Category Archives: 以認知為中心的戰爭：應對複雜戰爭的作戰概念

China's Informatization - 中國信息化, Chinese Military Cognitive Domain Operations, Chinese military cognitive warfare, Chinese Military Future Wars, Chinese Military Informatization, Dissipative Warfare, 中國解放軍敘事戰爭, 以認知為中心的戰爭：應對複雜戰爭的作戰概念, 認知戰

Chinese Military Will Identify Key Targets for Cognitive Domain Operations

Leave a comment

中國軍方將確定認知域作戰的關鍵目標

外文原文音譯：

The target of cognitive domain operations refers to the specific direction of cognitive domain operations. In cognitive domain operations, compared with combat objects, the problem solved by combat targets is precise targeting, which allows commanders to understand the exact coordinates of what to hit, where to hit, and to what extent. Only by deeply understanding the connotative characteristics of cognitive domain combat targets can we accurately find key targets through appearances and seize the opportunity in future operations.

Cognitive focus that affects behavioral choices

The cognitive center of gravity is the “convergence point” of the diverse thinking and cognition of cognitive subjects in war activities. As an active factor, it affects the cognitive process and behavioral results. Generally speaking, the cognitive factors that influence individual behavioral choices in war activities mainly include cognition of political attributes, cognition of interest associations, cognition of group belonging, cognition of risk and loss, cognition of emotional orientation, cognition of war ethics, etc. For war activities and the groups or individuals concerned about war activities, the cognitive focus that affects their attitudes, tendencies, and behaviors is not the same. Judging from the local wars and regional conflicts in the world in recent years, there are obvious differences in the cognitive focus of different groups or individuals. Politicians pay more attention to the recognition of political attributes and the recognition of interest connections, while those who may be involved in the war pay more attention to the recognition of risk and loss. And interest-related cognition, ordinary people pay more attention to interest-related cognition and emotion-oriented cognition, while people in other countries outside the region generally pay more attention to war moral cognition and group belonging cognition because their own interests will not suffer direct losses. In combat practice, foreign military forces are good at targeting the cognitive focus of different objects, accurately planning themes, and pushing relevant information to induce specific behavioral choices. For example, before the Gulf War, Hill Norton Public Relations Company concocted the non-existent “Incubator Incident”, using the daughter of Kuwait’s ambassador to the United States, Naila, as a “testimony” to show the “inhumanity” of the Iraqi army and induce the United States to The public’s understanding of ethics and morality further supported the US government in sending troops to participate in the Gulf War.

Style preferences that constrain command decisions

Cognitive style directly affects decision-making behavioral preferences. Cognitive style refers to an individual’s typical way of cognition, memory, thinking, and problem solving. According to command decision-making style preferences, commanders can be divided into calm cognitive styles and impulsive cognitive styles. Commanders with a calm cognitive style value accuracy but not speed in the decision-making process. They make high-quality decisions, but they are prone to falling into comparative analysis of various intelligence information sources and overemphasize the accuracy and objectivity of information analysis. Commanders with a calm cognitive style are often easily disturbed by numerous and diverse information stimulations during cognitive offensive and defensive operations on the battlefield, and their mental energy is easily disrupted and dissipated, which may delay combat opportunities. Commanders with an impulsive cognitive style value speed but not accuracy. They make decisions quickly but with low quality. They are easily agitated and prone to conflicts with team members. Commanders with an impulsive cognitive style are also prone to over-interpretation of ambiguous external security environments, and constantly look for “evidence” to strengthen and verify individual erroneous thinking, narrowing individual attention and leading to biased command decisions. In combat practice, foreign militaries pay more attention to analyzing the decision-making style of the commanders of combat opponents, and then select specific information to psychologically influence them. For example, during the U.S. invasion of Panama, when they besieged Panamanian President Noriega’s hiding place, the U.S. military repeatedly played rock and heavy metal music and used language that stimulated and humiliated Noriega to carry out cognitive attacks and psychological attacks, which devastated Noriega physically and mentally. Gradually collapse.

Backdoor channel to control thinking and cognition

Once a computer is infected with a “Trojan horse” virus, it will send a connection request to the hacker’s control terminal at a specific time. Once the connection is successful, a backdoor channel will be formed, allowing the hacker to control the computer as he wishes. Similarly, the human brain also has cognitive “backdoors” that can also be controlled by others. Cognitive psychologists have found that by sending information to the target object’s audio-visual perception channel, carefully pushing the information content recognized and accepted by the target object, catering to the target object’s existing experience memory, complying with the target object’s thinking habits, and stimulating the target object’s emotions Pain points can be controlled to interfere with the target object’s cognition and promote its instinctive emotional and behavioral reactions. With the support of cutting-edge cognitive science and technology, using two modes of automatic start-up and controlled processing of brain information processing, the target object can easily fall into a “cognitive cocoon”. In cognitive domain operations, individuals are immersed in a massive amount of artificially constructed information and are continuously provided with “evidence” to prove that their judgment and cognition are “correct”. Over time, an individual’s cognitive vision becomes smaller and smaller, and his ability to perceive the external environment gradually decreases. Eventually, he will not be able to see the truth of things, and he will be addicted to the “cognitive cocoon” and cannot extricate himself. In operations in the cognitive domain, foreign military forces often respond to the opponent’s cognitive bias on a certain issue and continue to push situational information and intelligence information through multiple channels that support the opponent’s “correct perception”, allowing the opponent to make command decisions. Mistakes and deviations occur.

attention-inducing sensory stimulation

Effective sensory stimulation is the primary prerequisite to attract the attention of the target object. The human brain will detect stimuli within the range of perception and respond in various ways. Experimental research in cognitive psychology has found that dynamic, dangerous, interest-related, survival safety, contrast and other types of information are more likely to attract the attention of the human brain. In the era of intelligence, the target object’s psychological cognitive process often follows the rules of “attracting attention, cultivating interest, actively searching, strengthening memory, actively sharing, and influencing others”. In combat, foreign troops often use exclusive revelations, intelligence leaks, authoritative disclosures, on-site connections, etc., and skillfully use exaggeration, contrast, association, metaphor, suspense, foil and other techniques to push information that subverts common sense, cognitive conflict, and strong contrast. information to attract the attention of the target audience. For example, the “Rescue of Female Soldier Lynch Incident” portrayed by the US military in the Iraq War and the “Gaddafi Golden Toilet” in the Libyan War were mostly based on stories familiar to the audience. The purpose and point of view were integrated into the storyline, which attracted a large number of audiences. people’s attention. In addition, the human brain also processes stimuli outside the range of sensory perception. In recent years, the military of Western countries has attached great importance to the research of subliminal information stimulation technology, and has developed subliminal visual information implantation technology, subliminal auditory information implantation technology, subliminal information activation technology, nervous system subconscious sound control technology, etc. , and continue to expand the application scope of neurocognitive science and technology in the military field.

A meta-value concept that generates cognitive resonance

In cognitive theory, cognitive resonance refers to information that crosses the cognitive gap between the two parties and can arouse the ideological, psychological and cognitive resonance of both parties, thereby achieving the deconstruction and reconstruction of the other party’s cognitive system. In cognitive domain operations, this cognitive energy concentration effect is not a concentration of power in a simple sense, but an internal accumulation of the combined force of the system. Under the diffusion of modern information media, this cognitive resonance effect can quickly spread to all parts of the world in a short period of time, and produce secondary indirect psychological effects or more levels of derivative psychological effects, showing a cumulative and iterative effect. Once the state exceeds the psychological critical point, it will show a state of psychological energy explosion, thereby changing the direction or outcome of the event. The targets that can induce this kind of cognitive resonance include value beliefs, moral ethics, common interests, etc. In a war, if one party touches or violates human meta-values, common emotional orientation, etc., it can easily trigger collective denunciation, bear the accusation of violating human morality, and fall into a moral low. For example, a photo from the Vietnam War showed a group of Vietnamese children, especially a 9-year-old girl, running naked on the road after being attacked by napalm bombs from the US military. In 1972, this photo caused a huge sensation after being published, setting off an anti-war wave in the United States and even around the world, accelerating the end of the Vietnam War.

The cognitive gap that splits the cognitive system

In daily life, seemingly hard steel is easily broken due to the brittleness of the material due to factors such as low-temperature environments, material defects, stress concentration, and so is the cognitive system. Cognitive gaps refer to the cracks, pain points, weaknesses and sensitivity points in the cognitive thinking of the target object. It is mainly manifested in the individual’s worry that he or she is unable to cope with or adapt to the environment, and under the influence of anxiety, it constitutes cognitive vulnerability. . The experience of security threats, loose group structure, confusion of beliefs and ideals, and the loss of voice of authoritative media, etc., will all cause cognitive conflicts and tears among the target objects. In cognitive domain operations, sometimes a seemingly powerful opponent has a lot of mental gaps and psychological weaknesses hidden behind it. Often a news event can shake the opponent’s cognitive framework and burst the cognitive bubble. In addition, this kind of cognitive and psychological conflict will also cause moral damage and psychological trauma to individuals. In recent years, U.S. and Western military forces performing overseas missions have faced “enemies disguised as civilians” appearing anytime and anywhere. Their uncertainty about the battlefield environment has continued to increase. They generally lack a sense of the significance of combat and are filled with guilt and guilt. A large number of soldiers develop war post-traumatic stress disorder, self-injury on the battlefield, post-war suicides and crime surge, and the number of suicides among war veterans even exceeds the number of battlefield deaths.

(Author’s unit: School of Political Science, National Defense University)

原始繁體中文：

認知域作戰的目標是指認知域作戰的具體方向。 在認知域作戰中，與作戰對象相比，作戰目標解決的問題是精準瞄準，指揮員可以了解打擊對象、打擊地點、打擊程度的準確座標。 只有深刻理解認知域作戰目標的內涵特徵，才能透過表象準確找到關鍵目標，在未來作戰中搶得先機。

影響行為選擇的認知焦點

認知重心是戰爭活動中認知主體多樣化思考和認知的「匯聚點」。 作為一種主動因素，它影響認知過程和行為結果。 一般來說，影響戰爭活動中個人行為選擇的認知因素主要包括政治屬性認知、利益關聯認知、群體歸屬認知、風險與失落認知、情緒取向認知、戰爭倫理認知等。戰爭活動與關注戰爭活動的群體或個人，影響其態度、傾向和行為的認知重點是不一樣的。 從近年來世界各地的局部戰爭和地區衝突來看，不同群體或個人的認知重點有明顯差異。 政治人物更注重對政治屬性的認知和利益連結的認知，而可能捲入戰爭的人則更注重對風險和損失的認知。 而利益認知，一般民眾更關注利益認知和情感認知，而域外其他國家的民眾普遍更關注戰爭道德認知和群體歸屬認知，因為自身利益不會受到直接損害。損失。 在作戰實踐中，外軍善於瞄準不同對象的認知焦點，精準策劃主題，推送相關訊息誘發具體行為選擇。 例如，在海灣戰爭前，希爾諾頓公關公司炮製了不存在的“孵化器事件”，以科威特駐美國大使的女兒奈拉為“證詞”，展現伊拉克人的“不人道”軍隊並誘導美國公眾對倫理道德的認識，進一步支持美國政府出兵參加海灣戰爭。

限制指揮決策的風格偏好

認知風格直接影響決策行為偏好。 認知風格是指個體典型的認知、記憶、思考和解決問題的方式。 根據指揮決策風格偏好，指揮者可分為冷靜認知風格與衝動認知風格。 具有冷靜認知風格的指揮官在決策過程中重視準確性而不是速度。 他們做出高品質的決策，但容易陷入對各種情報資訊來源的比較分析，過度強調資訊分析的準確性和客觀性。 認知風格冷靜的指揮者在戰場認知攻防作戰中，往往容易受到紛繁複雜的訊息刺激幹擾，精神能量容易被擾亂和消散，從而延誤作戰時機。 具有衝動認知風格的指揮官看重速度而不是準確性。 他們做出決策很快，但品質較低。 他們很容易激動，容易與團隊成員發生衝突。 認知風格衝動的指揮者也容易對模糊的外在安全環境進行過度解讀，不斷尋找「證據」來強化和驗證個人的錯誤思維，縮小個人注意力，導致指揮決策出現偏差。 在作戰實務中，外軍更著重分析作戰對手指揮官的決策風格，然後選擇特定資訊對其進行心理影響。 例如，美國入侵巴拿馬期間，圍攻巴拿馬總統諾列加的藏身之處時，美軍反覆播放搖滾、重金屬音樂，並使用刺激、羞辱諾列加的語言，對諾列加進行認知攻擊和心理攻擊，對諾列加造成身體上的摧殘。和精神上。 逐漸崩潰。

控制思維認知的後門通道

電腦一旦感染「木馬」病毒，就會在特定時間向駭客的控制終端發送連線請求。 一旦連接成功，就會形成後門通道，讓駭客可以隨心所欲地控制電腦。 同樣，人腦也

有認知“後門”，也可以被他人控制。 認知心理學家發現，透過向目標對象的視聽感知通道發送訊息，精心推送目標對象認知接受的訊息內容，迎合目標對像已有的經驗記憶，符合目標對象的思考習慣，激發可以控制目標對象的情緒痛點，幹擾目標物的認知，促進其本能的情緒和行為反應。 在前沿認知科學技術的支持下，利用大腦訊息處理的自動啟動和受控處理兩種模式，使目標物體輕鬆陷入「認知繭」。 在認知域操作中，個體沉浸在大量人工建構的資訊中，不斷被提供「證據」來證明自己的判斷和認知是「正確的」。 隨著時間的推移，個體的認知視野越來越小，感知外在環境的能力也逐漸下降。 最終，他將看不到事物的真相，他就會沉迷於「認知繭」中無法自拔。 在認知域作戰中，外軍往往針對對手在某一議題上的認知偏差，透過多種管道持續推送支援對手「正確認知」的態勢訊息和情報訊息，讓對手做出指揮決策。 錯誤和偏差都會發生。

引起注意的感官刺激

有效的感官刺激是吸引目標物體注意力的首要前提。 人的大腦會在感知範圍內偵測到刺激，並以各種方式做出反應。 認知心理學的實驗研究發現，動態、危險、興趣相關、生存安全、對比等類型的信息更容易引起人腦的注意。 在智慧時代，目標對象的心理認知過程往往遵循「吸引註意力、培養興趣、主動尋找、強化記憶、主動分享、影響他人」的規則。 作戰中，外軍常利用獨家爆料、情報洩密、權威揭露、現場連線等方式，巧妙運用誇張、對比、聯想、隱喻、懸念、烘託等手法，推送顛覆常識、認知的訊息。衝突，對比強烈。 訊息以吸引目標受眾的注意。 例如美軍在伊拉克戰爭中描繪的“營救女兵林奇事件”、利比亞戰爭中的“卡扎菲金馬桶”，大多取材於觀眾熟悉的故事。 目的和觀點融入故事情節，吸引了大量觀眾。 人們的關注。 此外，人腦也處理感官知覺範圍以外的刺激。 近年來，西方國家軍方高度重視潛意識訊息刺激技術的研究，發展了潛意識視覺訊息植入技術、潛意識聽覺訊息植入技術、潛意識訊息活化技術、神經系統潛意識聲音控制技術等。 ……，不斷拓展神經認知科學技術在軍事領域的應用範圍。

產生認知共鳴的元價值概念

在認知理論中，認知共振是指跨越雙方認知鴻溝的訊息，能夠引起雙方思想、心理和認知上的共鳴，從而實現對對方認知系統的解構和重建。 在認知域運作中，這種認知能量集中效應並不是簡單意義上的力量集中，而是系統合力的內在累積。 在現代資訊媒介的擴散下，這種認知共振效應可以在短時間內迅速傳播到世界各地，並產生二次間接心理效應或多層次的衍生心理效應，呈現出累積和迭代效應。 一旦狀態超過心理臨界點，就會呈現出心理能量爆炸的狀態，從而改變事件的方向或結果。 能引發這種認知共鳴的對象包括價值信念、道德倫理、共同利益等。在戰爭中，如果一方觸及或違反了人類的後設價值觀、共同的情感取向等，很容易引發集體聲討，承擔違反人類道德的指控

性，並陷入道德低谷。 例如，一張越戰時期的照片顯示，一群越南兒童，特別是一名9歲女孩，遭到美軍凝固汽油彈襲擊後，在路上赤裸裸地奔跑。 1972年，這張照片發表後引起巨大轟動，在美國乃至全世界掀起了反戰浪潮，加速了越戰的結束。

分裂認知系統的認知差距

在日常生活中，看似堅硬的鋼鐵，由於低溫環境、材料缺陷、應力集中、認知系統等因素，導致材料脆性，容易斷裂。 認知差距是指目標對象認知思考中的裂痕、痛點、弱點和敏感點。 主要表現在個體擔心自己無法應付或適應環境，在焦慮的影響下，構成認知脆弱性。 。 安全威脅的經驗、團體結構的鬆散、信仰理想的混亂、權威媒體話語權的喪失等，都會造成目標對象之間的認知衝突與眼淚。 在認知域作戰中，有時看似強大的對手，背後卻隱藏著許多心理差距和心理弱點。 往往一個新聞事件就能動搖對手的認知框架，戳破認知泡沫。 此外，這種認知和心理衝突也會為個體帶來道德傷害和心理創傷。 近年來，執行海外任務的美國和西方軍隊面臨著隨時隨地出現的「偽裝成平民的敵人」。 他們對戰場環境的不確定性不斷增加。 他們普遍缺乏戰鬥意義感，充滿愧疚和愧疚。 大量士兵出現戰爭創傷後壓力症候群，戰場上自傷，戰後自殺和犯罪激增，退伍軍人自殺人數甚至超過了戰場死亡人數。

（作者單位：國防大學政治學院）

中國軍事資源：http://www.81.cn/jfjbmap/content/2023-03/23/content_336142.htm

China's Informatization - 中國信息化, Chinese Military Views - 中國軍事觀, Dissipative Warfare, 中國解放軍敘事戰爭, 以認知為中心的戰爭：應對複雜戰爭的作戰概念, 認知戰, 資料來源：中國外交部

中國軍事認知戰—「以決策為中心的戰爭」思想與認知複雜性：武器化的複雜性

Leave a comment

Chinese Military Cognitive Warfare – Thoughts of “decision-centered warfare” and cognitive complexity: Weaponized Complexity

繁體中文

——由「決策中心戰」與認知複雜性所想到的

中国军网-解放军报

編按 複雜性科學是當代科學發展的前沿領域之一。 英國物理學家霍金稱「21世紀將是複雜性科學的世紀」。 作為人類社會的社會現象，戰爭從來就是一個充滿蓋然性的複雜巨系統。 近年來，隨著戰爭形態的演變，傳統科學體系下的知識論越來越難以滿足戰爭實踐發展的需要。 關注複雜性科學原理和思維方法，或將成為開啟現代戰爭大門的鑰匙。 這篇文章從複雜性科學角度對「決策中心戰」作一研究探討。

「決策中心戰」是近年來出現的新概念。 緣何提出「決策中心戰」？ 按美軍的說法，要「打一場讓對手看不懂的戰爭」。 進入21世紀以來，隨著戰爭形態的演變和作戰方式的不斷變革，美軍發現傳統意義上的網路中心戰越來越難以適應戰場實際，「決策中心戰」在此背景下應運而生。

一、創造複雜

所謂“決策中心戰”，就是在人工智慧等先進技術的加持下，透過對作戰平台的升級改造、分散式部署實現多樣化戰術，在保障自身戰術選擇優勢的同時，向敵方施加高複雜度 ，以乾擾其指揮決策能力，在新維度上實現對敵的壓倒性優勢。

為什麼「對手看不懂」？ 其實就是要透過分散式部署、彈性組合、智慧化指控，讓對手在認知上就對戰場態勢和作戰機制不理解，無所適從。 這是將戰爭對抗從機械化戰爭中比誰“力量大”，到信息化戰爭中比誰“速度快”，再到在未來戰爭中比誰“決策對”的又一次轉變。 用中國古代軍事家孫子的話說就是，“不戰而屈人之兵，善之善者也”，通過巧妙地指揮控制和決策，使得戰場情況變得更加複雜，讓對手沒辦法打仗。

如何做到這一點呢？ 簡單地說，就是利用複雜系統的性質，找到對手的「命門」加以利用和控制。 一個基本方法就是，透過增加複雜性重塑對手的決策流程，逼迫對手引入新的決策參量，導致其決策變得複雜，從而改變因果關係和決策流程，最終使其走向混亂。 過去對抗局面之所以能夠發揮平衡作用，是因為所有參與者都清楚博弈的結果，因而容易做出權衡，但複雜性往往會破壞這種平衡。 這也是為什麼複雜性能夠作為武器的原因。

需要注意的是，戰場對任何一方都是公平的。 在未來戰場上，要讓敵人單向感到決策複雜，而己方不被複雜所困擾，首先要在指揮控制能力上優於對手。 戰場決策的複雜度主要體現在「OODA」循環的判斷和決策環節。 在正常環境下，「OODA」循環可以走完從觀察、判斷、決策到行動的完整週期。 但如果有辦法讓戰場變得更複雜，使得對手始終無法及時作出有效判斷，進而無法進入決策和行動環節，就可以把對手的「OODA」循環始終限制在觀察和判斷環節上，無法形成閉環， 這或許就是「決策中心戰」試圖創造複雜性想要達到的結果。 因此，如何快速作出判斷，就成為首要關注的問題。 如果這個認知過程能夠在人工智慧等先進技術支援下快速完成的話，也就是實現所謂的智慧認知，就可以大幅加快「OODA」循環速度，奪取單邊優勢。

在觀察的基礎上得出正確的判斷，是做出正確決策的前提。 但這是建立在「具有認知能力」這個條件下才能做到的。 目前，在指揮資訊系統、兵棋推演系統等系統中，這些認知工作基本上都是由人來完成的。 由人工智慧系統自主地完成判斷及決策，過去的嘗試幾乎都不成功，因為智慧認知建模的問題始終沒有解決好。 各種模型表現出來的行為都或多或少帶有“機械味”，並不能真正顯示出智能的特徵。 外軍這些年也一直將「人的行為建模」作為研究重點，但目前來看仍然進展緩慢。 智能認知為什麼這麼難，又難在哪裡？ 筆者認為，其實核心困難就在如何理解和處置複雜性上面。

二、理解複雜

本世紀之初，美國蘭德公司針對2005年前後某熱點地區可能發生的軍事衝突，曾利用模擬系統對美國空軍作戰需求進行了1700餘次推演，然後進行統計分析，最後得出了美空軍如何 在戰場上保持優勢的結論。 這種統計分析方法有一個基本的假設：每個試驗都是獨立且無序的，規則之間也不會相互影響。 這就像丟硬幣一樣，丟一次正面，丟第二次有可能也是正面。 但如果丟1萬次，結果某一面的機率就會越來越趨近50%。 這種方法用於物理研究時是科學準確的，但移植到人類社會問題例如戰爭問題研究時，情況就變得不同了。

人是有認知的，不會像物理實體那樣只遵從物理定律，指揮官在對作戰問題進行分析時也不會只是簡單地機械重複。 通常情況下，人在決策時，一定會考慮先前的結果，導致對下一步行動有所調整。 這樣就會出現人類行為固有的冪律特徵，也就是常說的「二八律」。 所以，我們不能簡單地複製物理思維去思考人類社會的事情。

之所以會這樣，主要還是因為我們常常習慣用還原論的簡單思考方法來思考問題。 簡單系統結構不變，結果具有確定性，因果對應清楚，可重複、可預測、可分解還原等，已成為我們預設的科學思考方法。 但世界上還存在著許多複雜系統，這些系統存在著整體性質，像是人體、社會、經濟、戰爭等，都屬於這一類。 什麼叫整體性質？ 就是觀察局部得不到，但在整體上看卻又存在的，就是整體性質。 舉例來說，一個活人和一個死人從成分上來看都一樣，但一死一活，差別就在於是否有生命，生命就是一種整體性質。 複雜系統結構可變，具有適應性、不確定性、湧現性、非線性等特點，且結果不重複，也不可預測。 社會、經濟、戰爭、城市包括智慧系統，這些與人有關的系統都有這些特點，其實它們都是典型的複雜系統。 所以，戰爭具有「勝戰不復」的特點，其實反映的就是戰爭複雜系統的「不可重複」性質。

正是因為複雜系統存在複雜性，原因和結果不能一一對應，會導致相似性原理失效，所以也就無法用傳統方法進行建模和研究。 為解決複雜性問題，過去採取的主要是一些傳統物理學方法，例如統計方法，以及基於Agent的簡單生命體建模方法。 前面提到的蘭德公司研究就是如此，雖然能解決部分問題，但將其用於解決與人有關尤其是與認知相關的問題時，得到的結果卻與實際偏離很大，不盡如人意 。

為什麼會這樣呢？ 這是因為戰爭複雜度與物理複雜性所產生的源點不一樣。 物理複雜性的來源往往在於其物理運動規律是複雜的；而戰爭複雜性卻來自人的認知。 因為人不是雜亂無章、沒有思想的粒子，也不是只有簡單生命邏輯的低等生物，而是具有判斷和決策認知能力的智慧生物。 人會透過因果關係對結果進行反思、總結經驗再調整，然後決定後面如何行動。 而且，人的認知還會不斷發展，這又會進一步影響後續的認知，但由於認知具有很大的不確定性，所以未來的行動也就難以預測。

可以這樣說，在目前的技術條件下，可預測的基本上都是物理世界的簡單系統規律，而人的認知對社會或戰爭的影響往往是難以預測的。 所以說，拿物理思維去思考人類社會的事情是我們常犯的錯誤。 基於認知的複雜性，與那些一成不變的物理規律截然不同，我們應對戰爭中的複雜性，就必須針對「認知」這個核心特點，在指揮控制方面下功夫。

三、應對複雜

「決策中心戰」的核心在於認知的加快。 因為戰爭中幾乎所有的變化，都可以看成是認知的升級和複雜化。 在筆者看來，應對“決策中心戰”，需要“以複雜對抗複雜”，從基礎工作做起。

一是要理解「決策中心戰」的核心理念。 即透過主動創造複雜性來掌握戰場主動權。 對己方來說，需要管理好自身的複雜性；對敵人來說，則是對對手施加更多的複雜性。 二是了解戰爭機理發生的改變。 作戰體系演化速度指數級提高，會導致複雜戰場的感知、控制和管理變得困難，智慧認知的角色將變得更加突出。 為此，需要瞄準「指揮與控制」這個重點，將戰場管理的能力作為關鍵。 三是找到應對的正確理念和方法。 從戰爭設計入手，以決策智能這個方向為突破口。

近年來，人工智慧領域的一系列成果，為解決指揮決策智慧問題帶來了曙光。 AlphaGo系列研究為決策智慧技術帶來了突破；而GPT大模型的出現，則更是進一步證實了決策智慧乃至通用人工智慧在未來具有實現的可能。 現在看來，人工智慧在未來深度參與戰爭，已經是必須面對的現實。 而這會為戰爭和戰場帶來更多的複雜性。

決策智能研究應該放在指揮控制層上。 要贏得戰爭，指揮控制決策需要體現「科學」和「藝術」兩個面向。 指揮控制的科學性主要體現在「知道怎麼做時」如何做，例如利用得到的指控資料（武器裝備、兵力編成、戰場環境、對手情報等），指控方法（任務、流程、程序、運籌 、規劃、最佳化等），制定出作戰規劃並加以實施。 指揮控制的藝術性則體現在「不知道怎麼做時」知道如何做，這才是真正的智能之所在。 方法無非是不斷試錯，累積經驗，找到解決問題的途徑，並形成新的科學知識。 事實上，現實中指揮者也是透過試誤不斷發現和總結制勝規律，而每個指揮者還都具有自己的直覺和經驗。

所以說，真正的智能其實是找到例外狀況的解決方法。 循規蹈矩不是智能，自己找到解題的方法才是關鍵。 也許這才是決策智能的核心，也是需要進一步努力的目標。

原汁原味的老外英語:

Complexity is also a weapon

——Thinking of “decision-centered warfare” and cognitive complexity

中国军网-解放军报

Editor’s Note Complexity science is one of the frontier fields of contemporary scientific development. British physicist Stephen Hawking said that “the 21st century will be the century of complexity science.” As a social phenomenon in human society, war has always been a complex giant system full of possibilities. In recent years, with the evolution of war forms, the epistemology under the traditional scientific system has become increasingly difficult to meet the needs of the development of war practice. Paying attention to the scientific principles and thinking methods of complexity may be the key to opening the door to modern warfare. This article studies and discusses “decision-centered warfare” from the perspective of complexity science.

“Decision-centered warfare” is a new concept that has emerged in recent years. Why was the “decision-centered war” proposed? According to the US military, it is necessary to “fight a war that the opponent cannot understand.” Since the beginning of the 21st century, with the evolution of war forms and continuous changes in combat methods, the US military has found that network-centric warfare in the traditional sense has become increasingly difficult to adapt to the reality of the battlefield. In this context, “decision-centered warfare” came into being.

1. Create complexity

The so-called “decision-centered warfare” is to achieve diversified tactics through the upgrading and transformation of combat platforms and distributed deployment with the support of advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence. While ensuring its own advantages in tactical selection, it imposes high complexity on the enemy. , in order to interfere with its command and decision-making capabilities and achieve an overwhelming advantage over the enemy in a new dimension.

Why “the opponent can’t understand”? In fact, through distributed deployment, flexible combination, and intelligent command and control, the opponent will not understand the battlefield situation and combat mechanism cognitively, and will be at a loss as to what to do. This is another transformation of war confrontation from competing for “greater power” in mechanized warfare, to competing for “faster” in information-based warfare, to competing for “making the right decisions” in future wars. In the words of Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese military strategist, “One who subdues the enemy without fighting is a good person.” Through clever command, control and decision-making, the battlefield situation becomes more complicated, making it impossible for the opponent to fight.

How to do this? Simply put, it is to use the nature of complex systems to find the opponent’s “vital gate” to exploit and control. A basic method is to reshape the opponent’s decision-making process by increasing complexity, forcing the opponent to introduce new decision-making parameters, causing its decision-making to become complicated, thereby changing the causal relationship and decision-making process, and ultimately leading to chaos. Adversarial situations have been able to balance in the past because all participants knew the outcome of the game, making it easy to make trade-offs, but complexity often destroys this balance. This is why complexity can be used as a weapon.

It should be noted that the battlefield is fair to any party. In the future battlefield, in order for the enemy to feel the complexity of decision-making in one direction and not to be troubled by the complexity, we must first be superior to the opponent in command and control capabilities. The complexity of battlefield decision-making is mainly reflected in the judgment and decision-making links of the “OODA” loop. Under normal circumstances, the “OODA” cycle can complete the complete cycle from observation, judgment, decision-making to action. However, if there is a way to make the battlefield more complex so that the opponent cannot make effective judgments in a timely manner, and thus cannot enter the decision-making and action links, the opponent’s “OODA” loop can always be limited to the observation and judgment links, and a closed loop cannot be formed. This may be the result of “decision-centered warfare” trying to create complexity. Therefore, how to make quick judgments has become a primary concern. If this cognitive process can be completed quickly with the support of advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence, that is, so-called intelligent cognition can be achieved, the speed of the “OODA” cycle can be greatly accelerated and unilateral advantages can be achieved.

Drawing correct judgments based on observation is the prerequisite for making correct decisions. But this can only be done under the condition of “having cognitive ability”. Currently, in systems such as command information systems and war game deduction systems, these cognitive tasks are basically completed by humans. Past attempts to autonomously complete judgments and decisions by artificial intelligence systems have been almost unsuccessful because the problem of intelligent cognitive modeling has never been solved. The behaviors displayed by various models are more or less “mechanical” and cannot truly show the characteristics of intelligence. Foreign militaries have also been focusing on “human behavior modeling” in recent years, but progress is still slow at present. Why is intelligent cognition so difficult, and what is the difficulty? The author believes that the core difficulty lies in how to understand and deal with complexity.

2. Understand complexity

At the beginning of this century, the Rand Corporation of the United States used a simulation system to conduct more than 1,700 deductions on the combat needs of the U.S. Air Force in response to possible military conflicts in a certain hotspot area around 2005. It then conducted statistical analysis and finally concluded how the U.S. Air Force Conclusion to maintain superiority on the battlefield. This statistical analysis method has a basic assumption: each trial is independent and unordered, and the rules do not affect each other. It’s like tossing a coin. If you toss it heads once, it’s likely to be heads the second time. But if you throw it 10,000 times, the probability of the result being a certain side will get closer to 50%. This method is scientifically accurate when used in physical research, but when transplanted to the study of human social issues such as war, the situation becomes different.

Human beings are cognitive and do not just obey the laws of physics like physical entities. Commanders will not simply repeat mechanically when analyzing combat problems. Normally, when people make decisions, they will consider the previous results, which will lead to adjustments to the next action. In this way, the inherent power law characteristics of human behavior will appear, which is often called the “eight-eighth law”. Therefore, we cannot simply copy physical thinking to think about human society.

The reason for this is mainly because we are often accustomed to thinking about problems in a simple way of reductionism. The simple system structure remains unchanged, the results are deterministic, the cause and effect correspondence is clear, repeatable, predictable, decomposable and reducible, etc., have become our default scientific thinking method. But there are still many complex systems in the world, and these systems have a holistic nature, such as the human body, society, economy, war, etc., all fall into this category. What is the overall nature? That is, what cannot be seen locally, but exists when viewed as a whole, is the overall nature. For example, a living person and a dead person are the same in terms of composition, but the difference between a dead person and a living person lies in whether there is life, and life is a holistic quality. The structure of complex systems is variable and has characteristics such as adaptability, uncertainty, emergence, and nonlinearity, and the results are neither repetitive nor predictable. Society, economy, war, cities, including intelligent systems, these human-related systems all have these characteristics. In fact, they are all typical complex systems. Therefore, war has the characteristics of “no return after victory”, which actually reflects the “unrepeatable” nature of the complex system of war.

It is precisely because of the complexity of complex systems that causes and results cannot correspond one to one, which will lead to the failure of the similarity principle, so it cannot be modeled and studied using traditional methods. In order to solve complex problems, some traditional physics methods were mainly adopted in the past, such as statistical methods and simple life body modeling methods based on Agent. This is the case with the Rand Corporation study mentioned earlier. Although it can solve some problems, when it is used to solve problems related to people, especially cognition, the results obtained deviate greatly from reality and are unsatisfactory. .

Why is this happening? This is because the origins of war complexity and physical complexity are different. The source of physical complexity often lies in the complex laws of physical motion; while the complexity of war comes from human cognition. Because humans are not chaotic particles without thoughts, nor are they lower creatures with simple life logic, but are intelligent creatures with cognitive abilities of judgment and decision-making. People will reflect on the results through causal relationships, sum up experiences and make adjustments, and then decide how to act next. Moreover, human cognition will continue to develop, which will further affect subsequent cognition. However, because cognition is highly uncertain, future actions are difficult to predict.

It can be said that under the current technological conditions, what can be predicted are basically simple systematic laws of the physical world, while the impact of human cognition on society or war is often difficult to predict. Therefore, it is a common mistake we make to use physical thinking to think about human society. Based on the complexity of cognition, which is completely different from those immutable physical laws, when we deal with the complexity of war, we must focus on the core feature of “cognition” and work hard on command and control.

3. Coping with Complexity

The core of “decision-centered warfare” lies in the acceleration of cognition. Because almost all changes in war can be seen as cognitive upgrades and complications. In the author’s opinion, to deal with the “decision-centered battle”, we need to “fight complexity with complexity” and start from the basic work.

The first is to understand the core concept of “decision-centered warfare”. That is to seize the initiative on the battlefield by actively creating complexity. For one’s side, one needs to manage one’s own complexity; for one’s enemy, it means imposing more complexity on the opponent. The second is to understand the changes in the mechanism of war. The evolution speed of combat systems is increasing exponentially, which will make it difficult to perceive, control and manage complex battlefields, and the role of intelligent cognition will become more prominent. To this end, it is necessary to focus on the focus of “command and control” and regard battlefield management capabilities as the key. The third is to find the correct concepts and methods of coping. Starting from war design, we take the direction of decision-making intelligence as a breakthrough.

In recent years, a series of achievements in the field of artificial intelligence have brought hope to solving the problem of intelligent command and decision-making. The AlphaGo series of research has brought breakthroughs to decision-making intelligence technology; and the emergence of the GPT large model has further confirmed that decision-making intelligence and even general artificial intelligence are possible in the future. It now seems that artificial intelligence will be deeply involved in wars in the future, which is a reality that must be faced. And this will bring more complexity to war and battlefields.

Decision intelligence research should be placed at the command and control level. To win a war, command and control decisions need to embody both “science” and “art.” The scientific nature of command and control is mainly reflected in how to do it “when you know how to do it”, such as using the obtained command data (weapons and equipment, force formation, battlefield environment, opponent intelligence, etc.), command methods (tasks, processes, procedures, operations planning, etc.) , planning, optimization, etc.), formulate a combat plan and implement it. The artistry of command and control is reflected in knowing how to do it “when you don’t know how to do it.” This is where true intelligence lies. The method is nothing more than continuous trial and error, accumulating experience, finding ways to solve problems, and forming new scientific knowledge. In fact, in reality, commanders continue to discover and summarize winning rules through trial and error, and each commander also has his own intuition and experience.

Therefore, true intelligence is actually finding solutions to exceptions. Following rules is not intelligence, finding your own way to solve problems is the key. Perhaps this is the core of decision-making intelligence and a goal that requires further efforts.

中國軍事原文來源：http://www.81.cn/yw_208727/162348888.html

China's Informatization - 中國信息化, Dissipative Warfare, 中國解放軍敘事戰爭, 以認知為中心的戰爭：應對複雜戰爭的作戰概念, 認知戰

中國解放軍認為軍事人工智慧是一把雙面刃

Leave a comment

China’s PLA Considers Military Artificial Intelligence a Double-Edged Sword

原軍國語：

隨著智慧時代的到來，人工智慧正以超乎人們想像的速度走近，不僅影響著各行各業，也正在改變我們的認知和觀念。 作為對技術變革天生敏感的領域，人工智慧的軍事發展和應用正在蓬勃發展。

目前，隨著資訊科技、感測器、大數據、物聯網的快速發展，人工智慧軍事應用正迎來新一輪機會。 滲透到軍事應用各個領域，具有高效指揮、精準打擊、自動化操作、智慧行為的人工智慧武器裝備將為未來戰場貢獻獨特的「機器智慧和力量」。

恩格斯曾說過，尖端科技的應用首先始於軍事領域。 當新科技顯著增強軍事作戰能力時，就會帶來新的軍事變革。 美國、俄羅斯等傳統軍事強國預見了人工智慧技術在軍事領域的廣泛應用前景。 他們都將人工智慧視為「改變戰爭遊戲規則」的顛覆性技術，並認為未來的戰爭將是智慧化戰爭和未來軍備。 這場比賽將是一場智慧軍備競賽，並已提前規劃，希望抓住人工智慧軍事應用的機遇，力爭與潛在對手產生「代溝」。 幾個月前，美國國防部副部長沙納漢正式發布了關於建立「聯合人工智慧中心」的備忘錄，將進一步加大人工智慧在美軍軍事計畫中的應用。 俄羅斯也將人工智慧視為未來軍事競爭的製高點，正在加緊研發能夠駕駛車輛的人形機器人以及組成能夠與人類士兵並肩作戰的機器人部隊。

需要看到的是，人工智慧的軍事應用是一把「雙面刃」。 “這可能成為人類發生過的最好的事情，也可能成為最糟糕的事情。” 霍金對人工智慧的評價啟示我們面對人工智慧「來勢洶洶」的軍事應用要保持足夠的謹慎。 小心。 未來，隨著智慧無人系統大量應用於戰場，戰爭成本將大幅降低，戰鬥人員「零傷亡」有望成為現實。 這很容易導致軍事大國更隨意地使用武力。 在複雜的戰場環境下，高智慧無人作戰系統極有可能遇到辨識錯誤、通訊劣化，甚至在敵方電磁、網路攻擊後「叛逃反擊」等問題。 濫殺無辜、系統失控的情況更是有可能發生。 為智慧武器的軍事應用帶來了無盡的隱憂。

可見，與戰爭有關的重大問題絕不能輕易交給機器來決定。 即使人工智慧的軍事應用日益成熟，我們也不能允許智慧武器的「野蠻生長」。 我們需要警惕人工智慧可能帶來的安全隱憂。 法律、道德和許多其他問題。 加強社會保障監管，形成適應人工智慧時代的社會治理模式； 積極參與人工智慧國際軍控討論和談判，為人工智慧帶來的安全、法律和倫理問題貢獻中國智慧和中國方案； 牢固地建立人類是人機關係的主導思想，才能安全有效地掌控人工智慧，讓其為人類和平發展服務，而不是讓人工智慧成為「魔鬼的幫兇」。

對於這種有望深刻改變未來戰爭形態的技術形態，我們不僅要保持清醒的頭腦，還要充分激發其活力。 從軍事變革的歷史來看，科學技術在歷次變革中都扮演了拉動動作用和基礎支撐作用。 誰對技術變革有敏感度，誰先實現技術突破，誰就能掌握戰爭新規則，掌控戰爭。 贏得未來戰爭的製高點。 對軍隊來說，無法正確預判軍事技術突破方向、掌握戰爭格局變化，不僅會導致「技術氾濫」。

差異”，但也導致核心能力、國家安全等危機。

今天，面對科技發展的“大變革”和“大突破”，我們應該從設計戰爭、掌握規則的角度，深刻把握人工智能對戰爭形態演變的內在驅動影響的勝利，真正掌握贏得未來戰爭的主動權。 我們要牢牢掌握人工智慧發展重大歷史機遇，做好戰略規劃，突顯人工智慧的目標牽引和規劃引領，密切追蹤前沿技術，積極主動行動，切實維護國家安全。

現代外國人英語：

With the dawn of the intelligent era, artificial intelligence is approaching at a speed beyond people’s imagination, not only impacting all walks of life, but also changing our understanding and concepts. As a field that is inherently sensitive to technological changes, the military development and application of artificial intelligence is booming.

Currently, with the rapid development of information technology, sensors, big data and the Internet of Things, the military application of artificial intelligence is ushering in a new round of opportunities. Penetrating into all fields of military applications, artificial intelligence weapons and equipment with efficient command, precise strike, automated operation and intelligent behavior will contribute unique “machine intelligence and power” to the future battlefield.

Engels once said that the application of cutting-edge technology first began in the military field. When new technologies significantly enhance military combat capabilities, they will lead to new military changes. Traditional military powers such as the United States and Russia foresee the broad application prospects of artificial intelligence technology in the military field. They all regard artificial intelligence as a disruptive technology that “changes the rules of the war game” and believe that future wars will be intelligent wars and future armaments. The competition will be an intelligent arms race, and has been planned in advance, hoping to seize the opportunity of artificial intelligence military applications and strive to create a “generation gap” with potential opponents. A few months ago, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Shanahan officially issued a memorandum on the establishment of a “Joint Artificial Intelligence Center”, which will further increase the application of artificial intelligence in U.S. military military projects. Russia also regards artificial intelligence as the commanding heights of future military competition, and is stepping up the development of humanoid robots that can drive vehicles and the formation of robot troops that can fight side by side with human soldiers.

It should be noted that the military application of artificial intelligence is a “double-edged sword.” “It may become the best thing that has ever happened to mankind, or it may become the worst thing.” Hawking’s evaluation of artificial intelligence enlightens us to maintain sufficient caution in the face of the “menacing” military applications of artificial intelligence. careful. In the future, as a large number of intelligent unmanned systems are used on the battlefield, the cost of war will be greatly reduced, and “zero casualties” of combatants are expected to become a reality. This can easily lead to more casual use of force by military powers. In a complex battlefield environment, highly intelligent unmanned combat systems are very likely to encounter problems such as recognition errors, communication degradation, and even “defection and counterattack” after enemy electromagnetic and network attacks. Indiscriminate killing of innocent people and loss of control of the system are even more likely to occur. It brings endless worries to the military application of smart weapons.

It can be seen that major issues related to war must not be easily left to machines to make decisions. Even if the military application of artificial intelligence becomes increasingly mature, we cannot allow the “barbaric growth” of smart weapons. We need to be alert to the security and safety risks that artificial intelligence may bring. Legal, ethical and many other issues. Social security supervision and control should be strengthened to form a social governance model adapted to the era of artificial intelligence; actively participate in discussions and negotiations on international arms control of artificial intelligence, and contribute Chinese wisdom and Chinese solutions to the security, legal and ethical issues brought by artificial intelligence; firmly establish The idea that humans are the leaders in the human-machine relationship enables safe and effective control of artificial intelligence and allows it to serve the peaceful development of mankind, rather than letting artificial intelligence become an “accomplice of the devil.”

Regarding this technological form that is expected to profoundly change the form of future warfare, we must not only keep a clear mind, but also fully stimulate its vitality. Judging from the history of military changes, science and technology have played a stimulating and basic supporting role in previous changes. Whoever has the sensitivity to technological changes and achieves technological breakthroughs first can master the new rules of war and control the war. The commanding heights to win future wars. For an army, the inability to correctly predict the direction of military technological breakthroughs and grasp changes in war patterns will not only lead to “technological generational differences”, but also lead to crises such as core capabilities and national security.

Today, in the face of “big changes” and “big breakthroughs” in the development of science and technology, we should deeply grasp the intrinsic driving influence of artificial intelligence on the evolution of war forms from the perspective of designing wars and mastering the rules of victory, and truly seize the initiative to win future wars. We need to firmly grasp the major historical opportunities for the development of artificial intelligence, do a good job in strategic planning, highlight the goal traction and planning leadership of intelligence, closely track cutting-edge technologies, and take proactive actions to effectively safeguard national security.

人民解放軍 來源：http://www.81.cn/jfjbmap/content/2018-11/08/content_88888.htm

China's Informatization - 中國信息化, Dissipative Warfare, 中國解放軍敘事戰爭, 以認知為中心的戰爭：應對複雜戰爭的作戰概念, 認知戰

中國軍事技術戰術：以認知為中心的戰爭：應對複雜戰爭的作戰概念

Leave a comment

Chinese Military Technical Tactics: Cognition-centered Warfare: Operational Concepts for Dealing with Complex Wars

現代繁體中文：

複雜性科學是當代科學發展的前沿領域之一，是認識、理解、探索戰爭現象、規律、機制的新工具。 隨著戰爭形態由資訊化戰爭向智慧化戰爭演變，戰爭的複雜性呈現指數級增長趨勢，奪取制資訊權變得越來越困難，作戰的關鍵是使敵方陷入“決策困境”，使其即使 擁有資訊優勢，也不能正確決策，因而失去作戰優勢。 作戰重心將從「以資訊為中心」轉變為「以認知為中心」，制勝機理將從「資訊制勝」轉變為「認知制勝」。
「三個之變」揭示戰爭複雜性成長動因
戰爭是充滿蓋然性的領域，變是貫穿其始終的基本特徵。 習主席強調，要緊盯科技之變、戰爭之變、對手之變。 科技之變是基礎，戰爭之變是主體，對手之變是關鍵，科技之變引發戰爭之變，戰爭之變促使對手之變。 「三個之變」促使戰爭形態演變、戰爭領域拓展、戰爭目標轉變、戰爭影響擴大，揭示了戰爭複雜性成長動因。
科技之變顛覆戰爭制勝基礎。 科學技術是核心戰鬥力，是軍事發展中最活躍、最具革命性的因素。 縱觀世界軍事發展史，每一次重大科學技術創新，都開啟了一場新的軍事變革，而每一場軍事變革都把軍事發展推向一個新的時代，科技創新成為提高軍隊戰鬥力的巨大引擎 。 目前，新一輪科技革命和軍事革命加速發展，現代戰爭資訊化程度不斷提高，智慧化特徵日益顯現，對軍事革命驅動作用愈發凸顯，一些前沿技術飛速發展，可能從根本上改變戰爭面貌和 規則，大國軍事博弈更體現為技術上的顛覆和反顛覆、突襲和反突襲、抵銷和反抵銷。 美海軍「復仇女神」項目，包括偵察、誘餌、幹擾等系統，誘餌類系統涵蓋空中、水面和水下，可在分散式人工智慧引擎的調度、指控下，互相補充，協同欺騙，真實營造出 一個“幽靈航母編隊”，徹底顛覆了傳統的電子欺騙手段，將資訊欺騙提升到前所未有的高度。 可以說，科技從來沒有像今天這樣深刻影響國家安全和軍事戰略全局，深刻介入、支持、主導戰爭形態演變和作戰樣式創新，甚至顛覆戰爭制勝機制。

美海軍「復仇女神」計畫基於網路化協同電子戰
概念，將不同系統集成，利用無人分散式
電子戰平台的集群實現大規模協同電子戰

戰爭之變突顯戰爭複雜性特徵。 現代戰爭正在發生深刻變化，呈現前所未有的多樣性和複雜性。 這種超級複雜性源自於多種原因：一是各種先進技術或武器不斷湧現，帶來許多不確定性；二是戰場覆蓋陸、海、空、天、網、電和認知等多個 領域；三是多種作戰對象、作戰樣式、作戰領域、作戰方式交叉關聯與組合，構成複雜的「混合戰爭」；四是人工智慧演算法將大量作戰要素建構到一個複雜的邏輯中，並以人類 思維所不及的機器速度促使各種要素組合、解構、再組合。 2022年烏克蘭危機中，表面上看來是俄羅斯和烏克蘭兩國之間的對抗，實質上是美西方國家和俄羅斯之間進行的「混合戰爭」；俄烏兩軍廣泛使用軍事、民用無人機，拓展 「無人+」運用模式，展現出未來無人智能作戰雛形；烏軍在美北約空天態勢情報的支持下，頻繁使用低成本的無人裝備對俄軍重要武器平台實施突襲，凸顯新質 作戰力量對傳統作戰體系大型武器裝備的不對稱破襲優勢。 科技之變最終將引發戰爭之變，單一要素對戰爭的影響越來越弱，多個要素構成的聯合作戰體系將對戰爭產生複雜影響，戰爭的非線性、不確定性、混亂性、開放性 、適應性、對抗性等複雜性特徵將呈指數級增長趨勢，這將導致人們對戰爭進展和勝負的認知判斷更加困難。
對手之變加速戰爭複雜性成長。 戰爭之變促使對手之變。 目前，我們正經歷百年未有之大變局，主要軍事強國積極進行戰略調整，推進新一輪軍事變革，呈現出以下特點：一是體制編制的聯合化、小型化、自主化趨勢更加明顯；二 是武器裝備呈現數位化、精確化、隱形化、無人化、智能化的發展趨勢；三是作戰形態向“四非”（非接觸、非線形、非對稱和非正規）和“三無” （無形、無聲、無人）作戰方向發展；四是軍隊指揮形態朝向扁平化、自動化、網路化、無縫化方向發展。 美國將我視為最主要的戰略對手，竭力對我打壓遏制，大力加強作戰概念創新，先後提出「混合戰爭」「多域戰」「馬賽克戰」等新型作戰概念，聲稱要打一場讓對手 「技術看不懂、打擊難預測、速度跟不上」的高端戰爭。 美軍「馬賽克戰」的核心是無人、低成本、快速、致命、靈活、可重組，基於分散式態勢感知，借助智慧化輔助決策工具，借鑒搭積木、構拼圖的概念，自適應制定任務規劃 ，動態重組作戰兵力，將作戰平台的功能分解到更多數量、單一功能的節點，大量功能節點建構作戰體系。 以“殺傷網”取代“殺傷鏈”，若干個節點失效或缺失，作戰體係可自適應重組。
戰爭複雜性成長推動戰爭制勝機理轉變
隨著國防科技的快速發展、武器裝備的更新換代和戰爭形態的快速嬗變，現代戰爭呈現指數式、爆炸性的複雜變化。 這些變化看起來眼花撩亂，但背後是有規律可循的，根本的是戰爭的勝利機理變了。 只有搞透現代戰爭制勝機理，才能準確識變、科學應變、善於求變，牢牢掌握未來戰爭主動權。
戰爭形態由冷兵器戰爭轉變為智慧化戰爭。 戰爭形態是關於戰爭的整體性認知。 迄今為止，人類戰爭形態大致經歷了冷兵器戰爭、熱兵器戰爭、機械化戰爭、資訊戰爭四個歷史階段，正朝向智慧化戰爭邁進。 認知戰的歷史幾乎和人類戰爭史一樣久遠。 在冷兵器戰爭、熱兵器戰爭、機械化戰爭時代，認知戰更多是以輿論戰、心理戰形式出現。 隨著人類進入資訊化時代，網路空間科技的發展大大拓展了認知戰的空間，豐富了認知戰的戰技術手段，使認知戰的滲透性、時效性、震懾性大大增強，認 知戰的地位和作用得到空前提高。 未來，戰爭形態將進入智慧化戰爭，大量智慧化的武器系統和平台將裝備軍隊、投入作戰。 認知戰不僅可對敵方人員的認知實施幹擾、欺騙，也能透過「對抗性輸入」「資料中毒」等演算法欺騙手段對智慧裝備的認知實施攻擊，其應用場景和範圍將進一步擴大 ，地位和作用也將進一步提高。

無人機逐漸成為戰爭的主角，
作戰複雜性進一步增加
戰爭目的由武力征服更多向精神征服轉變。 現代戰爭的致勝機制與以往相比發生了很大變化，戰爭的暴力性得到遏制，作戰目的由原來的攻城略地、殲滅敵有生力量，轉變到使對方服從己方意志，作戰手段從武力征服更多地向 著重心理和精神征服轉變，這使得認知戰在現代戰爭中的地位、角色日益凸顯。 近年來，「混合戰爭」成為大國競爭的主要手段，越來越多的國家開始專注於利用新型領域、新型手段來達到傳統作戰難以達到的政治、軍事、經濟目的。 「混合戰爭」是國家、非國家行為體以及個人等戰爭主體的混合，是常規戰爭、非常規戰爭等戰爭樣式的混合，是作戰、維穩、重建等軍事行動的混合，是政治、軍事、經濟 、民生等多領域的混合，是擊敗敵軍、爭取民心等多種作戰目標的混合，這與認知戰高度契合。 「混合戰爭」的作戰領域由軍事領域拓展到了政治、經濟、文化、民生等領域；作戰方式由火力戰、兵力戰向外交戰、經濟戰、網路戰、心理戰、輿論戰等多方向拓展， 這與認知戰高度一致，其核心要義都是“亂中取利”，主要目的都是爭奪人心，作戰指導都是以巧取勝。
戰爭制勝域由物理域資訊域轉變為認知域。 現代戰爭同時發生在物理、資訊和認知三個領域，物理域和資訊域是從物質域中脫離出來的，認知域是從精神域中脫離出來的。 物理域是傳統的戰爭領域，由作戰平台和軍事設施等構成，為資訊化戰爭提供物質基礎。 資訊域是新崛起的戰爭領域，即資訊產生、傳輸和共享空間，是資訊化戰爭較量的重點。 認知域是人類認知活動涉及的範圍和領域，既是人類感覺、知覺、記憶和思考活動的空間，也是知識生成、交換、關聯、儲存和運用的空間，也是作戰活動中感知、判斷、決策 和指揮與控制的空間。 認知域存在於作戰人員的意識領域之中，影響其判斷與決策，是正在崛起的戰爭領域。 隨著網路資訊和人工智慧等技術的發展，認知域的範圍大大拓展，正在從人的意識領域向現代認知工具和人工智慧領域拓展。 軍事技術的發展拓展了認知域的範圍，為認知戰提供了更先進、更快捷、更有效的物質技術手段，使認知戰的滲透性、時效性、震懾性大大增強，從根本上 改變了認知戰，使得認知域成為超越物理域、資訊域的新的致勝領域，成為大國博弈、軍事對抗的終極之域。
戰爭制勝機理由資訊制勝向認知制勝轉變。 戰爭對抗歸根究柢是認知的博弈與對抗，掌握了製認知權很大程度上就掌握了戰爭主動權，喪失了製認知權就會在戰爭中處於被動挨打的境地。 獲得更高、更強的製認知權是製勝強敵的關鍵。 想辦法掌握制認知權進而奪取戰場綜合製權，從而以最小代價獲得最大勝利，是現代戰爭特別是認知戰的重要機理和內在規律。 近年來，美軍先後提出以「決策中心戰」「馬賽克戰」等為代表的未來戰爭新理念，意圖將複雜性作為一種為對手製造多重困境的武器，要求在保障自身戰術「選擇優勢」的 同時，透過給敵方製造高複雜度決策影響，幹擾其決策能力，在認知域實現對敵顛覆性優勢。 在資訊化戰爭的初級和中級階段，作戰的關鍵是奪取制網權和製資訊權，貫穿著「網路優勢→資訊優勢→決策優勢→作戰優勢」的遞進模式。 在資訊化戰爭進入高級階段後，奪取制資訊權變得越來越困難，作戰的關鍵是使敵方陷入“決策困境”，使其即使擁有資訊優勢，也不能正確決策，從而失去作戰優勢，擁有認 知優勢才能擁有作戰優勢。 未來戰爭，認知優勢是最重要的戰略優勢，認知對抗是最主要的對抗形式，可謂「無認知不戰爭」。
因應複雜戰爭催生認知中心戰作戰概念
為因應現代戰爭複雜性特徵指數級增長趨勢，我們必須運用複雜性科學的理論與方法，轉變以住平台中心戰火力至上、殺傷為王的觀念，確立以認知為中心的作戰思想。 認知中心戰，指以認知域為致勝領域，以奪取認知優勢為作戰目標，圍繞幹擾認知手段、壓制認知管道、影響認知產生，對敵人員和智慧裝備的認知進行 幹擾、壓制、欺騙和誘導，透過奪取和維持認知優勢來獲取作戰優勢的一種新型作戰概念。 其主要製勝機理有以下幾點。

《孫子兵法》中提到」故兵無常勢，
水無常形；能因敵變化而取勝者，謂之神「
以網路威懾摧毀敵方作戰意志。 針對敵政治、經濟、軍事、外交、文化中的矛盾弱點，透過網路空間散播威懾性訊息，或透過網路發布閱兵、大規模軍事演習、新式武器裝備研發等訊息，使對手認知與心理產生極 大的恐懼和震撼，遏止敵不利於我的行動舉措執行。 綜合運用網電攻擊手段，對敵重要網電目標和關鍵核心節點實施點穴式打擊和警示攻擊，破壞敵體係作戰能力，影響敵武器裝備效能的正常發揮，對敵實施心理威懾。 美軍「灰色地帶作戰」理論，就是依靠自身技術優勢，主要採取網電反制等行動，應對對手“灰色地帶挑釁”，威懾對手要么放棄“對抗”，要么衝突升級，使之陷入兩難境地。
以資訊欺騙誘導敵方錯誤判斷。 針對敵方的偵察設備、情報機構和指揮系統，透過網路攻擊、電子欺騙等手段隱藏己方軍事企圖、軍事行動和軍事目標，向敵方傳送有關己方的錯誤和虛假的作戰企圖、部隊配置、作戰 能力、作戰方案以及戰場態勢等方面的訊息，或借敵方指揮資訊系統發送虛假命令和訊息，達到誘敵錯誤判斷，擾敵作戰指揮的目的。 針對人工智慧演算法實施「對抗性輸入」「資料中毒」等新型攻擊，使其透過深度學習訓練得到我預設結論，或使其陷入局部最優解中而忽略全局最優。 利用電腦影像、視訊合成、虛擬實境和人工智慧等技術，將聲音、視訊、影像、文字訊息等進行合成，或利用「深度造假」技術，產生以假亂真、真假難辨的虛假訊息，並透過網路 大量傳播，以迷惑欺騙對手，影響其決策和行動。
以資訊壓制阻塞敵方認知手段。 針對敵重要網路目標，以及核心路由器、交換器、網關、重點伺服器等，使用「軟體」「硬」攻擊手段，摧毀其網路節點。 針對敵指揮控制網、通訊傳輸網、武器鉸鍊網和預警探測網等無線鏈路的組網特點，綜合運用電子乾擾、GPS欺騙攻擊、指控鏈路接管、數據劫持控制等技術和手段，壓制其 數據通信，阻斷其通信鏈路，幹擾其作戰指揮。 對敵指揮控制、軍事通訊、預警偵測、空天資訊等軍事網路實施網電致癱攻擊，毀癱影響其作戰的核心網絡，削弱其作戰能力。
以輿論宣傳營造有利輿論環境。 配合國家政治、軍事、外交鬥爭，大力宣傳己方在戰爭中的正義性，激發全體民眾全力支持戰爭的熱情。 借助即時通訊工具、網路論壇、播客、推特、微信等新媒體平台，有計劃地散佈打擊敵方弱點的信息，取得廣泛關注和普遍共鳴後，再適時報料、製造新的熱點，反复造勢 增強影響，形成共振效應擴大效果。 透過巧妙設定議程來進行宣傳“定調”，透過強勢媒體進行輿論造勢，掀起“沉默的螺旋”，控制和引導輿論，改變人們的看法和行為。

以法理鬥爭取得法理道義支持。 運用法律武器，遏止敵可能或將會發生的違法行為，宣告我方行動的合法性，申明我方軍事反擊權力，宣布我方追究戰爭責任的堅定性，給敵以震懾。 透過揭露敵方挑釁行為的違法性，抨擊敵方作戰行動的法律依據，譴責敵方的違法行徑，造成敵方戰略上的失利和己方戰略上的獲利。 運用法律手段，制約敵方的可能行動，限制第三人的可能干涉，阻滯其他方對己方行動的干擾。 制定我方作戰所需的法律、法規，為我方行動提供法律防護，或採取法律補救措施降低我方行動可能附帶的負面影響，保障作戰行動依法展開。

現代英語：

Cognition-centered warfare: operational concepts for dealing with complex wars

Complexity science is one of the frontier fields of contemporary scientific development. It is a new tool for understanding, understanding, and exploring the phenomena, laws, and mechanisms of war. As the form of war evolves from information war to intelligent war, the complexity of war shows an exponential growth trend, and it becomes increasingly difficult to seize control of information. The key to combat is to put the enemy into a “decision-making dilemma” so that it can even Even with information superiority, it cannot make correct decisions, thus losing its combat advantage. The focus of operations will change from “information-centered” to “cognition-centered”, and the winning mechanism will change from “information winning” to “cognitive winning”.

“Three changes” reveal the driving forces behind the increasing complexity of war

War is a field full of possibilities, and change is the basic characteristic that runs through it. President Xi stressed that we must pay close attention to changes in technology, war, and opponents. Changes in science and technology are the foundation, changes in war are the subject, and changes in opponents are the key. Changes in science and technology lead to changes in war, and changes in war prompt changes in opponents. The “three changes” have promoted the evolution of war forms, the expansion of war fields, the transformation of war goals, and the expansion of war influence, revealing the driving forces behind the growth of war complexity.

Technological changes have subverted the basis for winning wars. Science and technology are the core combat effectiveness and the most active and revolutionary factor in military development. Throughout the history of the world’s military development, every major scientific and technological innovation has started a new military revolution, and every military revolution has pushed military development into a new era. Scientific and technological innovation has become a huge engine to improve the military’s combat effectiveness. . At present, a new round of scientific and technological revolution and military revolution are accelerating. The degree of informatization of modern warfare is constantly increasing, and the characteristics of intelligence are becoming increasingly apparent. The role of driving the military revolution is becoming more and more prominent. The rapid development of some cutting-edge technologies may fundamentally change the face of war and war. According to the rules, the military game between great powers is more embodied in technological subversion and counter-subversion, raids and counter-raids, offsets and counter-offsets.

The U.S. Navy’s “Nemesis” project includes reconnaissance, decoy, jamming and other systems. The decoy system covers air, surface and underwater. Under the scheduling and control of the distributed artificial intelligence engine, it can complement each other, coordinate deception, and truly create a A “ghost aircraft carrier formation” completely subverted traditional electronic deception methods and raised information deception to an unprecedented level. It can be said that science and technology has never had such a profound impact on the overall situation of national security and military strategy as it does today. It has profoundly intervened in, supported, and dominated the evolution of war forms and the innovation of combat styles, and has even subverted the mechanism of winning wars.

The U.S. Navy’s “Nemesis” project is based on networked collaborative electronic warfare

Concept, integrating different systems and utilizing unmanned distributed Clusters of electronic warfare platforms enable large-scale collaborative electronic warfare
 

The changes in war highlight the complexity of war. 

Modern warfare is undergoing profound changes, showing unprecedented diversity and complexity. This super complexity stems from many reasons: first, various advanced technologies or weapons are constantly emerging, bringing many uncertainties; second, the battlefield covers land, sea, air, space, network, electricity and cognitive and other multiple third, multiple combat objects, combat styles, combat areas, and combat methods are cross-correlated and combined to form a complex “hybrid war”; fourth, artificial intelligence algorithms build a large number of combat elements into a complex logic, and use human Machine speed beyond the reach of thinking prompts the combination, deconstruction, and recombination of various elements. In the Ukraine crisis in 2022, on the surface it is a confrontation between Russia and Ukraine, but in essence it is a “hybrid war” between the United States and Western countries and Russia; the Russian and Ukrainian armies extensively use military and civilian drones to expand The “unmanned +” application model shows the prototype of future unmanned intelligent operations; with the support of U.S. NATO air and space situational intelligence, the Ukrainian army frequently uses low-cost unmanned equipment to carry out raids on important Russian weapons platforms, highlighting its new qualities Combat forces have asymmetric attack advantages against large weapons and equipment in traditional combat systems. Changes in technology will eventually lead to changes in war. The impact of a single element on war will become weaker and weaker. The joint combat system composed of multiple elements will have a complex impact on war. War is non-linear, uncertain, chaotic and open. Complex characteristics such as adaptability and confrontation will increase exponentially, which will make it more difficult for people to judge the progress and outcome of the war.

Changes in opponents accelerate the growth of war complexity. 

Changes in war prompt changes in opponents. Currently, we are experiencing major changes unseen in a century. Major military powers are actively making strategic adjustments and promoting a new round of military reforms, which exhibit the following characteristics: first, the trend of joint, miniaturized, and autonomous institutional establishments has become more obvious; second, The first is that weapons and equipment are showing a development trend of digitization, precision, stealth, unmanned, and intelligence; the third is that the combat form is moving towards the “four nons” (non-contact, non-linear, asymmetric and irregular) and the “three nos” (Invisible, silent, unmanned) combat; fourth, the military command form is developing in the direction of flattening, automation, networking, and seamlessness. The United States regards China as its main strategic opponent and strives to suppress and contain China. It has vigorously strengthened the innovation of operational concepts and has successively proposed new operational concepts such as “hybrid warfare”, “multi-domain warfare” and “mosaic warfare”, claiming that it will fight to defeat its opponents. A high-end war in which “technology cannot be understood, strikes are difficult to predict, and speed cannot keep up.” The core of the US military’s “mosaic warfare” is unmanned, low-cost, fast, lethal, flexible and reconfigurable. It is based on distributed situational awareness, with the help of intelligent auxiliary decision-making tools and the concept of building blocks and jigsaw puzzles to adaptively formulate mission planning. , dynamically reorganize combat forces, decompose the functions of the combat platform into a larger number of single-function nodes, and build a combat system with a large number of functional nodes. Replace the “kill chain” with a “kill network”. Several nodes will fail or be missing, and the combat system can be adaptively reorganized.

The increasing complexity of war drives the transformation of the winning mechanism of war

With the rapid development of national defense science and technology, the upgrading of weapons and equipment, and the rapid evolution of war forms, modern warfare has shown exponential and explosive complex changes. These changes may seem dazzling, but there are rules to follow behind them. The fundamental thing is that the winning mechanism of war has changed. Only by thoroughly understanding the winning mechanism of modern war can we accurately recognize changes, respond scientifically, be good at seeking change, and firmly grasp the initiative in future wars.

The form of war has changed from cold weapon warfare to intelligent warfare.

The shape of war is a holistic understanding of war. So far, human war has generally gone through four historical stages: cold weapon war, hot weapon war, mechanized war, and information war, and is moving towards intelligent warfare. The history of cognitive warfare is almost as old as the history of human warfare. In the era of cold weapon war, hot weapon war, and mechanized war, cognitive warfare appears more in the form of public opinion warfare and psychological warfare. As mankind enters the information age, the development of cyberspace technology has greatly expanded the space for cognitive warfare, enriched the technical means of cognitive warfare, and greatly enhanced the permeability, timeliness, and deterrence of cognitive warfare. The status and role of Zhizhan have been unprecedentedly improved. In the future, the form of war will enter intelligent warfare, and a large number of intelligent weapon systems and platforms will be equipped with the military and put into combat. Cognitive warfare can not only interfere with and deceive the cognition of enemy personnel, but also attack the cognition of smart equipment through algorithm deception methods such as “adversarial input” and “data poisoning”. Its application scenarios and scope will be further expanded. , the status and role will be further improved.

The purpose of war has changed from conquering by force to conquering by spirit. 

The winning mechanism of modern war has undergone great changes compared with the past. The violence of war has been curbed, and the purpose of combat has changed from the original siege of cities and territories and annihilation of the enemy’s effective forces to making the opponent obey one’s will. The means of combat have shifted from military conquest to focusing more on psychological and spiritual conquest, which has made cognitive warfare increasingly prominent in its status and role in modern warfare. In recent years, “hybrid warfare” has become a major means of great power competition. More and more countries have begun to focus on using new fields and new means to achieve political, military, and economic goals that are difficult to achieve with traditional warfare. “Hybrid war” is a mixture of war subjects such as states, non-state actors and individuals, a mixture of conventional warfare, unconventional warfare and other war styles, a mixture of military operations such as combat, stability maintenance and reconstruction, and a mixture of political, military and economic The mixture of multiple fields such as military and people’s livelihood is a mixture of multiple combat goals such as defeating the enemy and winning the hearts and minds of the people. This is highly consistent with cognitive warfare. The operational field of “hybrid warfare” has expanded from the military field to politics, economy, culture, people’s livelihood and other fields; the combat methods have expanded from firepower warfare and troop warfare to diplomatic warfare, economic warfare, cyber warfare, psychological warfare, public opinion warfare and other directions. This is highly consistent with cognitive warfare. Its core essence is to “make profit out of chaos”, its main purpose is to win people’s hearts, and its combat guidance is to win by cleverness.

The winning domain of war changes from the physical domain and information domain to the cognitive domain. 

Modern war occurs in three fields: physics, information and cognition at the same time. The physical domain and information domain are separated from the material domain, and the cognitive domain is separated from the spiritual domain. The physical domain is a traditional war domain, consisting of combat platforms and military facilities, which provides the material basis for information warfare. The information domain is a newly emerging war field, that is, the space for information generation, transmission and sharing, and is the focus of information warfare competition. Cognitive domain is the scope and field involved in human cognitive activities. It is not only the space for human feeling, perception, memory and thinking activities, but also the space for knowledge generation, exchange, association, storage and application. It is also the space for perception, judgment and decision-making in combat activities. and spaces of command and control. The cognitive domain exists in the field of consciousness of combatants and affects their judgment and decision-making. It is a rising field of warfare. With the development of technologies such as network information and artificial intelligence, the scope of the cognitive domain has greatly expanded, and is expanding from the field of human consciousness to the field of modern cognitive tools and artificial intelligence. The development of military technology has expanded the scope of the cognitive domain, providing more advanced, faster, and more effective material and technical means for cognitive warfare, greatly enhancing the permeability, timeliness, and deterrence of cognitive warfare, and fundamentally It has changed cognitive warfare, making the cognitive domain a new winning field that transcends the physical domain and information domain, and has become the ultimate domain for great power games and military confrontations.

The mechanism for winning wars changes from information victory to cognitive victory. 

War confrontation is ultimately a game and confrontation of cognition. If you have the right to control cognition, you will have the initiative in war to a large extent. If you lose the right to control cognition, you will be passive in the war. The situation of being beaten. Obtaining higher and stronger control rights is the key to defeating powerful enemies. Finding ways to control cognitive power and then seize comprehensive battlefield control, so as to achieve maximum victory at the minimum cost, is an important mechanism and inherent law of modern warfare, especially cognitive warfare. In recent years, the U.S. military has successively proposed new concepts of future warfare represented by “decision-centered warfare” and “mosaic warfare”, intending to use complexity as a weapon to create multiple dilemmas for opponents, requiring it to ensure its own tactical “selective advantage”. At the same time, by creating highly complex decision-making influences on the enemy and interfering with its decision-making capabilities, it can achieve a subversive advantage over the enemy in the cognitive domain. In the primary and intermediate stages of information warfare, the key to combat is to seize network control and information control, which runs through the progressive model of “network advantage → information advantage → decision-making advantage → combat advantage”. After information warfare enters an advanced stage, it becomes more and more difficult to seize control of information. The key to combat is to make the enemy fall into a “decision-making dilemma” so that even if it has information superiority, it cannot make correct decisions, thereby losing its combat advantage and having recognition. Only by knowing the advantages can you have the combat advantage. In future wars, cognitive advantage will be the most important strategic advantage, and cognitive confrontation will be the most important form of confrontation. It can be said that “without cognition, there is no war.”

Coping with complex wars has given rise to the concept of cognitive-centered warfare

In order to cope with the exponential growth trend of the complexity characteristics of modern warfare, we must use the theories and methods of complexity science to change the concept of platform-centered warfare where firepower is supreme and killing is king, and establish a cognitive-centered combat thinking. Cognition-centered warfare refers to taking the cognitive domain as the winning area, taking the cognitive advantage as the operational goal, and focusing on interfering with cognitive means, suppressing cognitive channels, affecting cognitive production, and conducting cognitive operations on enemy personnel and intelligent equipment. Interference, suppression, deception and inducement are a new operational concept that obtains combat advantages by seizing and maintaining cognitive advantages. Its main winning mechanisms are as follows.

Use cyber deterrence to destroy the enemy’s will to fight. 

Targeting at the enemy’s political, economic, military, diplomatic, and cultural contradictions and weaknesses, disseminate deterrent information through cyberspace, or publish military parades, large-scale military exercises, new weapons and equipment research and development and other information through the Internet , causing great fear and shock to the opponent’s cognition and psychology, and deterring the enemy is not conducive to the implementation of my actions. Comprehensive use of network and electricity attack methods to carry out point strikes and warning attacks against the enemy’s important network and electricity targets and key core nodes, destroying the enemy’s system combat capabilities, affecting the normal performance of the enemy’s weapons and equipment, and providing psychological deterrence to the enemy. The US military’s “gray zone operations” theory relies on its own technological advantages and mainly takes actions such as cyber and electronic countermeasures to respond to the opponent’s “gray zone provocation” and deter the opponent from giving up “confrontation” or escalating the conflict, putting it in a dilemma.

Use information deception to induce the enemy to make wrong judgments. 

Aiming at the enemy’s reconnaissance equipment, intelligence agencies and command systems, conceal one’s military intentions, military operations and military objectives through cyber attacks, electronic deception and other means, and transmit to the enemy errors and information about one’s own False information on combat intentions, troop configurations, combat capabilities, combat plans, and battlefield situations, or use the enemy’s command information system to send false orders and information to induce the enemy to make wrong judgments and disrupt the enemy’s combat command. Implement new attacks such as “adversarial input” and “data poisoning” against artificial intelligence algorithms, allowing them to obtain preset conclusions through deep learning training, or causing them to fall into local optimal solutions and ignore the global optimal. Use technologies such as computer imaging, video synthesis, virtual reality, and artificial intelligence to synthesize sounds, videos, images, text information, etc., or use “deep fake” technology to generate false information that is difficult to distinguish between true and false and transmit it through the Internet Spread in large quantities to confuse and deceive opponents and influence their decisions and actions.

Use information suppression to block the enemy’s cognitive means. 

Aim at the enemy’s important network targets, as well as core routers, switches, gateways, key servers, etc., and use “soft” and “hard” attack methods to destroy their network nodes. Based on the networking characteristics of wireless links such as the enemy’s command and control network, communication transmission network, weapon hinge network, and early warning detection network, comprehensively use technologies and means such as electronic jamming, GPS spoofing attacks, command link takeover, and data hijacking control to suppress them. Data communication, blocking its communication links and interfering with its combat command. Implement cyber-paralysis attacks on enemy command and control, military communications, early warning detection, aerospace information and other military networks, destroying core networks that affect their operations and weakening their combat capabilities.

Create a favorable public opinion environment through public opinion propaganda.

Cooperate with the country’s political, military, and diplomatic struggles, vigorously promote one’s own justice in the war, and stimulate the enthusiasm of all people to fully support the war. With the help of new media platforms such as instant messaging tools, online forums, podcasts, Twitter, and WeChat, we can systematically disseminate information that targets the enemy’s weaknesses. After gaining widespread attention and consensus, we can then promptly report information, create new hot spots, and repeatedly build momentum. Enhance the influence and form a resonance effect to expand the effect. Propaganda “sets the tone” by cleverly setting agendas, building public opinion through powerful media, setting off a “spiral of silence”, controlling and guiding public opinion, and changing people’s opinions and behaviors.

Use psychological attacks to undermine the morale of enemy soldiers and civilians. 

Widely disseminate processed and processed information through the Internet, promote one’s own justice, demonstrate one’s strength, will and determination, vilify the enemy politically and morally, and internally Gather the thoughts and will of the military and civilians, strive for the legal and moral commanding heights externally, and spiritually “soften” and “weaken” the enemy. Use a variety of network communication methods and technical means to send various deceptive, disruptive, inductive, and deterrent messages to the enemy’s military and civilians in a targeted manner to attack the enemy’s psychological defense line, promote an ineffective confrontation mentality, and then lose the combat capability. . Through the Internet, we can create, guide, plan, build, and expand momentum to create a “momentum” that is beneficial to ourselves but not beneficial to the enemy, causing a psychological impact on the other party’s people, thereby affecting or changing their psychological state, and implementing effective psychological attacks.

Watch legal and moral support through legal struggle. 

Use legal weapons to curb the enemy’s possible or future illegal acts, declare the legality of our actions, affirm our power of military counterattack, declare our determination to pursue war responsibilities, and give To intimidate the enemy. By exposing the illegality of the enemy’s provocative behavior, criticizing the legal basis for the enemy’s combat operations, and condemning the enemy’s illegal behavior, it causes the enemy’s strategic defeat and our own strategic gain. Use legal means to restrict the enemy’s possible actions, limit the possible interference of third parties, and block other parties from interfering with our own actions. Formulate the laws and regulations necessary for our operations to provide legal protection for our operations or take legal remedial measures to reduce the possible negative impacts of our operations and ensure that combat operations are carried out in accordance with the law.

中國原始軍事參考資料 http://www.81it.com/2023/1109/88888.html