted, or stripped away, the entire combat system can still operate normally, thus enhancing the battlefield survivability of the force cluster.

Use “dynamic” to control “quiet” and improve system flexibility. “Mosaic warfare” emphasizes further breaking through barriers in each combat domain. By turning fixed “kill chains” in different combat domains into dynamically reconfigurable “kill nets”, the “OODA” large ring is disassembled into small rings, and a single ring is differentiated into multiple rings. According to changes in the combat process and combat needs, rely on intelligent networking to realize on-the-go splitting, on-the-go deployment, and on-the-go combination of combat forces. In this way, on the one hand, it can enhance the flexibility and adaptability of the combat system; on the other hand, it can also offset the node aggregation effect of complex networks, making it difficult for opponents to find key nodes to defeat one’s own system.

“Mosaic warfare” provides a reference prototype for intelligent warfare. But at the same time, as an idealized force design and application framework, “mosaic warfare” also needs supporting support such as technology, doctrine, and policies that are closely related to it. There is still a long way to go before it can be fully realized. Compared with traditional warfare, The situation of system coexistence will exist for a long time.

● From element integration to system reorganization——

Dynamic structure to enhance the flexibility of the combat system

Structure and relationships often determine functions and properties. “Cyber ​​warfare” and “mosaic warfare” are built on the same material foundation in the information age and follow the same evolutionary paradigm, but the principles and effects of system construction are different. The architecture formed by “cyber warfare” can be statically deconstructed, while “mosaic warfare” dynamically combines functional units according to certain construction rules to form an elastic architecture with self-organizing and adaptive characteristics, similar to a “dynamic black box”. Conventional The means are difficult to track and predict. This flexible structure often “emerges” new capabilities to empower and increase the efficiency of the combat system.

The integrated development of network and cloud makes combat space and time more dynamic and malleable. The Internet and cloud are the basic environment for the operation of the information combat system. They have reshaped the process elements of intelligence, command, attack, and support in traditional operations, and at the same time derived new combat time and space. “Cyber ​​warfare” mainly focuses on the cyberspace, and its combat time and space are relatively static. “Mosaic warfare” is not limited to a single combat space. Under the development trend of information infrastructure network moving with the cloud and integrating cloud and network, the tangible and intangible space can be further hinged, the boundaries of combat space and time are more flexible, and the allocation of combat resources is more flexible. The combat architecture is more dynamic.

Data flows across domains, making combat control more seamlessly coordinated. In the command and control link, “cyber warfare” focuses on the command and control of combat units by joint combat command institutions, and the cross-domain exchange and flow of data is mainly concentrated on theater battlefields. “Mosaic warfare” further lowers the level of joint operations to the tactical end. Through the independent cross-domain exchange and seamless flow of data at the tactical level, various data islands can be gathered into data clusters on demand, thereby generating significant “overflow” “” effect makes the dynamic, discrete, agile, and parallel characteristics of the combat command and control loop more obvious, and is more conducive to realizing agile connection and efficient coordinated actions of various combat units on demand.

The algorithm penetrates all dimensions, making the system run more autonomously and efficiently. Algorithms are the mapping of human consciousness in cyberspace, forming two basic forms: compiled codes transformed by intentions and neural networks transformed by knowledge. In “Cyber ​​Warfare”, compiled code is used extensively and neural networks are only used locally. In the “mosaic war”, the algorithm has expanded to two key functions: shaping rules and providing engines, and the breadth and depth of its application are more prominent. The shaping rules mainly focus on compiled code, supplemented by neural networks, to construct the process framework and operating logic of the “mosaic warfare” system, laying a structural foundation for its uncertainty, adaptability and “emergent” capabilities; providing the engine mainly integrates intelligence The algorithm model is distributed to edge elements for operation, forming a knowledge diffusion effect, thereby comprehensively improving the intelligent autonomous combat capabilities of the “mosaic warfare” system.

The independent release of energy at the edge makes the combat style more flexible and diverse. The edge is an abstract model of various manned/unmanned combat functional units and is also the direct source of the “emergence” of system capabilities. In the “cyber warfare” system, edge elements are closely coupled with the superior and subordinate command and control processes and are in a state of precise control. In the “Mosaic Warfare” system, the perception, interaction, reasoning, and decision-making capabilities of edge elements are greatly improved. Its “OODA” loop does not need to be linked back to the higher-level command organization, which is conducive to supporting the formation of a decentralized combination of high-low and manned/unmanned. The optimized combat cluster form can give edge elements more self-organizing authority, which significantly enhances battlefield confrontation advantages.

It can be seen that if “cyber warfare” is called a sophisticated war machine, “mosaic warfare” can be regarded as a complex “ecology” that can stimulate the dynamic growth of combat capabilities. New technologies generated by network clouds, data, algorithms, and edge devices Changes promote the formation of a dynamic and complex “architecture”. This structure in turn regulates elements, platforms, and systems in reverse, constantly emerging new capabilities, and playing an important role in empowering and evolving the combat system.

● From system breach to compound confrontation——

Analyze the pros and cons and seek effective checks and balances

“Mosaic warfare” represents, to a certain extent, the possible direction for the development of future joint operations. We should fully study and grasp the winning mechanism of “mosaic warfare”, shape the information and communication field as a new domain that breaks the time and space boundaries of traditional wars, create a new concept of cloud-enabled operations, and build a strong defense information infrastructure support capability. Highlight the security and defense capabilities of military information networks, enhance the basic support capabilities for the operation of strategic and campaign command institutions, and continuously improve the network information system.

On the other hand, the emergence of the “mosaic warfare” theory makes it difficult for traditional combat methods to seize and control limited target nodes to achieve the system-breaking effect of destroying points and breaking links. However, it should be noted that any system has its inherent contradictions. Even the seemingly “impeccable” decentralized structure of “mosaic warfare” can still find ways to effectively crack it. For example, grasp the complexity characteristics of the system, use its correlation and dependence, highlight the functional suppression of the communication network, build a network and electricity composite attack path, and achieve the disassembly and isolation of each unit of the combat system; grasp the dissipative characteristics of its structure, Make use of its dependence on external information to highlight the camouflage and misleading of information data, prompting the combat system to transform into abnormal states such as information closure and information overload; grasp its group autonomy characteristics, use its dependence on key technologies to highlight the confrontation against intelligent algorithms Reduce efficiency and inhibit the intelligent driving force of each combat unit; grasp its functional non-linear characteristics, take advantage of its unknown vulnerabilities, highlight differentiated strike assessment on the battlefield, and explore and discover imbalance points in the combat system with higher efficiency and faster speed , looking for key weaknesses in the system to break.

(Author’s unit: Unit 61001)

中國軍事資源:http://www.mod.gov.cn/gfbw/jmsd/4894888.html