Category Archives: Chinese Military Views – 中國軍事觀

China Cyber Dilemma in the 21st Century, China's Informatization - 中國信息化, China's Military Infratsructure, Chinese Hacker Methodology 中國黑客, Chinese Military - Network & Space Forces, Chinese Military Views - 中國軍事觀

Chinese Military Analysis of American Information Warfare Strategy Theory and Its Practical Conception // 中國對美國信息戰戰略理論的軍事分析及其實踐觀

10/02/2018 admin Leave a comment

Chinese Military Analysis of American Information Warfare Strategy Theory and Its Practical Conception //

中國對美國信息戰戰略理論的軍事分析及其實踐觀

By 胡堅

From various news media, we can often read reports of hacking attacks on US information systems and computer networks, especially when the United States is arrogant and provocative in the world. . As a country with the most reliance on computers and information technology and the most popular application in the world, the vulnerability of the US information system and the vulnerability caused by its huge number are obvious. However, we must not forget that the United States is not only the only superpower in the world today, but also the number one information technology power. The importance of the United States to information warfare and the depth of research are unmatched by any country in the world. In addition to theoretical research, the United States has conducted several information warfare simulations and practical exercises of varying sizes. The US information war strategy is consistent with the starting point of its global military strategic thinking and is based on aggressiveness and expansion. While arguing and even exaggerating hackers pose a serious threat to its information infrastructure, on the other hand, the United States is quietly taking an active position in its information warfare in the future, and even launching large-scale information to other countries. Attack and make positive preparations. Therefore, people should not take it lightly and relax their vigilance. This article intends to briefly explain some important viewpoints of the United States on the strategic theory of information warfare for reference.
    I. The United States’ definition of information warfare The
    United States has been studying information warfare theory for a long time, and has published a large number of research literatures in this area, but the definition of information warfare has been constantly revised and improved. At the beginning of 1996, the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States gave an earlier definition of
    information warfare : information warfare refers to the impact of capturing information superiority, the enemy information systems and computer networks, and the existing information systems and Facilities such as computer networks are protected and information is taken.
    The above includes two aspects of attack and protection of the information infrastructure (NII). In October 1998, the Joint Chiefs of Staff made a perfection and supplement to the definition of information warfare in the newly promulgated “Information Warfare Common Dogma”. The most striking thing is that it is the first time in the form of government documents. The National Information Infrastructure (NII) is included in the scope of the information warfare. There are two main points: First, civilian facilities such as telephone, electric power and air traffic control systems will become the targets of information warfare attacks; second, the act of using any means to interfere with and destroy the enemy’s information decision-making process has been put into practice. .
    The above definition shows that in order to achieve its strategic goals, the United States will not hesitate to destroy the vital infrastructure of a country as a means to force the other party to submit, in the process, it does not care about any loss that may be caused to civilians. With casualties. This was fully taught in the conflict that erupted in Kosovo from April to June 1999.
    Second, the enemy
    of information warfare The definition of the enemy of the information warfare in the United States is very complicated and ambiguous. The definition in the “Information Warfare Common Dogma” is as follows:
    “The enemy of information warfare refers to the influence of my decision makers. Information threats and terrorist acts that are organized, premeditated and politically motivated or politically motivated. Hackers, individuals or organized criminals, internal apostates, industrial and economic agents who attack attacks on protected information systems and Terrorists are among the following.
    From this definition, we can find that under certain circumstances, the United States can include foreign individuals or organizations, even a sovereign country, among its opponents of information warfare. Let us take an analogy: an energy company in a third world country negotiates with a US company and intends to purchase the electric equipment produced by the latter. Since the energy company’s information management system was purchased from the Netherlands and managed by Dutch engineering and technical personnel, these managers inadvertently learned about the transaction and reported the home country company, which led to the involvement of Dutch power equipment manufacturing companies. Competing with US companies ultimately led to major changes in the outcome of the deal. So the Dutch contender has in fact become a hostile party to the US information warfare.
    Third, the strategic considerations of information warfare
    The US information war strategy is one of the means of dismantling the enemy and forcing the opponent to obey the will of the United States and act according to the will of the United States. The explanation in the “Information Warfare Common Dogma” is as follows:
    “In the peace year and the initial stage of the crisis, information warfare may be the best deterrent means to exert influence on the other party. Information warfare is to resolve the crisis and shorten the confrontation cycle. Enhancing the effectiveness of intelligence, diplomacy, economic and military means, and avoiding the use of mercenaries in conflict zones will play a major role.”
    Please pay close attention to the “best deterrent measures in peace years…” In a word, this is a very threatening phrase because it shows that the United States can initiate an information attack from any country that it considers to be an opponent without declaring war. That is to say, in the form of a formal program document, the United States has unambiguously stated to the world that information warfare will be an effective tool for intervening in other countries’ internal affairs and interfering in other countries’ internal affairs during the years of peace.
    US information warfare expert William Church From the above theory, several different types of conflicts or crises in the world that may occur in the future, information warfare is proposed to solve several hypothetical means:
    one hypothetical: war territorial dispute triggered by
the first Second British, Ama Island War. The traditional war process is considered to be that Argentina once again sent troops and reclaimed the Malvinas Islands (Falkland Islands). The United Kingdom is convinced that Argentina is difficult to find international carriers because it does not have aircraft carriers and intercontinental ballistic missiles. Holding the island, the end of the war will still be the same as last time, with the British sending a powerful fleet to attack the island, Argentina defeated and summed, Britain won the return to the island.
    But after considering the factors of information warfare, another situation may arise. Since information warfare will become an important weapon in future wars, Argentina can make full use of it to change its obvious weakness and counterattack Britain. And the final peace talks opportunity may also be created by the clever use of information warfare. In the war, the information warfare that Argentina can implement has the following aspects:
    1. Obstructing each other’s war preparations: Through the means of information attacks, the British military’s communication systems and equipment are ineffective, destroying the British military’s personnel and equipment database, delaying the preparations for war in the UK, and increasing the huge expenditure for this. In the end, it may even force the British government to reconsider its ability and feasibility to take military action.
    2. Psychological warfare changes the public opinion of the British public: psychological warfare can be varied, from spreading rumors to creating false news and stories that can dominate the entire paradox. The effect of using psychological warfare alone may not be ideal, but if combined with other means of information warfare, it can produce excellent results.
    3. Creating a national information infrastructure crisis: If Argentina can launch an effective attack on the UK’s telecommunications, telephone, rail and air traffic control information infrastructure, it will be paralyzed or awkward. In this case, the British government wants to The determination to send troops to a war thousands of miles away will be difficult. In the half-month voyage of the aircraft carrier battle group to the destination, the voices and plans for seeking a peaceful solution that accompanied the domestic panic are likely to be brewing or negotiating.
    4. Destroy the economic and financial means of maintaining war in the UK: weaknesses and shortcomings in the financial system can be exploited to create financial crises and panic. In 1998, there was an incident in the US stock market that caused the stock index to fall 200 points in just a few minutes due to computer program errors. The cause of the incident was that when a computer program reported the proceeds of several investment funds, the data was wrong due to incorrect programming. As a result, the stock price fluctuations of these funds caused a French businessman to be shocked and first hit. The order of immediately throwing the disk, the result triggered a panic that should not have occurred, causing the stock market to plummet, and many companies and shareholders suffered heavy losses. Information warfare experts believe that such defects can be replicated by means of information. It can attract the attention of the government and create a serious illusion of economic problems, thus affecting the government’s decision-making and financial support for war.
    Hypothesis 2: Disagreements caused by economic dependence
    Singapore is a city with a combination of international trading port, Far East financial center and Southeast Asian sea transportation center. It is economically developed and the people are rich, but it is a small country. The neighboring Malaysia is vast, but it is very poor and backward. Due to the small size of the country, Singapore’s air routes will pass through the southern part of Malaysia. This route is called the “air corridor” and it is a lifeline of Singapore. Although the two countries are both ASEAN countries, the relationship is still good, but there have been differences in how to use the “air corridor.” If one day Malaysia refuses to continue to use Singapore’s route through its airspace, the differences between the two countries may develop into a confrontation.
    Information warfare can have many different ways of expression in this dispute. The most noticeable thing is that Singapore refused to provide advanced air traffic control services to Malaysia to pressure Malaysia to surrender and was forced to sit down and negotiate to solve the problem. And disputes. Because there is no binding clause in international law for such retaliation, once such incidents occur, it will surely attract strong attention from the international community.
    The illusion of three:
    a typical example of military confrontation and nuclear competition is the nuclear race and long-term military confrontation between India and Pakistan. Information weapons are likely to play a key role in resolving and eliminating this growing competition. The use of advanced electromagnetic pulse weapons, or the use of hacker infiltration methods to smash the nuclear weapons control information system and destroy the database of research data, can shake the nuclear weapons research programs of these two countries. This approach can also be extended to attack and destroy all important manufacturing, production and test equipment.
    The illusion of the fourth: to change the attitude of a country from the eradication of the economy
    In the information war, do not underestimate the impact of the National Information Infrastructure (NII) attack, it can give attackers an ideal opportunity to manipulate the economic situation of the other side. The direct result is that it can force hostile countries to greatly reduce their military spending, turn their financial resources to restore the economy, or force hostile countries to move from confrontation to easing.
    Let us use an imaginary information attack example to illustrate its great destructiveness: A country confronts with B. During this period, State A found that B has an important water conservancy project (such as the river dam) and the national economy and people’s livelihood. It is closely related, so the country took the means of information attack, invaded and took over the monitoring and management system of the dam, and by changing the water storage capacity of the dam reservoir, it achieved the purpose of significantly changing the climate dry humidity in a certain area of B; Further, if State A puts a virus or destructive code in the dam’s control system, the reservoir’s control and regulation system suddenly fails at critical moments (such as the flood season), and as a result, the reservoir is lost due to flooding. The role of flooding, causing serious natural disasters and economic losses, in the end, the original economic advantages of the country B completely lost, under the pressure of internal and external, the country B had to succumb to the country.
    The illusion of the fifth: the use of information weapons to obtain the same effect of using weapons of mass destruction in information warfare research, a problem that US information warfare experts are very interested in is: using information attacks, can create similar pearls of the year The massive damage effect of the Hong Kong incident? The conclusion is that, in theory, this possibility is completely present and necessary in hostile action, because it can greatly weaken the other’s ability to respond, resulting in the same possible military cost. effect. However, to achieve this, it is impossible to achieve without careful planning and sufficient resources to support and support. The US research program in this area is highly classified and unknown to outsiders.
    The US military strategy theory believes that a country’s infrastructure can be greatly weakened by exerting a long-lasting military strike against it. But the ultimate goal of this is to clear the obstacles for the peace talks and force the other party to accept harsh conditions for peace talks. To this end, not only detailed and thorough target strike plans and multiple simulation rehearsals for attack plans, but also contingency measures in case of retaliatory counterattacks, as well as a complete command and logistics support system, etc., are required. Wait. NATO’s humanitarian signage and the brutal invasion of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia are an actual rehearsal of this theory.
    four. The traditional strategic defense priority theory faces severe challenges
    In the spring of 1998, American military experts Stephen Van Evra and Charles L. Glazer published the “Attack, Defence, and War Causes” in the American Journal of International Security, Vol. 22, No. 4. “The concept of “attack and defense balance point and its measurement” and many other articles, that during the Cold War after World War II, it belongs to the era of strategic defense theory. At that time, the confrontational East and West sides were evenly matched and indifferent to each other in terms of the quantity and quality of their own conventional weapons and nuclear weapons. They always tried to avoid direct conflicts and confrontation. The main concern of both sides at the time was the balance and constraints of each other.
    But nowadays, due to the emergence of a new war mode—-the emergence of information warfare, it is possible to use information attacks to directly attack the infrastructure of a country. Especially in information warfare, the cost of the attacker is far less than that of the defender. Therefore, some military experts in the United States believe that the old strategic theory must be revised to meet the needs of the new situation. In addition, they also stressed that implementation of the new strategic theory, depends on three factors simultaneously:
    · On the basis of a strong military machine as a backup and security, and gradually reduce the investment in traditional military equipment;
    · globalization The neoliberal trend of thought and the appreciation and acceptance of global market mechanisms;
    • The dependence of developed and developing countries on information infrastructure is growing. The heart of speculation can be seen here.
    American military critic Lawrence Friedman made a profound understanding and elaboration of the above-mentioned theory among American military personnel: “Western countries (the United States and NATO) have never considered the ultimate in developing military capabilities. The way of thinking has developed to such a dangerous point: if the military strength cannot reach the full overwhelming tendency of the enemy and the enemy has no power to fight, it cannot be regarded as qualified; the purpose of military action is to follow the set. The plan creates a very favorable negotiating position for one’s own side. Therefore, this time (the introduction of the new strategic theory), it is also necessary to take the lead in the comprehensive consideration of various factors.”

Original Mandarin Chinese:

從各種新聞媒體上，我們經常可以讀到美國的信息系統和計算機網絡遭到黑客攻擊的報導，特別是當美國在世界上蠻橫霸道、挑起事端時，這種攻擊就愈發激烈。作為世界上對計算機和信息技術依賴最重、應用最普及的一個國家，美國信息系統的易受攻擊性和由其龐大數量所帶來的脆弱性，是顯而易見的。但是，我們不要忘了，美國不僅是當今世界上唯一的超級大國，而且也是頭號信息技術強國，美國對信息戰的重視程度和研究的深度，是世界上任何一個國家都無法比擬的。除理論研究外，美國還進行過多次規模不等的信息戰模擬和實戰演習。美國的信息戰戰略，與其全球軍事戰略思想的出發點一致，也是建立在攻擊性和擴張性基礎上的。在大肆宣揚甚至誇張黑客對其信息基礎設施構成了嚴重威脅的同時，另一方面，美國卻在不聲不響地為其未來在信息戰戰爭中佔據主動地位、乃至向他國發動大規模的信息攻擊，進行著積極的準備。因此，人們切不可以掉以輕心，放鬆警惕。本文擬對美國在信息戰戰略理論上的一些重要觀點做一簡要的闡述，以供參考。
一、美國對信息戰的定義
美國對信息戰理論的研究由來已久，並發布過大量這方面的研究文獻，但對信息戰的定義卻一直在不斷地修改和完善之中。 1996年初，美國參謀長聯席會議曾給信息戰下過一個較早的定義：
信息戰是指為奪取信息優勢，對敵方信息系統與計算機網絡等設施施加影響，並對已方的信息系統和計算機網絡等設施進行保護，所採取的信息行動。
上述的內容包括對信息基礎設施（NII）的攻擊與防護兩個方面。 1998年10月，參謀長聯席會議在最新頒布的《信息戰共同教條》中，又對信息戰的定義做了完善和補充，其中最引人注目的，就是它首次以政府文件的形式，把國家信息基礎設施（NII）列入了信息戰打擊的對象範圍之內。其要點有二：一是民用設施如電話、電力與空中交通管制系統等，將會成為信息戰攻擊的目標；二是把用任何手段干擾和破壞敵方信息決策過程的行為，付諸了條文。
上述定義說明，為了實現自己的戰略目標，美國將不惜以摧毀一個國家生死攸關的基礎設施為手段，來達到迫使對方就範的目的，而在此過程中，它並不在乎可能給平民帶來的任何損失與傷亡。 1999年4-6月在科索沃爆發的衝突中，人們就充分領教了這一點。
二、信息戰的敵方
美國對於信息戰敵對一方的定義，是十分複雜而又含混的，在《信息戰共同教條》中的定義如下：
“信息戰的敵方，是指影響我決策者的有組織、有預謀並帶有政治目的或受政治動機所激發的信息威脅與恐怖行為。對受保護的信息系統發動攻擊的黑客、個人或有組織的罪犯、內部變節者、工業和經濟間諜及恐怖主義分子，均屬此列。”
從該定義中我們可以發現，在特定情況下，美國可以把國外的個人或組織、甚至某個主權國家，都納入其信息戰的對手之列。我們不妨來打一個比方：某個第三世界國家的能源公司與美國某企業進行商談，打算購買後者生產的電力設備。由於該能源公司的信息管理系統購自荷蘭，且受荷蘭工程技術人員管理，這些管理人員在無意中知悉了這一交易，並報告了母國公司，結果使荷蘭的電力設備製造公司也介入進來，與美國公司開展競爭，最終使這筆交易的結果發生了很大的變化。於是荷蘭的這個競爭者，事實上就成了美國信息戰的敵對一方。
三、信息戰的戰略考慮
美國的信息戰戰略，是把它作為瓦解敵方，強制對手順從美國的意願，按美國的意志行事的手段之一。在《信息戰共同教條》中的闡述如下：
“在和平年月以及危機爆發的最初階段，信息戰有可能是對對方施加影響的最好的威懾手段。信息戰對於化解危機、縮短對抗週期，增強情報、外交、經濟與軍事手段的效能，盡量避免在衝突地區採用僱傭軍等，都將發揮重大的作用。”
請仔細注意上文中“在和平年月……的最好的威懾手段”這一段話，這是非常具有威脅性的辭句，因為它表明美國可以從自身的利益出發，在不宣戰的情況下向任何一個它認為是對手的國家發起信息攻擊。也就是說，美國以正式的綱領文件的形式，向世人明白無誤地聲明了信息戰將是它在和平年月時介入別國內部事務、干涉別國內政的一個有效的工具。
美國信息戰專家威廉·丘奇從上述理論出發，對未來世界上可能發生的幾種不同類型的衝突或危機，提出了幾種假想的信息戰解決手段：
假想之一：領土爭端引發的戰爭
第二次英、阿馬島戰爭。傳統的戰爭進程考慮是，阿根廷再次出兵，收回了馬爾維納斯群島（福克蘭群島），英國確信阿根廷由於沒有航空母艦和洲際彈道導彈，以及難以尋求到國際上的實質性援助，所以很難守住馬島，因此戰爭的結局仍會同上次一樣，以英國派出強大的艦隊向馬島發起進攻，阿根廷戰敗求和，英國奪回馬島而告終。
但是考慮信息戰的因素後，就可能出現另外的情況，由於信息戰在未來戰爭中必將成為一個重要的武器，阿根廷可以充分利用它來改變自己的明顯弱勢，反擊英國。並且最終的和談機會，也可能由對信息戰的巧妙運用而營造出來。在戰爭中，阿根廷可以實施的信息戰手段有以下幾個方面：
1.阻礙對方的戰爭準備：通過信息攻擊手段，使英國軍方的通信系統和設備喪失效能，破壞英軍的人員和裝備數據庫，遲緩英國的戰爭準備，並使其為此增加巨大的開支。最終，甚至可能迫使英國政府重新考慮它採取軍事行動的能力和可行性。
2.以心理戰改變英國公眾的輿論向背：心理戰的方式可以有多種多樣，從散佈各種謠言，到製造能夠主導整個輿論向背的虛假新聞和故事等等，不一而足。單獨採用心理戰的手法效果可能不會很理想，但若是與信息戰的其他手段結合使用，則可以產生出色的效果。
3.製造國家信息基礎設施危機：如果阿根廷能對英國的電信、電話、鐵路與航空管制等信息基礎設施發起有效的攻擊，使其陷入癱瘓或半癱瘓，在這種情況下，英國政府要想出兵進行一場遠在幾千英里之外的戰爭，其決心將會是很難下的。在航空母艦戰鬥群開赴目的地的半個多月航程中，伴隨著國內恐慌而誕生的尋求和平解決的呼聲及方案，很可能就已經在醞釀或商談之中。
4.破壞英國維持戰爭的經濟和財源手段：金融體制上的弱點和缺陷，可以被利用來製造金融危機和恐慌。 1998年，美國股市曾發生一起因電腦程序錯誤導致在短短幾分鐘內股指狂跌200點的事件。事件的起因是，一個電腦程序在報告幾個投資基金的收益時，由於程序設計有誤使數據出錯，結果引起這幾個基金股價的波動，一位法國商人見狀大驚失色，首先打出“立即拋盤”的指令，結果引發了一場本來不該發生的恐慌，造成股市大跌，不少企業和股東損失慘重。信息戰專家認為，這種缺陷是可以利用信息手段進行複制的，它可以吸引政府的注意力，造成一種經濟問題嚴重的假象，從而影響政府對戰爭的決策與財力支持。
假想之二：經濟依存關係導致的分歧
新加坡是一個集國際貿易港、遠東金融中心、東南亞海上交通中心於一身的城市國家，經濟發達、人民富裕，但卻是個彈丸小國；而毗鄰的馬來西亞國土遼闊，但卻十分貧困和落後。由於國土很小，新加坡的空中航線要穿過馬來西亞的南部地區，這段航線被叫做“空中走廊”，它是新加坡的一條生命線。兩國雖同屬東盟國家，關係尚好，但在如何使用“空中走廊”上一直存在分歧。如果有一天馬來西亞拒絕新加坡繼續使用穿越其領空的這條航線，兩國之間的分歧就可能會發展成為一種對抗。
信息戰在這場糾紛中可以有很多不同的表現方式，而最能引起人們注意的，就是新加坡以拒絕向馬來西亞提供先進的空中交通管制服務，來壓馬來西亞屈服，最終被迫坐下來談判解決問題和糾紛。因為國際法中沒有對這種報復行為的約束條款，一旦這類事件發生，必將引起國際社會強烈的注意。
假象之三：軍事對峙與核競賽
這方面的典型例子是印度、巴基斯坦的核競賽與長期軍事對峙。而信息武器在化解和消弭這場愈演愈烈的對抗賽中，有可能發揮關鍵的作用。利用先進的電磁脈衝武器，或者採取黑客滲透的方法來癱瘓雙方核武器的控制信息系統、破壞其存放研究資料的數據庫，可以動搖這兩個國家的核武器研究計劃。這種方法還能夠擴大到對所有重要的製造、生產與試驗設備進行攻擊和破壞。
假象之四：從搞垮經濟入手轉變一個國家的態度
在信息戰中，切不要小看對國家信息基礎設施（NII）的攻擊效果，它可以使攻擊者獲得一個理想的操縱對方經濟形勢的機會，其直接的結果，就是能夠迫使敵對國大大減少其軍事開支、將財力轉向恢復經濟，或者使敵對國被迫從對抗走向緩和。
讓我們用一個假象的信息攻擊的例子，來說明它的巨大破壞性：甲國與乙國發生對抗，在此期間，甲國發現乙國有一個重要的水利工程（如攔河大壩）與國計民生息息相關，於是甲國採取信息攻擊的手段，入侵並接管了這個大壩的監控管理系統，並通過改變大壩水庫蓄水量的做法，達到了明顯改變乙國某地區氣候乾濕度的目的；更進一步，如果甲國在大壩的控制系統中安放了病毒或破壞性的代碼，使水庫的控制調節系統在關鍵時刻（如洪澇季節）突然失靈，結果在洪水來臨時水庫喪失了應有的調節作用，造成洪水氾濫，產生嚴重的自然災害和經濟損失，最終，乙國原有的經濟優勢完全喪失，在內外壓力下，乙國不得不屈服於甲國。
假象之五：用信息武器獲得採用大規模毀傷性武器得到的同樣效果在信息戰研究中，美國的信息戰專家們很感興趣的一個問題是：利用信息攻擊手段，能否創造出類似當年珍珠港事件那樣的大規模毀傷效果？結論是，從理論上講，這種可能性是完全存在的，而且在敵對行動中非常必要，因為它能夠大大削弱對方的應變能力，從而產生要花極大的軍事代價才有可能得到的同樣效果。但是，要想做到這一點，沒有周密的計劃和足夠的資源配合與支持，是不可能實現的。美國在這方面的研究計劃被列入高度機密，外人無從知曉。
美國的軍事戰略理論認為，一個國家的基礎設施，可以通過對其施以長時間持續不斷的軍事打擊，來予以大大削弱。但這樣做的最終目的，是為和談掃清障礙，迫使對方接受苛刻的和談條件。為此，不但需要詳細而又周密的目標打擊計劃和針對攻擊行動方案的多次模擬預演，還要製定在遭到對方報復性反擊情況下的應變措施，以及完善的指揮與後勤保障系統，等等。北約打著人道主義招牌，對南聯盟實施的野蠻入侵行為，就是對這一理論的一次實際預演。
四．傳統的戰略防禦優先理論面臨嚴峻的挑戰
1998年春，美國軍事專家斯蒂芬·範·埃弗拉與查爾斯·L·格拉澤等人，在美國出版的刊物《國際安全》第22卷第4期上，發表了“進攻，防禦與戰爭的起因”、“攻防平衡點的概念及其度量”等多篇文章，認為二戰後的冷戰期間，屬於戰略防禦理論優先的時代。那時，對峙的東、西雙方在各自擁有的常規武器和核武器的數量與質量上，勢均力敵、難分伯仲，彼此都忌憚三分，因此總是力求避免爆發直接的衝突和對抗。當時雙方關注的主要問題，是相互的平衡與製約。
但是如今，由於新的戰爭模式—-信息戰的出現，使利用信息攻擊手段直接打擊一個國家的基礎設施成為了可能，尤其是在信息戰中，進攻方的代價要遠遠小於防禦方，因此美國的一些軍事專家們認為，必須修改舊的戰略理論，以適應新的形勢發展的需要。此外，他們還強調新的戰略理論的實施，有賴於以下三個因素的同步進行：
·在有強大軍事機器作為後盾和保障的基礎上，逐步降低在傳統軍事裝備上的投資；
·對全球化的新自由主義思潮，以及全球市場機制採取讚賞和接受的態度；
·發達國家和發展中國家對信息基礎設施的依賴越來越大。叵測之心，於此可窺一斑。
美國軍事評論家勞倫斯·弗里德曼，對美國軍方人士中的上述理論，作了深刻的認識和闡述：“西方國家（美國和北約）在發展軍事能力上，是永遠沒有終極考慮的。其思想方式已經發展到瞭如此危險的地步：軍事實力若不能達到對敵呈完全壓倒之勢、使敵方毫無招架之力，則不能算做合格；軍事行動的目的，就是要按照即定的計劃，為己方製造出一個極為有利的談判地位。因此這一次（新的戰略理論思想的提出），同樣是在綜合考慮各種因素的前提下，要想把先機佔盡。”

Original Referring url: http://old.globalview.cn/

China Internet Soverignty, China National Cyber Security Strategy, China's Informatization - 中國信息化, Chinese Military - Network & Space Forces, Chinese Military Views - 中國軍事觀, Strategic Support Forces, 中华人民共和国网络安全法, 中國軍事應用與比特幣在未來戰爭中的應用, 國家網絡空間安全戰略

Chinese Military Information Warfare: The First Game of Modern Warfare // 中國軍事信息戰：現代戰爭的第一場戰爭

10/01/2018 admin Leave a comment

Chinese Military Information Warfare: The First Game of Modern Warfare //

中國軍事信息戰：現代戰爭的第一場戰爭

　　The transformation of the characteristics of war is always motivated by the advancement of science and technology. If “information-led” is the characteristic of the era of today’s war, then the essence of this feature is “the dominance of information technology.” Information warfare is a new combat force that is fostered and fueled by information technology innovation.

Information warfare is the new quality of combat power

“knowing one’s own confidant, no wars, no war” has always been the only rule of war victory, it actually embodies the important role of “information” in the war. Since ancient times, the military has always been pursuing the dispelling of “the fog of war”, reducing the probabilistic nature of the war, and taking the lead. At the same time, it hopes to quickly gather the fighting energy with accurate and timely information to make the enemy win the enemy. Nowadays, the heroic pace of human innovation in information technology has driven the rapid development of society. The myth of “thousands of eyes and ears” has long been a reality. While the results of information technology innovation and development are fully utilized for war, they are also constantly promoting the transformation of the combat capability generation model.
The germination of information warfare can be traced back to the beginning of the last century. Shortly after the advent of the radio telegraph, Russian scientist Popov proposed the idea of radio communication struggle in 1903. In the Japanese-Russian War that broke out in 1904, the two sides used radio communication for the first time. One day in April of that year, the Russian military operator subconsciously used the radio station to interfere with the shooting and guiding communication of the Japanese fleet, forcing the Japanese to return without success. The original sprout of this technical idea gave birth to a new way of warfare, and the information war began to enter the stage of war. The highly developed information technology has made “systems based on information systems” a feature of today’s war. It should be said that systemic confrontation is not a form of engagement that exists today. Both sides of the war have sought to form a strong operational system. In different historical periods, the system has different manifestations. Today’s combat system is an unprecedentedly powerful combat system that relies on networked information systems. An important manifestation of information technology playing a leading role in modern warfare is to promote the rapid development of information warfare. At the same time that “information-led” became the identifier of modern warfare, information warfare began to leap into a new kind of combat power.
Having a strong information power makes an army savvy and responsive, and the integration of information power into the strike force increases the military’s operational effectiveness into a geometric progression. Information warfare is the first sword to break the efficient integration of information firepower.
Information power is the ability to acquire, transmit, process, and use information. The enhancement of information means that information is acquired more and more comprehensively, information transmission is faster and more accurate, information processing is automated, and information usage tends to be intelligent. This makes the military’s command efficient, precise control, quick action, and powerful. From the perspective of operational mechanism, the effectiveness of information power in the combat system is manifested in the synergy of the strike force and the transformation of combat effectiveness. Although the information itself cannot directly kill the enemy, the information is used to realize the intelligent control of the combat weapon. Produced a powerful and powerful strike and non-contact strike.
Information deterrence is an important information warfare action, which can reduce the intensity of confrontation, and even force the opponent to give up resistance. It may produce a satisfactory combat effect and achieve the highest pursuit of “no war and defeated soldiers”. The principle is that the opponent It is a huge blow to the coming, and it is limited to the ability to stop the information. The achievement of the deterrent effect is the fusion effect of the multiple elements of strength, ability and determination. As a result of the high degree of integration of information and firepower, information multiplies the effectiveness of firepower, and firepower transforms information energy. The goal of information warfare is the opponent’s information system, which plays the role of “covering ears, obstructing, chaos”, so that the information power of the opponent is weakened and even lost, and the fusion of information firepower cannot be discussed. During the Gulf War, when the multinational forces scraped the “Desert Storm”, they first used a variety of electronic interference methods in the air and on the ground. At the same time, they used firepower to prioritize the communication and radar systems of the Iraqi army, making the Iraqi defense system still not in use. The powerful information power is completely lost, so it is stable. In the Kosovo war, the US military used a mistake in information warfare to provide a good opportunity for the Yugoslav army to make its air defense units cleverly use the less advanced information system to achieve effective integration of information firepower and shoot down the US military stealth fighters. Practice has proved that under the conditions of informationization, information warfare has become the first sword to break the efficient integration of opponents’ information firepower.
Information warfare is the primary action of transforming the enemy and the enemy
. The competition between the spear and the shield will never stop and escalate. When “information-led” shows great advantages, it will inevitably lead to “information counter-measure”. The containment of information will immediately reverse the original advantage. Information warfare is the primary action to transform the enemy and the enemy.
The basic types of combat are offense and defense, and the material means used for combat can also be divided into two types of weapons and equipment: spear and shield. Today, when combat weapons have unprecedented lethality, no one will use concentrated forces to concentrate their advantages. Synchronous strikes in different places can be an effective way to “eliminate the enemy and save oneself”, that is, the strike forces scattered in different locations simultaneously target the same target. Attacks are initiated, but only if there is precise time coordination.
Keeping time synchronized, it is obviously impossible to rely on the past manual pairing. Advanced techniques such as navigation satellite timing must be used, and once the timing synchronization information is destroyed by the opponent, the action will be completely disrupted. A force with high engine power and strike force, if attacked by the opponent’s information, causes information to be ineffective and information blocked, will not be able to figure out the direction of the action, can not find the target of the attack, become sluggish and weak. . Although the precision strike power is large, once the accurate guidance information is lost, the advantage is immediately lost. Command and control If the information is subject to control, it will lead to chaos, which will inevitably lead to chaos in the overall situation of the war.
Attacking the enemy’s information system is the focus and effort to break the battle system. The acquisition and use of information, counter-acquisition, and counter-utilization have become the focus of the battle between the two armies on the informationized battlefield. Information warfare is the preferred style for competing for battlefield control and even for war initiative.
While greatly improving the effectiveness of the combat system, the information system naturally becomes the target of the opponent’s attack, and it is the key target. Information warfare is to blinden the enemy battlefield perception system, weaken its information acquisition ability, interfere with its analysis and judgment; to block the enemy information transmission system, disrupt its coordination and destroy its actions; to deter the enemy accusation system by deception, reduce its command efficiency, Lead to mistakes in their decision-making. The more the information technology is developed and the more highly dependent on the information system, the more serious the consequences of its information system attack. Quaker, former chairman of the American “Old Ravens” Association, once wrote: “Advanced technology makes us highly dependent on the electromagnetic spectrum, but at the same time, we are not well invested in building electronic protection capabilities.” “The enemy uses cheap commercial technology. It can reduce or even destroy the performance of our expensive ISR equipment and weapon platforms, thereby limiting or even seriously weakening our technological advantages.” Because military electronic information systems are being widely used worldwide, in fact, the degree of dependence of national military on information systems It is constantly deepening. Therefore, all military powers are competing to develop information warfare. Some small countries are not willing to lag behind and follow suit. In modern warfare, it is of vital importance to seize the comprehensive control of the battlefield. The right to make information has become an indispensable commanding height, and it is the primary means of controlling the battlefield and mastering the initiative of war.
The information war has stood at the forefront of the contemporary military game. The
war is usually based on crossfire. The information war is invisible, the threshold is low, and the controllability is good. In peacetime, it is possible to start a dark battle and quietly extend the border of war. Information warfare has stood at the forefront of contemporary military games.
In today’s world, the use of military means is becoming more complex. War is not only a continuation of politics, but also a close integration of politics and military, subject to the overall strategy of political strategy. The use of force will also interact with politics, economy, diplomacy, and public opinion in a multi-dimensional, organically connected and closely coordinated. Information warfare is active on an invisible front, spanning peacetime and wartime. For example, the confrontation between information warfare reconnaissance and counter-reconnaissance between major powers is now almost every day. Although it is widely believed that the engagement of fire is a watershed between war and peace, the boundaries of war are changing due to the particularity of the use of new military struggle styles such as information warfare. According to reports, the US government recently publicly stated that the law of war applies to cyberattacks. It believes that certain cyber attacks are equivalent to the “use of force” legal concept as defined in the UN Charter. The attacked countries can use conventional military forces or cyber weapons. Counterattack. At the same time, we also see that the arrival of the information age has made the shadow of information warfare often appear in the struggle in the ideological field. The construction and development of information warfare capabilities have received increasing attention from all countries. In December 2011, Iran comprehensively used information warfare methods such as interference suppression, data deception, and link control to successfully deceive and capture a US military RQ-170 “sentinel” unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, which shocked the US military.

Original Mandarin Chinese:

戰爭特徵的嬗變總是由科學技術進步來激發，如果說“信息主導”是當今戰爭的時代特徵，那麼這一特徵的實質則是“信息技術的主導”。信息戰是信息技術創新孕育和助長的新質戰鬥力。

信息戰是新質戰鬥力

“知彼知己，百戰不殆”一直是戰爭制勝的不二法則，它實際上體現了“信息”在戰爭中的重要作用。自古以來，兵家總是在不斷追求驅散“戰爭迷霧”，降低戰爭的蓋然性，搶占先機；同時希望能夠以準確及時的信息迅速聚集戰鬥能量，制敵勝敵。如今，人類創新信息技術的豪邁步伐，驅動了社會的迅猛發展，“千里眼、順風耳”的神話早已成為現實。信息技術創新發展成果在立即為戰爭所充分利用的同時，也在不斷推動戰鬥力生成模式的轉變。
信息戰的萌芽可以上溯到上個世紀初。當時無線電報問世不久，俄國科學家波波夫就於1903年提出了無線電通信鬥爭的思想。 1904年爆發的日俄戰爭中，作戰雙方首次運用了無線電通信，當年4月的一天，俄軍報務員下意識地利用無線電台干擾了日軍艦隊的射擊引導通信，迫使日軍無功而返。這種技術思想的原始萌動孕育了一種新的作戰方式，信息戰開始登上戰爭的舞台。信息技術的高度發達，使得“基於信息系統的體係作戰”成為當今戰爭的時代特徵。應該說，體係對抗並不是今天才有的交戰形式，戰爭中交戰雙方都力求形成一個強大的作戰體系，在不同歷史時期，體係有著不同的表現形態。今天的作戰體係是依靠網絡化的信息系統聯成的一個威力空前強大的作戰體系，信息技術在現代戰爭中發揮主導作用的一個重要表現，就是助長了信息戰的快速發展。在“信息主導”成為現代戰爭的標識符的同時，信息戰開始躍變為一種新質戰鬥力。
擁有強大的信息力使一支軍隊耳聰目明、反應敏捷，信息力融入打擊力則使軍隊的作戰效能成幾何級數增加。信息戰是打破信息火力高效融合的第一把利劍。
信息力是獲取、傳輸、處理、使用信息的能力。信息力的增強意味著信息的獲取更多、更全，信息的傳輸更快、更準，信息的處理具備自動化，信息的使用趨於智能化。這就使得軍隊的指揮高效，控制精準，行動迅捷，打擊有力。從作戰機理上看，信息力在作戰系統中的效能發揮，體現的是對打擊力的增效和向戰鬥力的轉化，信息本身雖不能直接殺傷敵人，但使用信息實現打擊兵器的智能化控制就產生了威力巨大的精確打擊和非接觸打擊。
信息威懾是一種重要的信息戰行動，可以降低對抗強度，甚至迫使對手放棄抵抗，可能產生令人滿意的戰鬥力效應，實現“不戰而屈人之兵”的最高追求，而其原理是對手懾於隨之會來的巨大打擊力，懾於能力而止於信息，威懾效果的達成是實力、能力、決心多元要素的融合效應。信息與火力的高度融合的結果就是，信息使火力效能倍增，火力讓信息能量轉化。信息戰的目標是對手的信息系統，起到的作用是“掩耳、障目、亂心”，使對手的信息力受到削弱以至喪失，信息火力的融合也就無從談起。海灣戰爭中，多國部隊刮起“沙漠風暴”之時，首先動用的就是空中和地面的多種電子乾擾手段，同時運用火力優先打擊伊軍的通信和雷達系統，使得伊軍防禦體系中尚不強大的信息力完全喪失，因而穩操勝券。而科索沃戰爭中，美軍使用信息戰的一次失誤，為南聯盟軍隊提供了良機，使其防空部隊巧妙運用不夠先進的信息系統，實現信息火力的有效融合，擊落了美軍隱形戰機。實踐證明，信息化條件下，信息戰已成為打破對手信息火力高效融合的第一把利劍。
信息戰是轉變敵我優劣對比的首要行動
矛與盾的較量永不停息、不斷升級。當“信息主導”顯現出巨大優勢時，就必然引發“信息反制”。信息的受制，會使原有的優勢立即逆轉。信息戰是轉變敵我優劣對比的首要行動。
作戰的基本類型就是進攻和防禦，用以作戰的物質手段也可以區分為矛和盾兩大類型的武器裝備。在打擊兵器具有空前殺傷力的今天，誰都不會再用集中兵力來集中優勢，而異地同步打擊不失為“消滅敵人、保存自己”的有效方式，即分散於不同地點的打擊力量同時對同一目標發起攻擊，但條件是必須有精確的時間協同。
保持時間同步，靠過去的人工對錶顯然已不可能，必須利用如導航衛星授時等先進技術，而授時同步信息一旦被對手破壞，行動就會被徹底打亂。一支具有高機動力和打擊力的部隊，如果受到對手的信息攻擊，導致信息不靈、信息受阻，將會搞不清行動的方向，找不到攻擊的目標，變得行動呆滯、打擊無力。精確打擊威力雖大，但一旦丟失精確制導信息而打不准，優勢即刻盡失。指揮控制如果信息受制，就會陣腳大亂，勢必造成作戰全局陷於混亂。
攻擊敵方的信息系統是打破其作戰體系的著力點和發力點。信息的獲取與反獲取、利用與反利用，已成為信息化戰場上兩軍爭鬥的焦點。信息戰是爭奪戰場控制權乃至戰爭主動權的首選樣式。
信息系統在極大地提升作戰體系效能的同時，也自然成為對手的攻擊目標，而且是要害目標。信息戰就是通過迷盲敵戰場感知系統，削弱其信息獲取能力、干擾其分析判斷；通過阻斷敵信息傳輸系統，擾亂其協同、破壞其行動；通過欺騙擾亂敵指控系統，降低其指揮效率、導致其決策失誤。愈是信息技術發達、愈是高度依賴信息系統的軍隊，其信息系統受到攻擊的後果愈嚴重。美國“老烏鴉”協會前主席奎克曾經撰文指出：“先進的技術使我們高度依賴電磁頻譜，但與此同時，我們沒有很好地投資建設電子防護能力。”“敵人利用廉價的商用技術就可以降低甚至破壞我們昂貴的ISR設備以及武器平台的效能，從而限制甚至嚴重削弱我們的技術優勢。”由於軍事電子信息系統正在世界範圍內得到廣泛運用，事實上各國軍隊對信息系統的依賴程度都在不斷加深，因此，各軍事大國競相發展信息戰，一些小國也不甘落後，紛紛效仿。現代戰爭中，奪取戰場綜合控制權至關重要，制信息權成為其中不可或缺的製高點，是控制戰場和掌握戰爭主動的首要。
信息戰已站在當代軍事博弈的前沿
戰爭通常是以交火為基本標誌。信息戰隱於無形，使用門檻低，可控性好，在平時就可能展開暗戰，悄然延伸了戰爭的邊界。信息戰已站在當代軍事博弈的前沿。
當今世界，軍事手段的使用愈加複雜。戰爭不僅是政治的繼續，而且政治軍事緊密結合，服從於政略戰略大局。武力使用也將與政治、經濟、外交、輿論鬥爭多維互動，有機銜接，密切配合。信息戰跨越平時與戰時，活躍在一條看不見的戰線上。比如，各大國相互之間的信息戰偵察與反偵察的對抗，現在幾乎每天都在進行暗中角力。雖然人們普遍認為開火交戰是戰爭與和平的分水嶺，但是，由於信息戰等新的軍事鬥爭樣式運用的特殊性，戰爭的邊界正在發生改變。據報導，美國政府最近公開表明戰爭法適用於網絡攻擊，認為某些網絡攻擊等同於《聯合國憲章》所定義的“使用武力”法律概念，受到攻擊的國家，可以使用常規軍事力量或網絡武器實施反擊。同時，我們還看到，信息時代的到來，使得意識形態領域的鬥爭中也常常閃現出信息戰的影子。信息戰能力的建設發展，已經愈來愈得到各國的重視。 2011年12月，伊朗綜合運用乾擾壓制、數據欺騙、鏈路控制等信息戰手段，成功誘騙並俘獲了美軍一架RQ-170“哨兵”無人偵察機，令美軍大為震驚。

Original Referring url: http://theory.people.com.cn/n/2012/1218/

China National Cyber Security Strategy, China's Informatization - 中國信息化, Chinese Military - Network & Space Forces, Chinese Military Views - 中國軍事觀

General Qiao Liang: Confident Cyber Leadership Wins the future “network space war” // 喬亮將軍：充滿信心的網絡領導贏得了未來的“網絡太空戰爭”

10/01/2018 admin Leave a comment

General Qiao Liang: Confident Cyber Leadership Wins the future “network space war” //

喬亮將軍：充滿信心的網絡領導贏得了未來的“網絡太空戰爭”

For nearly half a century, electronic technology and information technology have developed at an impressive speed, and thus have completely changed the style of modern warfare. Although people are accustomed to the sorting of land, sea and air when they talk about the dimensions of war, from the military technical level, the “network warfare” capability of “electronic warfare” and “cyber warfare” has no doubt that it has come to the fore. Become the first combat power. Who can dominate the electronic warfare, who can dominate the battlefield. It is a pity that this conclusion has not yet been universally accepted by the military.

Carving a sword for a sword is a portrayal of the evolution of people’s understanding and the development of things. Today, when this round of military revolution is marked by electronic technology and chip technology, as the technology matures and the potential approaches the limit and comes to an end, the soldiers of most countries have a small tube and a smaller chip. It is possible to change the style of war and not yet fully prepared for the spirit and knowledge. This is an irony for human beings living in the age of information, especially those armed with informatized weapons.

The individual representation of the appearance of the world makes people intuitively divide the whole world into parts to understand and understand. Even though electronic technology and information technology have long integrated the whole world into the grid space and welded into a “domain”, people are still accustomed to split it into different “domain” blocks. For example, many soldiers who are ignorant of traditional thinking take the battle space into five major dimensions: land, sea, air, sky, and electricity, and think that they will fight in these five dimensions. The grid space battlefield, in their view, is only one of them. Even in the concept of joint operations, which attempted to bring the five-dimensional space into one, the space and space warfare is only one of the combat areas and combat styles. It is completely unknown that the world has been “informed.” Such lag thinking can’t keep up with the pace of technological leap: the boat is far from the lake, but the sword sinks to the bottom of the lake. Those who can win and win in the future battlefield must be the army that observes and thinks, operates and controls all battlefields as a whole. Only in this way can we find the key to open the door to victory: who can control the grid space, who can control the battlefield; who can prevail in the space war, who is the winner of the war. This is the general trend that modern warfare can not be reversed today.

Electronic warfare (which has evolved into information warfare or cyberspace warfare today) is a prerequisite for all modern battles, battles and even wars. In contrast, air supremacy, sea power, and even land and power, have handed over the first battle of the future battlefield to the power of the grid. Moreover, the struggle for the right to heaven is itself part of the power of the network. In Deng Shiping’s words, modern warfare, “there is no air superiority, and no one can beat it.” Yes, in the future war, there is no power to make electricity in the net, and nothing can be beaten.

Today, it is proposed to use the “air-sea battle” concept to contain China’s US military. It is a military machine that is almost fully informatized. Therefore, the US military knows that informatization is its strength and its shortcomings. Short and short, whoever has the advantage of space and space warfare, who can restrain the US military. Some people may ask, is it from a military point of view that the space warfare is so important that people think it is more important than firepower? Yes, this is the author’s answer. Because when your opponent has been fully dimensioned, it will either be better than the opponent’s network space warfare, or defeat the war first, and then the firepower war will only destroy the opponents who are still unwilling to admit defeat. The process of physical digestion.

Why is the space warfare so important? In fact, all of our main rivals have their strengths in all-dimensional informationization, and all their shortcomings are over-informatization. The shortcoming of informationization is that there is no chip-free, thus forming chip dependence. The chip makes the weapon platform ammunition stronger, but it is also extremely fragile. An electromagnetic pulse bomb can destroy all electronic components within its explosive coverage. This kind of scene makes the opponent who is armed with the chip to the teeth very scared. For us, what we fear the opponents should be our priority to focus on development.

If you play against a full-dimensional informatization opponent, the opponent is most worried about: one is attacked by the network, and the other is destroyed by the sky-based system. Because this will make the hardware advantages of all weapon platforms meaningless. Although our opponents also have this ability, once both sides use this ability to smash opponents, it means that the two sides will return to World War II. At that time, who has the advantage of population, who has the advantage of resources, who has the advantage of manufacturing, who has the advantage of war.

Seeing this clearly helps us to get rid of some kind of paradox: the more we understand the military system of our opponents, the more we worry about the gap in our military system. The more we recognize the gap, the more we want to learn to catch up with our opponents. The result is what the opponent has, I There is also something to be. In the end, I forced myself to a dead end with the strength of the opponent and the length of the opponent. How can this road lead us to “can fight, win and win”? Ancient and modern Chinese and foreign, whereever wins, all of them are short of my enemy, even if it is hard, it is the longest attack of my enemy. There is a winner who wins the enemy with the enemy. Moreover, winning the war in the future cannot be achieved at all costs. For China, there should be a requirement that is as important as victory. Weapons and equipment development and operational plan development must consider how to reduce costs. Never have anything for the opponent, we must have something. You can’t do it with the Dragon King, and you can’t become a local tyrant. You can’t compare it with the Dragon King. Today, we have some cognitive defects on how to win the overall war of local war under informatization conditions. We always consciously and unconsciously think that playing high-tech wars is a high-cost war, and we always want to compare costs with our competitors. And fight costs.

In fact, we can completely change the way of thinking, that is to take the low-cost route. There are no heavy aircraft carriers, there is no X37, there is no global fast strike system, the opponent does not care. It only cares if you can destroy its satellite system and lick its network system. After all, the tools and means of attacking satellite weapons and electromagnetic pulse bombs are not very expensive and scarce, and their effects will be low-cost and high-yield. We can’t help but fall into the arms race with our opponents because we are worried about the gap between ourselves and our opponents.

The Americans said in the “air-sea battle” concept that “we will drag China into the competition with us in this way, so that the Chinese will put more energy into the production of such missiles such as Dongfeng 21D. Then use a lot of bait and deception to force the Chinese to consume these weapons in a meaningful direction.” In this regard, someone in the country wrote an article reminding us that “we must prevent falling into the trap of the United States.” This is not wrong in itself, but it still belongs to only know one, and I don’t know the other. It is important to know that after such articles come out, it is very likely that our understanding will produce new deviations, because there are “trap traps (ie double traps)” in the above-mentioned American discourse. First, it attempts to lure the Chinese army into the trap of an arms race. If you compete with the US military, you will spend a lot of money and resources to follow the US military and not to surpass; secondly, if you realize that this is a trap and give up the competition, you will immediately fall into another trap: since giving up the arms race Waste martial arts. For China, if we are not willing to compete with our opponents and we are not willing to squander martial arts, what should we do? The conclusion is that we can only go our own way.

To develop our own strengths and develop the things that are most beneficial to me, it is best to use my strength and defeat the enemy. At least it must be my long, the enemy’s long. I can’t do it with my short enemy, and the enemy’s long enemy will not do the same. With the enemy’s long attacking enemy, you will never win.

Take a look at the main design of the “Air-Sea Battle”: the opening is to hit your space-based system, let you blind; then hit the “reconnaissance war”, let you call you; then come to officially start a regular battle with you.

Under such circumstances, what should we do? It is a passive move, the soldiers will block, the water will cover the earth, or will it be my strength, in exchange for low-cost means, in exchange for the opponent’s high-value goal? Of course, the latter. To do this, we must first have three capabilities:

The first is satellite anti-missile capability. This ability will lead to a serious reliance on informatized opponents, making them blind, defamatory, and dumb, so that they can only return to the level of World War II to compete with conventional forces.

The second is the ability to remotely play. You must ensure that you have the ability to sink high-priced targets like aircraft carriers. If such a high-priced target is sunk, it will seriously undermine the confidence of investors around the world against the opponent, so that the capital does not dare to invest in it again, resulting in a serious war financing dilemma for the opponent. This is the national weakness of the opponent’s combat planners who are not aware of it. The confidence of the sinking aircraft carrier in global investors will be a huge blow, which will interrupt the opponent’s global capital chain.

The third is that there must be a network space combat capability. Especially the ability to attack any network system of the opponent. If China and the powerful opponents are really fighting, you must demonstrate your ability and determination to attack and smash all of the grid system from the very beginning. This is a necessary way to contain war by deterrence.

The reason is always easier said than done. How to get the power of the network in the future war, or to offset the advantage of the opponent’s network warfare? It is necessary to make yourself technological progress. But what is more necessary is the progress of thinking. The long history of evolution proves that human beings are not always in a state of thought progress in the coordinate system of time. Degradation will happen from time to time. The degradation of thinking is sad, but consciously pull the pair back to the “old battlefield”, that is, to offset the opponent’s informational combat capability, so that the opponent’s technical advantage is lost, and thus with us to return to a certain historical stage of combat, At that time, it is a feasible idea to give full play to my own advantages.

(The author is a professor at the National Defense University)

Original Mandarin Chinese:

近半個世紀以來，電子技術、信息技術以令人瞠目的速度迅猛發展，並因此全面改變了現代戰爭的風貌。儘管人們在談論戰爭的維度時，習慣於陸海空天電的排序，但從軍事技術層面講，“電子戰”“網絡戰”所構成的“網電空間戰”能力，卻毫無疑問已後來居上，成為第一戰鬥力。誰能主導電子戰，誰就能主宰戰場。可惜的是，這一結論至今還未能被各國軍隊普遍接受。

刻舟求劍，是對人們的認識滯後於事物的演變和發展的形象寫照。時至今日，當以電子技術和芯片技術為標誌的這一輪軍事革命，因技術日臻成熟，潛力逼近極限而漸近尾聲時，大多數國家的軍人對一個小小的電子管和更小的芯片就能改變戰爭的風貌，還沒做好充分接納的精神和知識準備。這對生活在信息化時代的人類，特別是掌握著信息化武器的軍隊來說，不能不說是一種諷刺。

世界外觀所呈現的個體性表徵，使人們憑直覺把整個世界區分成各個部分去認知和理解。即便電子技術、信息技術早已把整個世界都納入了網電空間而焊接成了一“域”，人們仍然習慣於將其切分成不同的“域”塊。如不少囿於傳統思維的軍人，就想當然地把作戰空間切分成陸、海、空、天、電五大維度，並以為自己將在這五種維度下作戰。而網電空間戰場，在他們看來，只不過是其中的一維。甚至在聯合作戰這一試圖把五維空間打通成一體的概念中，網電空間戰也只是其中一種作戰領域和作戰樣式而已，全然不懂大千世界已然被“信息化”了。這樣的滯後思維不可能跟上技術飛躍的步伐：舟已遠離湖面，劍卻沉在了湖底。能在未來戰場上穩操勝券者，一定是把全部戰場作為一個整體觀察和思考、操作並控制的軍隊。只有如此，才能找到打開胜利之門的鑰匙：誰能控製網電空間，誰就能控制戰場;誰能在網電空間戰中佔上風，誰就是戰爭的贏家。這是現代戰爭發展到今天誰也無法逆轉的大趨勢。

電子戰(今日已衍化成為信息戰或網電空間戰)是一切現代戰鬥、戰役乃至戰爭的前提。與此相比，制空權、制海權，甚至制陸權與製天權，都已向製網電權拱手交出了未來戰場的第一制權。何況制天權的爭奪本身就是製網電權的一部分。套用鄧小平的一句話說，現代戰爭，“沒有製空權，什麼仗都打不下來”。是的，未來戰爭，沒有製網電權，什麼仗都打不下來。

今天，提出要用“空海一體戰”構想遏制中國的美軍，是一架幾乎全面信息化了的軍事機器。因此，美軍深知信息化是其所長，亦是其所短。短就短在誰具備網電空間戰優勢，誰就能製約美軍。有人會問，難道從軍事角度講，網電空間戰真的那麼重要，以至於讓人認為比火力硬殺傷更重要嗎?是的，這正是筆者的回答。因為當你的對手已全維信息化後，它要么先勝於與對手的網電空間戰，要么先敗於此戰，其後的火力戰，只是對還不肯認輸的對手進行從心理摧毀到物理消解的過程。

為什麼網電空間戰如此重要?實際上，我們的主要對手其全部的長處就在於全維信息化，而其全部的短處也在於過度信息化。信息化的短處就是無一處無芯片，從而形成芯片依賴。芯片讓武器平台彈藥如虎添翼變得強大，而其自身卻也極端脆弱。一枚電磁脈衝炸彈，就可以讓在它爆炸覆蓋範圍內的所有電子元件被毀失能。這種場景讓用芯片武裝到牙齒的對手很恐懼。而對我們來說，讓對手恐懼的東西，就應該是我們要優先側重發展的武器。

如果跟全維信息化對手交手，對手最擔心的是：一被網攻癱瘓網絡，二被天戰摧毀天基系統。因為這將使其一切武器平台的硬件優勢都變得沒有意義。儘管我們的對手同樣也有這種能力，但一旦雙方都動用這種能力將對手癱瘓，那就意味著，對陣雙方將一起退回二戰水平。那時，誰具有人口優勢，誰有資源優勢，誰有製造業優勢，誰就有戰爭優勢。

看清這一點，有助於我們擺脫某種悖論：越了解對手的軍事系統，就越擔心自身軍事系統存在的差距，越承認差距，就越想學習追趕對手，結果就是對手有什麼，我就也要有什麼。最終把自己逼上一條以對手之長，攻對手之長的死路。這條路怎麼可能把我們引向“能打仗，打勝仗”?古今中外，凡勝仗，無一不是以我之長攻敵之短，即便是硬仗也是以我之長攻敵之長，未見有以敵之長攻敵之長而取勝者。何況，取勝於未來戰爭，不能以不惜一切代價獲勝為目的。對於中國來說，還應該有一個與勝利同樣重要的要求，武器裝備發展，作戰方案製定，都要考慮如何降低成本。決不能對手有什麼，我們就一定要有什麼。乞丐跟龍王爺比寶不行，變成土豪了，也不能跟龍王爺比寶。今天，我們對如何打贏信息化條件下局部戰爭的整體想法是存在某種認知缺陷的，總是自覺不自覺地以為打高技術戰爭就是打高成本戰爭，總想和對手一樣去比成本、拼成本。

實際上，我們完全可以換一種思路，那就是走低成本路線。有沒有重型航母，有沒有X37，有沒有全球快速打擊系統，對手並不在乎。它只在乎你能不能摧毀它的衛星系統，癱瘓它的網絡系統。畢竟，攻擊衛星武器和電磁脈衝炸彈的工具和手段都不是很昂貴、很稀缺，而其效果將是低成本、高收益。我們斷不能因為擔心自己與對手的差距，就不由自主地陷入跟對手的軍備競賽中。

美國人在“空海一體戰”構想中說，“我們要通過這個方式，把中國拖入到與我們的競賽，讓中國人把更多的精力都投入到東風21D等諸如此類導彈的生產中去，然後用大量的誘餌和欺騙迫使中國人大量地把這些武器消耗到沒有意義的方向”。對此，國內有人寫了一篇文章，提醒“我們要防止掉入美國陷阱”，這本身沒有錯，但仍然屬於只知其一，不知其二。要知道，此類文章出來以後，很有可能導致我們的認識產生新的偏差，因為上述美國人的話語中存在“陷阱的陷阱(即雙重陷阱)”。首先，它企圖將中國軍隊引誘到軍備競賽的陷阱中來。如果你跟美軍進行競賽，你就會耗費大量財力物力尾隨美軍而不得超越;其次，如果你意識到這是陷阱而放棄競賽，你又立刻就會掉入另一個陷阱：由於放棄軍備競賽而自廢武功。對中國來說，如果我們既不願意跟對手競賽，又不願意自廢武功，那我們應該怎麼辦?結論是，我們只能走自己的路。

發展我們自己之長，發展對我最有利的東西，最好以我之長，克敵之短。起碼也要以我之長，克敵之長。以我之短克敵之長不行，以敵之長克敵之長同樣也不行。以敵之長攻敵之長，你將永無勝算。

看看“空海一體戰”最主要的設計：開場就是打擊你的天基系統，讓你致盲;接著打“偵察戰”，讓你致聾;然後才來跟你正式開打常規戰。

這種情形下，我們怎麼辦?是被動接招，兵來將擋，水來土掩?還是揚我所長，以低成本手段，換取對手高價值目標?當然是後者。為此，我們必須先具備三種能力：

第一種是衛星反導能力。這種能力將一擊致癱嚴重依賴信息化的對手，使其致盲、致聾、致啞，從而只能與你一道退回二戰水平去比拼常規戰力。

第二種是遠程精打能力。必須確保你有能力擊沉類似航母這樣的高價目標。這樣的高價目標如果被擊沉，將沉重地打擊全世界投資人對對手的信心，使資本不敢再投向它，造成對手嚴重的戰爭融資困境。這是對手的作戰計劃人員沒有意識到的國家軟肋。擊沉航母對全球投資人的信心將是一個巨大的打擊，從而將打斷對手的全球資本循環鏈。

第三種是必須有網電空間作戰能力。特別是對對手的任何網絡系統攻擊的能力。如果中國和遠比自己強大的對手真的發生戰爭，你必須從一開始就展示你有攻擊並癱瘓其全部網電系統的能力和決心，這是用威懾遏制戰爭的必要方式。

道理，總是說起來容易做起來難。如何在未來戰爭中拿到製網電權，或者對沖掉對手的網電戰優勢?讓自己獲得技術進步是必須的。但更必須的，是思維的進步。漫長的進化史證明，人類在時間的坐標系上，並不總是處於思維進步狀態。退化，會不時發生。思維的退化是可悲的，但有意識地把對手拉回“舊戰場”，即對沖掉對手的信息化作戰能力，讓對手的技術優勢盡失，從而與我們一道退回某一歷史階段的作戰水平，屆時，盡情發揮我自身優勢，則不失為一種可行的思路。

（作者係國防大學教授）

Original Referring URL: http://www.81.cn/jkhc/2014-12/

China Cyber Dilemma in the 21st Century, China National Cyber Security Strategy, China's Informatization - 中國信息化, China's Military Organization - Intelligence, Chinese Military - Network & Space Forces, Chinese Military Views - 中國軍事觀, Strategic Support Forces

Chinese Military Information Warfare Attacks on Mind and Spirit // 中國軍隊信息戰隊思想和精神的攻擊

09/30/2018 admin Leave a comment

Chinese Military Information Warfare Attacks on Mind and Spirit //

中國軍隊信息戰隊思想和精神的攻擊

June 01, 2004 08:58

　　If the 1991 Gulf War was the first time that the United States brought information warfare from the research report to the actual battlefield, then the Iraq war that ended last year may be the further development of information warfare in actual combat. Information warfare, as the focus of the new military revolution in the 21st century, has increasingly attracted people’s attention. However, through the information campaign to study the lively scenes, we will find that quite a few people only understand information warfare from the perspective of military and technology alone, but information warfare is not so simple.

　　Information warfare is a new emergence of human beings entering the information age. a phenomenon of war. It is not a simple style of warfare, but a new form of warfare relative to firepower. The emergence of information warfare has formed a major breakthrough in many traditional war concepts such as the object of war, the boundaries of war, and the content of war. Among them, the focus should be on the ideological and spiritual side of information warfare.

　　What you see is only the tip of the iceberg

　　. There are dozens of concepts about information warfare in the world. However, many of them only understand information warfare from the military and technical perspectives. Even the United States, which is in the leading position of information warfare, is only from the last It was only at the end of the century that this issue was considered from a strategic and social point of view. This is not comprehensive. An important prerequisite for understanding information warfare is that information warfare should not be viewed simply with the war view of the industrial age. In the information age, computers and networks have dramatically changed the shape of war in the past. In the information war, the army and the society, the military and civilians, the war and the crime, the state and the individual have been intertwined in many cases, and they are unclear and unreasonable.

　　Information warfare broadly refers to the war against the information space and the competition for information resources in the military (including political, economic, cultural, scientific, and social fields). It mainly refers to the use of information to achieve the national strategic goals; narrowly Refers to the confrontation between the warring parties in the armed field in the field of information, and seizes the right to control the information. It should be emphasized that information warfare is not a simple military technical issue and should not be understood as a combat style. Information warfare is actually a form of war.

　　The term “information” is understood relative to the times, and corresponds to the agricultural and industrial eras; in terms of social forms, it is also in line with agricultural and industrial societies. At the same time, it is one of the three major resources that human beings must compare with matter and energy. Investigating information warfare, only by knowing at this level can we reveal information warfare in the true sense.

　　The rise of information warfare lies not in what kind of nouns it uses, nor in the war nouns. It is as simple as the buzzwords of “information,” “information,” “information age,” and “digitalization.” It is the inevitable result of the development of society and science and technology, with revolutionary and epoch-making significance. The information wars that emerged at the end of the 20th century, or the information wars we have seen, are only the tip of the iceberg, and are only partial and limited information wars embodied in the military field. Only when the world reaches full network and the earth becomes a small village in the true sense can we see the broad and real information war.

　　Information warfare is not just about the military. When it comes to information warfare, people often think of the army first. Indeed, in the traditional war, the army is the protagonist of the war, and the battlefield is also the stage of the military. Under the conditions of information warfare, the situation is very different. The scope of the battlefield has greatly expanded, and the war has become far more than just military affairs, but has developed into a national war under high-tech conditions. Information warfare is not only carried out through the military, but also through the entire social network. With the construction of the world information highway, information warfare has been difficult to define boundaries. Any social NGO or even an individual who has ordinary computer equipment and masters computer communication technology may use a globally connected computer and communication system to participate in an information war.

　　The information warfare is not only the main manifestation of the army: First, the participants in the information war are no longer limited to military personnel, but also include ordinary people. Information warfare combatants can be either regular soldiers or teenage hackers. Second, many of the weapons and equipment used in information warfare, such as computers and optical instruments, can no longer be military supplies, and are available in the civilian goods market. Take the United States, an information war powerhouse, as an example. The US military’s information warfare system relies heavily on civilian information infrastructure. Senior US military personnel referred to the informationization of the US military’s military as “buy from the market.” Third, information warfare is not only on the battlefield, but on the entire society. “The battlefield is only where the soldiers are killed. It no longer covers information warfare.”

　　Information warfare is not only played in wartime.

　　Since the war, the attackers launched wars, and the defenders resisted aggression, and they must be prepared for war. In particular, mechanized warfare has shown obvious phase and proceduralization. In the war of information age, the boundaries between war preparation and implementation are increasingly blurred and even mixed. Looking around the world, it is not difficult to find that information powers are fighting almost every day: public opinion, intelligence confrontation, network reconnaissance, and so on. These are actually information wars that have transformed form, and can be called public opinion warfare, intelligence warfare, and cyber warfare.

　　In the Iraq war, the power of public opinion wars opened the eyes of the world. It has been said that the “discussion war”, one of the forms of information warfare, has been going on since the war. Earlier cases of “public opinion wars” can be traced back to the “Oath of the Oath” of China’s Xia Dynasty and later “Looking for Cao Yuwen” and “Discussing Wushu”. The “discussion of public opinion” has no boundaries between wartime and peace. It controls, manipulates, plans, and utilizes various public opinion tools to systematically deliver selected information to the audience, affecting the audience’s emotions, motivations, judgments, and choices, thus having a major and direct impact on the outcome of the war. As for the information warfare and cyber warfare in the information war, it is even more ignoring the difference between wartime and peacetime. At that time, the US Clinton Administration put forward the idea of building an information highway and promoting global informationization. This move has made the world believe that the United States is leading the human society into the information age. However, the strategic intention of the United States is actually that when the informationization of human society is still in a blank, it will expand the information territory of the United States in order to occupy the opportunity of informationization. As a result, the future development of global informationization will follow the US road map. The United States can integrate the countries of the world into the informatization map of the United States. Looking at it now, this strategic attempt by the United States is far more effective than winning a war of blood and hurricanes.

　　When information warfare is not only a battle, this is not only manifested in the blurring of the preparation and implementation of information warfare, especially in the attack of information warfare on people’s thoughts and spirit. The formation of thoughts and spirits is a subtle process. Through the information superiority, we can achieve the goal of “no war and defeated soldiers” or “less war and defeated soldiers”. The general approach is to use information superiority to create contrast between the enemy and the enemy, use psychological warfare and strategic deception to shake, frustrate the enemy’s military, people’s hearts and government beliefs, and destroy the enemy’s normal political and economic operation system. Means can put the enemy in a state of paralysis, curb the will of the hostile country to wage war, or deprive it of its ability to war.

　　In the 1980s, the scenes of the US-Soviet confrontation were very interesting. Reagan, the US president who is good at acting, has proposed an aggressive “Star Wars” plan, claiming to make all the strategic nuclear missiles of the Soviet Union useless. As soon as the plan was announced, the United States started to promote all the propaganda machines and caused a great sensation in the world. The Soviet leaders convened an emergency meeting in succession and decided to resolutely respond to the blood and establish a strategic defense shield of the Soviet Union. In fact, the “Star Wars” program in the United States only carried out a little bit of technical experimentation. It didn’t cost much at all, but a movie of the same name “Star Ball” was popular in the world. However, the Soviets were very hardworking and hard work. When the national economy was on the verge of collapse, the vast ruble was still thrown into the arms race. The Soviet Union, which had been unable to do so, ran out of the last drop of blood after seven years. It cannot be said that the collapse of the Soviet economy and the collapse of the regime were not dragged down by the US information war.

　　Paying attention to the people’s war that defends the boundaries of

　　information. Under the conditions of information warfare, national sovereignty has a new content. The extension of national security has expanded and its connotation has become more abundant. The influence of information warfare is no longer limited to the military field, but radiates to the whole. Human society. Under the conditions of information warfare, the important magic weapon for a weak country to defeat a powerful country is the people’s war. Only by insisting on the people’s war under the conditions of information warfare can we effectively defend the national information territory and safeguard national information sovereignty. In addition to information technology and tactics, the most important thing is to grasp the construction of the information talent team and build the two lines of the national spirit defense line in the information age.

　　Those who have talents are in the world. The outcome of the information warfare depends to a large extent on human factors, and must be supported by a large number of high-tech information warfare personnel.

　　In the information warfare, a small number of top information talents can often play a key role in the outcome of the war. During the Second World War, in order to grab a German atomic physicist, the US military changed the direction of the attack of the three Army divisions. After the end of World War II, the history of “the wise man grabbed the people, the fools took the device” was even more intriguing. In the East, the Soviets were busy carrying the seized tanks and cannons; in the West, Americans hurriedly transported more than 3,000 German scientists back home. More than half a century has passed, and the country that grabbed talents is still continuing to write a history of robbing people, and its economy, technology and military are incomprehensible. The country that robbed the weapon was now facing the reality of being robbed. After the disintegration, the Soviet Union had tens of thousands of outstanding scientific and technological talents to change their positions to serve the opponents of the year. As a commanding height of military struggle, the struggle for talents is more decisive in the military contest of the information age.

　　Compared with the “hard killing” brought about by information warfare, the “soft killing” of information warfare is even more terrible. The spiritual realm is the most “window of vulnerability” under the conditions of information warfare.

　　As information technology becomes more developed, channels become more and more fluent, and information sources are more extensive. People will get more and more information and get information faster and faster. The means of modernization have transmitted the information to be transmitted to the countries of the world effectively without any restrictions. At present, developed countries pay great attention to using their advanced information technology to establish a global network of radio, television, and computer networks, thereby exporting their political opinions and values on a large scale and expanding the information frontier. As a result, countries with backward informationization have been subjected to a strong spiritual impact. Therefore, in order to win the people’s war under the conditions of information warfare, from the individual, the media, the army to the whole country, we must comprehensively enhance the awareness of information and national defense, establish the concept of defending the national information territory and information boundary, and consciously build an invisible spiritual defense line.

Chinese Military Intent to Defeat US Military Cyber Forces Using the “Thirty-Six” Strategy of Cyber Warfare //中國軍事意圖利用“三十六”網絡戰策略擊敗美國軍事網絡部隊

09/28/2018 admin Leave a comment

Chinese Military Intent to Defeat US Military Cyber Forces Using the “Thirty-Six” Strategy of Cyber Warfare //

中國軍事意圖利用“三十六”網絡戰策略擊敗美國軍事網絡部隊

■ cyberspace is easy to attack and defend, traditional passive defense is difficult to effectively deal with organized high-intensity attacks

■ Improve network security, the defense side can not rely solely on the technology game, but also need to win the counterattack on the concept

The new “Thirty-six” of network security

　　■Chen Sen

Fisher

　　News reason

　　In the information age, cybersecurity has taken the lead in national security. The Outline of the National Informatization Development Strategy emphasizes that it should actively adapt to the new changes in the national security situation, new trends in information technology development, and new requirements for strong military objectives, build an information security defense system, and comprehensively improve the ability to win localized information warfare. Cyberspace has become a new field that affects national security, social stability, economic development and cultural communication. Cyberspace security has become an important topic of increasing concern to the international community.

　　The United States has clearly declared that cyberspace is a new field of operations, and has significantly expanded its network command and combat forces to continue to focus on cyberspace weapons development. Since entering the summer, the US military network exercises have been one after another, and the invisible wars are filled with smoke. At the beginning of March, “Network Storm 5” took the lead in kicking off the drill; in April, “Network Aegis 2016” completed the fifth-generation upgrade; in June, “Network Defense” and “Network Capture” as the core re-installation of the annual joint exercise Debut.

　　The essence of network security lies in the ability to attack and defend both ends. Currently, static, isolated, passive defenses such as firewalls, intrusion detection technologies, and anti-virus software are difficult to effectively deal with organized high-intensity network attacks. To build a cyberspace security defense line, we need to get rid of the idea of falling behind and win the counterattack on the defensive concept.

New “Thirty-six” mobile target defense

Increase the difficulty of attack by building a dynamic network

　　Network attacks require a certain amount of time to scan and research the target network, detect and utilize system “vulnerabilities” to achieve intrusion control purposes. In theory, the attacker has unlimited time to start the scanning and detecting work, and always find the weak point of defense, and finally achieve the purpose of the invasion. To this end, the network pioneer USA is committed to planning and deploying security defense transformation work, striving to break through the traditional defense concept and develop revolutionary technology that can “change the rules of the game”. Mobile target defense is one of them.

　　Mobile target defense is called the new paradigm of cyberspace security defense. The technical strategy is to construct a dynamic network through the processing and control of the protection target itself, increasing randomness and reducing predictability to improve the difficulty of attack. If the static cyberspace is likened to a constant “city defense deployment”, it is difficult to stick to it; and the dynamic network configuration can be called the ever-changing “eight squad”, which is difficult to crack. At present, mobile target defense technology has priority in various US government and military research, covering dynamic platform technology, dynamic operating environment technology, dynamic software and data technology. In August 2012, the US Army awarded Raytheon’s “Deformation Network Facility” project to study the dynamic adjustment and configuration of networks, hosts and applications in case the enemy could not detect and predict, thus preventing, delaying or blocking the network. attack.

　　As a new idea in the field of cyberspace security, mobile target defense reflects the technological development trend of future network defenses to turn “dead” networks into “live” networks.

The new “Thirty-six” honey cans deceive defense

Reduce cyberattack threats by consuming attacker resources

　　Conventional network security protection is mainly to defend against cyber attacks from the front. Although the defensive measures have made great progress, they have not changed the basic situation of cyberspace “easy to attack and defend”. In recent years, the development of “Honeypot Deception Defense” has proposed a new concept of “bypass guidance”, which is to reduce the threat of cyber attacks to the real protection target by absorbing network intrusion and consuming the resources of attackers, thereby winning time. Strengthen protection measures to make up for the shortcomings of the traditional cyberspace defense system.

　　Similar to the intentional setting of false positions on the battlefield, honeypot deception defense is to actively use the computer network with lower security defense level to lure all kinds of network attacks, monitor its attack means and attributes, and set corresponding defenses on the target system that needs to be protected. System to stop similar attacks. Honeypots can be divided into two types, product-type honeypots and research-type honeypots. The main purpose of the former is to “attract firepower” and reduce the pressure of defense. The latter is designed for research and acquisition of attack information. It is an intelligence gathering system that not only needs network attack resistance but also strives to monitor powerfully to capture the attack behavior data to the maximum extent.

　　In addition to the establishment of a virtual network environment attack and defense laboratory consisting of four sub-networks of gray, yellow, black and green, the US military has also carefully deployed a honeypot decoy system on the Internet. What is certain is that the network defense idea based on deception will be further emphasized, and the technical means to achieve deception will be more and more.

New “Thirty-six Meters” linkage synergy defense

Integrate multiple defense technologies to “reject enemy from outside the country”

　　At present, most of the security protection devices and defense technologies are “individually fighting”. The data between network protection nodes is difficult to share, and the protection technologies are not related. As a result, the current defense system is isolated and static, which cannot meet the increasingly complex network security situation. need. The original motivation of the US “Einstein Plan” was that all federal agencies had exclusive access to the Internet, making overall security difficult to guarantee. Through the collaborative linkage mechanism, the relatively independent security protection devices and technologies in the network are organically combined to complement each other and cooperate with each other to defend against various attacks. It has become an inevitable choice for the future development of cyberspace security defense.

　　Collaborative collaborative defense refers to the use of existing security technologies, measures and equipment to organically organize multiple security systems that are separated in time, spatially distributed, and work and interdependent, so that the entire security system can maximize its effectiveness. Vertically, it is the coordinated defense of multiple security technologies, that is, one security technology directly includes or links to another security technology through some communication method. For example, the “deep defense” mechanism adopted by the US Navy network defense system targets the core deployment layer protection measures, including flag-based attack detection, WAN security audit, vulnerability alert, etc., and the attacker must break through multiple defense layers to enter the system. Thereby reducing its attack success rate. When a node in the system is threatened, it can forward the threat information to other nodes in time and take corresponding protective measures to adjust and deploy the protection strategy.

　　In the past, individual combat operations have been unable to meet the needs of today’s network security defenses, and coordinated collaborative defense will leap into the mainstream of network security. Integrate a variety of defense technologies, establish an organized defense system, and “reject the enemy outside the country” to effectively prevent problems before they occur.

The optimal strategy defense of the new “Thirty-six”

Seeking a balance between cybersecurity risks and investments

　　The attacks in cyberspace are more and more complicated. The ideal network security protection is to protect all the weak or attack behaviors. However, from the perspective of defense resources limitation, it is obviously unrealistic to pursue absolute security defense. Based on the concept of “moderate security”, the optimal strategy defense is on the horizon.

　　Optimal policy defense can be understood as seeking a balance between cyber security risks and inputs, and using limited resources to make the most reasonable decision defense. As far as investment is concerned, even the strong United States is trying to build a collective defense system for cyberspace. The United States and Australia cyberspace defense alliance agreement, as well as the Japan-US network defense cooperation joint statement, its “share of results” behind the “cost sharing” shadow. From the perspective of risk, the pursuit of absolute security will adhere to the principle of safety supremacy. When formulating relevant strategic objectives and responding to threats, it is easy to ignore the limited and legitimacy of the resources and means available, and it is difficult to grasp the advance and retreat.

　　The optimal strategy defense is mainly focused on the “optimal” strategy of game theory, focusing on the research direction of cyberspace security assessment, cost analysis, security defense model construction and evolution. Applying the idea of game theory to cyber attacks and defenses provides a new way to solve the problem of optimal defense decision-making.

The new “Thirty-six” intrusion tolerance defense

Create a “last line of defense” for cyberspace security

　　The threats to cyberspace are unpredictable, irresistible, and unpredictable. Protection can’t completely avoid system failure or even collapse. Traditional reliability theory and fault-tolerant computing technology are difficult to meet the actual needs, which has to consider more comprehensive and deeper problems than pure protection. In this context, a new generation of intrusion-tolerance defenses has received increasing attention.

　　Intrusion tolerance is the third-generation network security technology, which belongs to the category of information survival technology and is called the “last line of defense” for cyberspace security defense. Unlike traditional cybersecurity defenses, intrusion-tolerant defenses recognize the existence of vulnerabilities and assume that some of them may be exploited by attackers to attack the system. When the target of protection is attacked or even some parts have been destroyed or manipulated, the target system can “kill the tail” like a gecko to complete the healing and regeneration of the target system.

　　Intrusion-tolerance technology is no longer based on “defense”, but on how to reduce losses and recover as soon as the system has been damaged. However, intrusion tolerance is an emerging research field. Its cost, cost and benefit will be the next research direction.

Related Links–

Network attack and defense

“Shenzhen”: the pioneer of network physics warfare

　　In August 2010, Iran built the Bushehr nuclear power plant with the help of Russia. However, the nuclear power plant, which was scheduled to be put into operation in October of that year, was postponed several times. A year later, according to media reports, it was caused by a computer network virus attack of unknown source. More than 30,000 computers were “in the middle”. Thousands of centrifuges in Natans were scrapped. The newly capped Bushehr nuclear power plant had to be taken out. Nuclear fuel was delayed and the Iranian nuclear development plan was forced to shelve. This virus, later named “Shenzhen”, pioneered the control and destruction of entities through the network.

“Flame”: the most powerful spy in history

　　Network intelligence activities are the most active part of the cyberspace strategy game and security struggle. In 2012, a large amount of data from the Iranian oil sector was stolen and cleared, making it impossible for oil production and exports to function properly. In order to avoid continuing to create hazards, Iran was urgently disconnected from the network of the oil facilities on the Halk Island near the Gulf. After a large-scale investigation, a new virus emerged, which later appeared in the “flame” virus in Israel, Palestine and other Middle Eastern countries. The “Flame” virus combines the three characteristics of worms, backdoors and Trojans. It combines the interception of screen images, recording audio dialogues, intercepting keyboard input, and stealing Bluetooth devices. It has become a new type of electronic company that steals secret information from other countries. spy”.

“Shut”: System breaks

　　In 2007, in order to kill the Syrian nuclear program in the bud, 18 F-16 fighters of the 69th Fighter Squadron of the Israeli Air Force quietly broke through the advanced Russian “Dor”-M1 air defense deployed by Syria on the Syrian-Israeli border. The system carried out precise bombing of a nuclear facility about 100 kilometers west of the Syrian-Israeli border and about 400 kilometers northeast of Damascus, and returned safely from the original road.

　　According to the disclosure, the “Orchard Action” has made the US “Shuter” attack system shine. “Shut” invaded by remote radio, 瘫痪 radar, radio communication system, is the “behind the scenes” to make the Syrian air defense system in a state of failure. As a new type of network power attack system for networked weapon platforms and networked information systems, “Shut” represents the development trend of military technology and combat methods, and is bound to bring a new war landscape.

“Shadow Network”: Invisible Internet

　　The complicated situation of ideological struggle caused by the Internet has created an alternative channel for information penetration and “colonization” of thought. In the “Jasmine Revolution” in North Africa and the “Arab Spring” in the Middle East, there are “shadow networks”.

　　A ghost-like “shadow network” can bypass the traditionally regulated Internet, form an invisible and independent wireless local area network, realize mutual information communication, and access the Internet at any time as needed, and access the network resources “unrestricted”. The New York Times disclosed that the US State Department and the Pentagon have invested heavily in building an independent system in Afghanistan and using a launch tower located in the military camp to transmit signals to protect them from Taliban militants. Subsequently, an “invisible communication system” was established in Iran, Syria and Libya to help local anti-government organizations to communicate with each other or with the outside world.

“X Plan”: To control the network battlefield

　　Foreign media revealed that the Pentagon is building a 22nd century war plan, the “X Plan.” The “X Plan” is dedicated to building an advanced global computer map. With this “network map” that can be continuously updated and updated, the US military can easily lock the target and make it embarrassing. “If this plan is completed, the US military will be able to control the network battlefield as it controls the traditional battlefield.”

　　It is not difficult to foresee that after the deployment of the “X Plan”, it is definitely not just “get rid of the constraints of the keyboard”, but also enables situational awareness and cyber attacks on a global scale.

Original Mandarin Chinese

■網絡空間易攻難守，傳統的被動式防禦難以有效應對有組織的高強度攻擊

■提高網絡安全性，防禦一端不能只靠技術博弈，還需打贏理念上的反擊戰

網絡安全之新“三十六計”

■陳森

點擊進入下一頁

費雪繪

新聞緣由

信息時代，網絡安全對國家安全牽一發而動全身。《國家信息化發展戰略綱要》強調，積極適應國家安全形勢新變化、信息技術發展新趨勢和強軍目標新要求，構建信息安全防禦體系，全面提高打贏信息化局部戰爭能力。網絡空間已經成為影響國家安全、社會穩定、經濟發展和文化傳播的全新領域，網絡空間安全隨之成為國際社會日益關注的重要議題。

美國明確宣稱網絡空間為新的作戰領域，大幅擴編網絡司令部和作戰部隊，持續聚力網絡空間武器研發。進入夏季以來，美軍網絡演習接二連三，隱形戰火硝煙瀰漫。 3月初，“網絡風暴5”率先拉開演練戰幕；4月，“網絡神盾2016”完成第五代升級；6月，“網絡防衛”“網絡奪旗”作為年度聯合演習的核心重裝登場。

網絡安全的本質在於攻防兩端能力較量，目前依賴防火牆、入侵檢測技術和反病毒軟件等靜態的、孤立的、被動式防禦難以有效應對有組織的高強度網絡攻擊。構築網絡空間安全防線，需要革除落伍思想，打贏防禦理念上的反擊戰。

新“三十六計”之移動目標防禦

通過構建動態網絡增加攻擊難度

網絡攻擊行動均需要一定的時間用於掃描和研究目標網絡，探測並利用系統“漏洞”，達到入侵控制目的。從理論上說，攻擊者有無限的時間展開掃描探測工作，總能找到防禦薄弱點，最終達成入侵目的。為此，網絡先行者美國致力於籌劃和部署安全防禦轉型工作，力求突破傳統防禦理念，發展能“改變遊戲規則”的革命性技術，移動目標防禦即是其中之一。

移動目標防禦被稱為網絡空間安全防禦新範式，技術策略上通過對防護目標本身的處理和控制，致力於構建一種動態的網絡，增加隨機性、減少可預見性，以提高攻擊難度。若將靜態的網絡空間比喻為一成不變的“城防部署”，勢難固守；而動態的網絡配置堪稱變幻無窮的“八卦陣”，難以破解。目前，移動目標防禦技術在美國政府和軍方各類研究中均享有優先權，涵蓋動態平台技術、動態運行環境技術、動態軟件和數據技術等方面。 2012年8月，美陸軍授予雷神公司“變形網絡設施”項目，主要研究在敵方無法探測和預知的情況下，對網絡、主機和應用程序進行動態調整和配置，從而預防、遲滯或阻止網絡攻擊。

作為網絡空間安全領域的新思路，移動目標防禦反映了未來網絡防禦將“死”網絡變成“活”網絡的技術發展趨勢。

新“三十六計”之蜜罐誘騙防禦

通過消耗攻擊者的資源減少網絡攻擊威脅

常規的網絡安全防護主要是從正面抵禦網絡攻擊，雖然防禦措施取得了長足進步，但仍未能改變網絡空間“易攻難守”的基本局面。近年來發展的“蜜罐誘騙防禦”則提出了一個“旁路引導”的新理念，即通過吸納網絡入侵和消耗攻擊者的資源來減少網絡攻擊對真正要防護目標的威脅，進而贏得時間以增強防護措施，彌補傳統網絡空間防禦體系的不足。

與戰場上有意設置假陣地相仿，蜜罐誘騙防禦是主動利用安全防禦層級較低的計算機網絡，引誘各類網絡攻擊，監測其攻擊手段和屬性，在真正需要做防護的目標系統上設置相應防禦體系，以阻止類似攻擊。蜜罐可分為兩種類型，即產品型蜜罐和研究型蜜罐。前者主要目的是“吸引火力”，減輕防禦壓力，後者則為研究和獲取攻擊信息而設計，堪稱情報蒐集系統，不僅需要網絡耐攻擊而且力求監視能力強大，以最大限度捕獲攻擊行為數據。

美軍除了建立由灰網、黃網、黑網、綠網4個子網絡組成的虛擬網絡環境攻防實驗室外，還在國際互聯網上精心部署有蜜罐誘騙系統。可以肯定的是，基於誘騙的網絡防禦思想將被進一步重視，實現誘騙的技術途徑也將會越來越多。

新“三十六計”之聯動協同防禦

整合多種防禦技術“拒敵於國門之外”

目前的安全防護設備和防禦技術大都是“各自為戰”，網絡防護節點間的數據難共享，防護技術不關聯，導致目前的防禦體係是孤立和靜態的，已不能滿足日趨複雜的網絡安全形勢需要。美國“愛因斯坦計劃”最初的動因就在於各聯邦機構獨享互聯網出口，使得整體安全性難以保障。通過協同聯動機制把網絡中相對獨立的安全防護設備和技術有機組合起來，取長補短，互相配合，共同抵禦各種攻擊，已成為未來網絡空間安全防禦發展的必然選擇。

聯動協同防禦是指利用現有安全技術、措施和設備，將時間上分離、空間上分佈而工作上又相互依賴的多個安全系統有機組織起來，從而使整個安全系統能夠最大程度地發揮效能。縱向上，是多個安全技術的聯動協同防禦，即一種安全技術直接包含或是通過某種通信方式鏈接另一種安全技術。如美國海軍網絡防禦體係採用的“縱深防禦”機制，針對核心部署層層防護措施，包括基於標誌的攻擊檢測、廣域網安全審計、脆弱性警報等，攻擊方須突破多個防禦層才能進入系統，從而降低其攻擊成功率。當系統中某節點受到威脅時，能夠及時將威脅信息轉發給其他節點並採取相應防護措施，進行一體化調整和部署防護策略。

昔日的單兵作戰已不能適應當今網絡安全防禦的需要，聯動協同防禦將躍升為網絡安全領域的主流。整合多種防禦技術，建立有組織性的防禦體系，“拒敵於國門之外”才能有效防患於未然。

新“三十六計”之最優策略防禦

在網絡安全風險和投入之間尋求一種均衡

網絡空間的攻擊越來越複雜，理想的網絡安全防護當然是對所有的弱項或攻擊行為都做出對應的防護，但是從防禦資源限制等情況考慮，追求絕對安全的防禦顯然是不現實的。基於“適度安全”的理念，最優策略防禦呼之欲出。

最優策略防禦可以理解為在網絡安全風險和投入之間尋求一種均衡，利用有限的資源做出最合理決策的防禦。就投入而言，即便是實力雄厚的美國，也是盡量打造網絡空間集體防禦體系。美國與澳大利亞網絡空間防禦同盟協定，以及日美網絡防禦合作聯合聲明，其“成果共享”背後亦有“成本分攤”的影子。從風險角度看，對絕對安全的追求將會秉持安全至上原則，在製定相關戰略目標和對威脅作出反應時，易忽視所擁有資源和手段的有限性、合法性，難以掌握進退。

最優策略防禦主要圍繞博弈論的策略“最優”而展開，集中在網絡空間安全測評、代價分析、安全防禦模型構建與演化等研究方向上。將博弈論的思想應用到網絡攻擊和防禦中，為解決最優防禦決策等難題研究提供了一種新思路。

新“三十六計”之入侵容忍防禦

打造網絡空間安全 “最後一道防線”

網絡空間面臨的威脅很多是不可預見、無法抗拒和防不勝防的，防護再好也不能完全避免系統失效甚至崩潰的發生。傳統的可靠性理論和容錯計算技術難以滿足實際需要，這就不得不思考比單純防護更全面、更深層次的問題。在此背景下，新一代入侵容忍防禦愈發受到重視。

入侵容忍是第三代網絡安全技術，隸屬於信息生存技術的範疇，被稱作是網絡空間安全防禦“最後一道防線”。與傳統網絡安全防禦思路不同，入侵容忍防禦承認脆弱點的存在，並假定其中某些脆弱點可能會被攻擊者利用而使系統遭到攻擊。防護目標在受到攻擊甚至某些部分已被破壞或被操控時，防護目標系統可以像壁虎一樣“斷尾求生”，完成目標系統的癒合和再生。

入侵容忍技術不再以“防”為主，而是重在系統已遭破壞的情況下如何減少損失，盡快恢復。但入侵容忍畢竟是一個新興研究領域，其成本、代價、效益等將是下一步的研究方向。

相關鏈接——

各顯其能的網絡攻防戰

“震網”：網絡物理戰先驅

點擊進入下一頁

2010年8月，伊朗在俄羅斯幫助下建成布什爾核電站，但這座計劃於當年10月正式發電運轉的核電站，卻多次推遲運行。一年後，據媒體揭秘，是因為遭到來源不明的計算機網絡病毒攻擊，超過3萬台電腦“中招”，位於納坦斯的千台離心機報廢，剛封頂的布什爾核電站不得不取出核燃料並延期啟動，伊朗核發展計劃則被迫擱置。這種後來被冠名為“震網”的病毒，開創了通過網絡控制並摧毀實體的先河。

“火焰”：史上最強大間諜

點擊進入下一頁

網絡情報活動，是網絡空間戰略博弈和安全斗爭最活躍的部分。 2012年，伊朗石油部門大量數據失竊並遭到清除，致使其無法正常進行石油生產和出口。為避免繼續製造危害，伊朗被迫切斷了海灣附近哈爾克島石油設施的網絡連接。大規模的調查後，一種新的病毒浮出水面，即後來又現身於以色列、巴勒斯坦等中東國家的“火焰”病毒。 “火焰”病毒兼具蠕蟲、後門和木馬三重特點，集截取屏幕畫面、記錄音頻對話、截獲鍵盤輸入、偷開藍牙設備等多種數據盜竊功能於一身，成為專門竊取他國機密情報的新型“電子間諜”。

“舒特”：體系破擊露鋒芒

點擊進入下一頁

2007年，為將敘利亞核計劃扼殺於萌芽之中，以色列空軍第69戰鬥機中隊的18架F-16戰機，悄無聲息地突破敘利亞在敘以邊境部署的先進俄製“道爾”-M1防空系統，對敘以邊境以西約100千米、大馬士革東北部約400千米的一處核設施實施精確轟炸，並從原路安全返回。

據披露，讓“果園行動”大放異彩的是美軍“舒特”攻擊系統。 “舒特”通過遠程無線電入侵，癱瘓雷達、無線電通信系統，是使敘防空系統處於失效狀態的“幕後真兇”。作為針對組網武器平台及網絡化信息系統的新型網電攻擊系統，“舒特”代表著軍事技術和作戰方式的發展趨勢，勢必將帶來全新戰爭景觀。

“影子網絡”：隱形國際互聯網

點擊進入下一頁

國際互聯網導致意識形態鬥爭的複雜局面，造成了信息滲透、思想“殖民”的另類通道。在北非“茉莉花革命”和中東“阿拉伯之春”中，均有“影子網絡”踪跡。

像幽靈一樣的“影子網絡”可繞過傳統監管的互聯網，形成隱形和獨立的無線局域網，實現相互間信息溝通，一旦需要又可隨時接入國際互聯網，“不受限制”地訪問網絡資源。《紐約時報》披露稱，美國國務院和五角大樓斥巨資在阿富汗建造了獨立的系統，並利用設在軍營內的發射塔傳遞信號，以免遭塔利班武裝分子破壞。隨後在伊朗、敘利亞和利比亞設立“隱形通訊系統”，幫助當地反政府組織相互聯繫或與外界溝通。

“X計劃”：欲掌控網絡戰場

點擊進入下一頁

外媒披露，五角大樓正在打造一項22世紀的戰爭計劃，即“X計劃”。 “X計劃”致力於建立先進的全球計算機分佈圖，有了這張能夠不斷升級更新的“網絡地圖”，美軍就可以輕易鎖定目標令其癱瘓。 “如果完成了這個計劃，美軍將能夠像控制傳統戰場那樣控製網絡戰場。”

不難預見，“X計劃”部署後，絕對不只是“擺脫鍵盤的束縛”，更可以實現在全球範圍內進行態勢感知和網絡攻擊。

Original Referring URL: http://www.chinanews.com/mil/2016/08-11/

China's Informatization - 中國信息化, Chinese Military - Network & Space Forces, Chinese Military Views - 中國軍事觀

America Instigating Cyber Warfare – How China Will Realize the Chinese Dream in the Age of American Cyber Warfare // 美國煽動網絡戰 – 中國如何在美國網絡戰時代實現中國夢

09/28/2018 admin Leave a comment

America Instigating Cyber Warfare – How China Will Realize the Chinese Dream in the Age of American Cyber Warfare //

美國煽動網絡戰 – 中國如何在美國網絡戰時代實現中國夢

If a power-state wants to realize the dream of the empire, it was a world war 100 years ago, a nuclear war 50 years ago, and now it is a cyber war.

How does the United States face the cyber war era?

來源：中國國防報·軍事特刊作者：郝葉力責任編輯：黃楊海

Core tips

In recent years, the United States has taken a number of measures to accelerate the development of cyber warfare. After the Obama administration took office, it continued to play the “eight-one” “combination boxing” to improve its cyber warfare capabilities.

Because the United States adheres to the concept of absolute security in cyberspace, this will not only aggravate the insecurity of the United States, but will also induce instability in the objective, resulting in instability of the cyberspace situation.

Recently, foreign media reported the latest progress of the US military in cyber warfare: the US military has spent five years developing advanced cyber weapons and digital combat capabilities, and these weapons may soon be deployed more publicly and will be considered for the next few years. “Network militia.” The US’s measures to accelerate the development of cyber war deserve our high attention and in-depth study.

The era of cyber war has arrived

Today, one-third of the world’s population uses the Internet, and billions of people accept the services provided by the Internet. The arrival of cyber warfare is an inevitable historical necessity. The network revolution is also reshaping the new pattern of world political, economic, social and cultural development.

Cyber warfare in many fields. Cyber warfare has broken through the traditional warfare field, making war a veritable development in economic, political, and military fields. First, the cyber warfare in the economic field is aggressive. In particular, cyber warfare in the financial sector has been described as “a modern version of the bank.” Second, the cyber war in the political arena has intensified. Social networking as a tool for political change represents an amazing power. From the turmoil in West Asia and North Africa to the “Autumn Wall Street”, social networks are everywhere to participate and help. Under the conditions of informationization, the destructive power of network penetration even exceeds military intervention. The third is the initial test of the cyber warfare in the military field. The network has changed the traditional war mode, from the Gulf War embedded virus attack to the Russian-Georgian conflict to use the network “bee colony” attack, each war has a network war “shadow.”

Cyber warfare has become the “atomic bomb” of the information age. The research of RAND Corporation puts forward: “The strategic war in the industrial era is nuclear war, and the strategic war in the information age is mainly cyber warfare.” Why can cyber warfare compare with nuclear war? Because the two have similarities in the “fission reaction” and the destruction effect. If the computer network is abstracted into the weaving of points and lines, the point is the computer and the router, the line is the network channel and the TCP/IP transmission protocol extending in all directions, and the network viruses such as Trojans and worms are the potential “uranium” in the network. Why do viruses in the network cause fission? There are two main reasons: First, the inherent defects of the computer architecture provide a “soil and hotbed” for the virus. The weapon of cyber warfare is a virus such as a Trojan, a worm (which is essentially a malicious code). The reason why malicious code can be raging is because there are exploitable vulnerabilities in the system, and the source of the vulnerability lies in the inherent shortcomings of the von Neumann architecture used by computers. The principle is to store data and programs in the read and write memory (RAM), the data can be read and written, and the program can be changed. In the cybersecurity incidents that occur in today’s world, more than 50% of the exploits that are exploited are mainly due to this mechanism. Second, the open shared Internet provides a path and bridge for the fission of the virus. “Network warfare: The next threat to national security and countermeasures” clearly states that there are five major flaws in the Internet: fragile domain name service systems, unverified routing protocols, malicious traffic without censorship, decentralized network structures, and Clear text transmission. Once these defects are exploited, they may form a flood of attacks on the network, which acts like a weapon of mass destruction, and is as powerful as the “atomic bomb” of the industrial age.

In the process of changing times and the evolution of war, who can take the lead in shifting the focus from the traditional field of human activities to new important areas, who can gain huge strategic benefits. It can be said that mastering the right to make nets in the 21st century is as decisive as mastering the sea power in the 19th century and mastering the air power in the 20th century.

Original Mandarin Chinese:

強權國家要想實現帝國夢想，100年前是發動世界大戰，50年前是籌劃核大戰，現在則是策動網絡戰

美國如何迎戰網絡戰時代

核心提示

近年來，美國採取多項舉措加快網絡戰的發展。奧巴馬政府上台以後，更是連續打出“八個一”的“組合拳”，提升網絡戰能力。

由於美國在網絡空間秉持絕對安全的理念，這不僅會加劇美國的不安全感，而且還會在客觀上誘發不安定因素，造成網絡空間態勢的不穩定。

近日，外媒報導美軍在網絡戰方面的最新進展：美軍已經花了5年時間開發先進的網絡武器和數字作戰能力，可能很快就會將這些武器進行更公開部署，並考慮未來數年建立“網絡民兵”。美國加快網絡戰發展的舉措值得我們高度重視和深入研究。

網絡戰時代已經到來

今天，全世界1/3人口使用國際互聯網，數十億人接受著網絡提供的各種服務。網絡戰的到來是不可阻擋的歷史必然，網絡革命也正在重塑世界政治、經濟、社會、文化發展的新格局。

多個領域迎來網絡戰。網絡戰已經突破傳統戰爭領域，使戰爭名副其實地在經濟、政治、軍事多個領域展開。一是經濟領域的網絡戰攻勢凌厲。特別是金融領域的網絡戰，被形容為“現代版的搶銀行”。二是政治領域的網絡戰愈演愈烈。社交網絡作為政治變革的工具體現了驚人的威力。從西亞北非動亂到“華爾街之秋”，處處都有社交網絡參與其中、推波助瀾。信息化條件下，網絡滲透的破壞力甚至超過軍事干預。三是軍事領域的網絡戰初試鋒芒。網絡改變了傳統戰爭模式，從海灣戰爭預埋病毒攻擊、到俄格衝突動用網絡“蜂群”攻擊，每一場戰爭都有網絡戰“影子”。

網絡戰成為信息時代的“原子彈”。蘭德公司研究提出：“工業時代的戰略戰是核戰爭，信息時代的戰略戰主要是網絡戰。”網絡戰為什麼能與核戰爭比肩？因為二者在“裂變反應”和破壞效果上極具相似之處。如果把計算機網絡抽象為點和線的編織，點就是計算機和路由器，線則是四通八達的網絡信道和TCP/IP傳輸協議，而木馬、蠕蟲等網絡病毒正是網絡中潛在的“鈾”。網絡中的病毒為什麼會產生裂變？主要有兩個原因：一是計算機體系結構的固有缺陷給病毒的產生提供了“土壤和溫床”。網絡戰的武器是木馬、蠕蟲（其實質是惡意代碼）等病毒。惡意代碼之所以能夠肆虐，是因為系統內存在可利用的漏洞，而漏洞的本源在於計算機採用的馮·諾依曼體系結構的先天不足。其原理是把數據和程序都統一存儲在讀寫存儲器（RAM）內，數據是可以讀寫的，程序也是可以改變的。當今世界發生的網絡安全事件，50%以上被利用的漏洞主要是源於這個機理。二是開放共享的互聯網為病毒的裂變提供了途徑和橋樑。《網絡戰：國家安全的下一個威脅及對策》一書明確指出，互聯網存在五大缺陷：脆弱的域名服務系統、不經過驗證的路由協議、不進行審查的惡意流量、非集中式的網絡結構以及明文傳送。這些缺陷一旦被利用，就可能形成對網絡的攻擊洪流，其作用類似於大規模毀傷性武器，威力不亞於工業時代的“原子彈”。

在時代更迭、戰爭演變的進程中，誰能夠率先把關注點從人類活動的傳統領域轉入新的重要領域，誰就能獲得巨大戰略利益。可以說，21世紀掌握製網權與19世紀掌握制海權、20世紀掌握制空權一樣具有決定意義。

The main measures for the United States to accelerate the development of cyber war

Obama, who relies on the success of the network operator, attaches great importance to the construction of cyberspace. He delivered a “5·29” speech when he came to power, and believed that protecting the network infrastructure would be the top priority for maintaining US national security. During his tenure, Obama successively launched the “eight-one” “combination boxing”, which made the US cyber war into a period of rapid development.

The first is to launch a report. In the “Network Space Security Policy Assessment Report”, it emphasizes that cyber war is related to national security, affects social stability, is related to economic development, and determines the outcome of war.

The second is to strengthen a strategy. It has established a “three-in-one” national security strategy supported by the deterrent strategy of nuclear weapons, the preemptive strategy of space, and the network’s control strategy.

The third is to form a headquarters. In 2009, the US military established the Cyberspace Command, which is the main function of commanding cyber warfare. In May 2013, the US military set up a “joint network center” at each theater headquarters, and its cyber warfare command system was gradually improved. At the same time, the US military also plans to upgrade the Cyberspace Command to a formal combatant command, making it a level of organization with other theater headquarters. This will directly shorten the chain of command of the US cyber warfare forces and the military.

The fourth is to develop a road map. In 2010, the US Army officially issued the “Network Space Combat Capability Conception”, which is considered to be the first roadmap for the development of cyber warfare capabilities developed by the US military.

The fifth is to start a shooting range. In 2009, the US Department of Defense launched the “National Network Shooting Range” project, which was officially delivered in 2012. The US cyber warfare training and weapon evaluation have a realistic environment.

The sixth is to develop a series of weapons. The US military has developed and stocked more than 2,000 virus weapons, and these weapons are gradually moving toward a systemic direction. There are mainly anti-smuggling weapons represented by “seismic net” virus and “digital cannon”, intelligence warfare weapons represented by “flame” and “Gauss” virus, and psychology represented by “shadow network” and “digital water army”. War weapons.

The seventh is to plan a series of exercises. From 2006 to the present, the United States has organized several cross-border cross-border “network storm” exercises. Every time, the Internet is listed as an offensive and defensive target, targeting key infrastructure such as finance, transportation, electricity, energy, and communications. This reveals the main battlefield of cyberspace, which is an open Internet rather than a closed tactical network.

Eight is to support a number of social networking sites. A number of social networking sites such as “Twitter” and “Facebook” have become strategic tools to interfere in his internal affairs. This is a punch in the combination punch. In February 2013, after the overthrow of the opposition government in Tunisia and Egypt, Obama fully affirmed the important role played by Internet companies such as “Twitter” and “Facebook”. According to statistics, only “Facebook” social networking sites have more than 1.3 billion users worldwide.

Published the “Network War Declaration.” Obama’s move after the ruling shows that the United States has officially incorporated cyber warfare into the category of war and classified cyberspace as a new operational domain, reflecting the US’s advanced forecast and preemptive design for future wars. There are two main reasons for its deep motivation: First, to ensure its own network security – reflecting the United States’ concerns about its information security. The second is to ensure global cyber hegemony – reflecting the new concept of the American war.

In 2014, the US military actually promoted the “Network Space Warfare Rules” and “Network Space Warfare Joint Order”, which led to the international strategic competition to focus on the new global public domain of the Internet. The actions of the United States from the domestic to the international, the slave network to the use of force, from the declaration to the action, from the colonial land to the colonial thinking reflect the United States attempting to format the whole world with American values through the Internet. As one reporter said: “Modern American colonization is thought, not land.”

In April 2015, the United States released a new version of the Network Strategy Report, which comprehensively revised the 2011 Cyberspace Action Strategy Report issued by the US Department of Defense. It has the following new changes:

First, it provides a new basis for enhancing the important position of network power construction. The report further raises the threat of US cyberspace to a “first-tier” threat. At the same time, the report also regards China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea as potential “network opponents” in the United States. This is the latest and most serious judgment on the cyber threat situation.

The second is to provide new guidance for speeding up the construction of cyber warfare forces. The report focused on the three major tasks and five major goals of the Ministry of Defense in cyberspace, and further refined the construction goals of 133 cyber warfare detachments.

The third is to create a new pillar for maintaining a comprehensive military advantage. The report clearly stated that when the United States faces an attack against the interests of the United States or the United States in cyberspace, the US military can conduct cyber operations and implement cyber attacks. This is the most important adjustment to this cyberspace strategy. In the future, the US military will use cyber attacks as an important means of warfare. This is the main manifestation of the United States’ concept of “moving the Internet with the use of force” in cyberspace.

The fourth is to create new conditions for reshaping the international network system. The report emphasizes the emphasis on strengthening the coordination between the military and the civilians; the key external development and cooperation with allies. The main goal of the cooperation is to share the costs and risks, promote the international code of conduct that is beneficial to the United States, and seize the right to speak and lead in the formulation of cyberspace rules.

Original Mandarin Chinese:

美國加快網絡戰發展的主要舉措

依靠網絡運營商競選成功的奧巴馬，對網絡空間的建設非常重視，一上台就發表了“5·29”講話，認為保護網絡基礎設施將是維護美國國家安全的第一要務。在任期間，奧巴馬連續打出了“八個一”的“組合拳”，使美國網絡戰進入快速發展時期。

一是推出一個報告。其在《網絡空間安全政策評估報告》中強調：網絡戰事關國家安全、影響社會穩定、關乎經濟發展、決定戰爭勝負。

二是強化一個戰略。其確立了以核武器的威懾戰略、太空的搶先戰略、網絡的控制戰略為支撐的“三位一體”國家安全戰略。

三是組建一個司令部。 2009年，美軍成立了以指揮網絡戰為主要職能的網絡空間司令部。 2013年5月，美軍在各戰區總部組建“聯合網絡中心”，其網絡戰指揮體係日漸完善。同時，美軍還計劃將網絡空間司令部升格為正式的作戰司令部，使其成為與其他戰區司令部平級的機構。此舉將直接縮短美國網絡戰部隊與軍方最高層的指揮鏈。

四是製定一個路線圖。 2010年，美陸軍正式出台《網絡空間作戰能力構想》，這被認為是美軍制定的首份網絡作戰能力發展路線圖。

五是啟動一個靶場。 2009年，美國防部啟動了“國家網絡靶場”項目，2012年正式交付使用，美國網絡戰演習訓練、武器測評擁有了逼真環境。

六是研發一系列武器。美軍已研發儲備了2000多種病毒武器，這些武器逐漸向體系化方向發展。主要有以“震網”病毒、“數字大砲”為代表的阻癱戰武器，以“火焰”“高斯”病毒為代表的情報戰武器和以“影子網絡”“數字水軍”為代表的心理戰武器。

七是策劃系列演習。從2006年到現在，美國已經組織了多次跨界跨國跨域“網絡風暴”演習。每一次都把互聯網列為攻防目標，瞄準的都是金融、交通、電力、能源、通信等關鍵基礎設施。這揭示了網絡空間的主戰場，是開放的國際互聯網而不是封閉的戰術網。

八是扶持一批社交網站。把“推特”“臉書”等一批社交網站變為乾涉他國內政的戰略利器。這是組合拳中的一記重拳。 2013年2月，在突尼斯、埃及政府被反對派推翻後，奧巴馬充分肯定了“推特”“臉譜”等網絡公司在其中發揮的重要作用。據統計，僅“臉譜”社交網站的全球用戶已超過13億。

發表“網絡戰宣言”。奧巴馬執政後的舉措，表明美國已經正式將網絡戰納入戰爭範疇，把網絡空間列為新的作戰域，這反映出美國對未來戰爭的超前預測和搶先設計。其深層動因主要有兩點：一是確保自身網絡安全———反映了美國對其信息安全的擔憂。二是確保全球網絡霸權———反映了美國戰爭的新理念。

2014年，美軍實案化推進《網絡空間作戰規則》和《網絡空間作戰聯合條令》，牽動國際戰略競爭向互聯網這一新全球公域聚焦。美國這些從國內到國際、從動網到動武、從宣言到行動、從殖民土地到殖民思想的行動舉措，反映出美國企圖通過互聯網，用美式價值觀格式化整個世界。正如一位記者所說：“現代美國殖民的是思想，而不是土地”。

2015年4月，美國又發布了新版網絡戰略報告，對2011年美國國防部出台的《網絡空間行動戰略報告》進行了全面修訂。其主要有以下幾個新變化：

一是為提升網絡力量建設重要地位提供新的依據。該報告進一步把美國在網絡空間的威脅上升為“第一層級”的威脅。同時，該報告還將中國、俄羅斯、伊朗、朝鮮視為美國潛在的“網絡對手”，這是其對網絡威脅形勢做出的最新、最嚴峻的判斷。

二是為加快網絡戰力量建設提供新的指導。報告重點明確了國防部在網絡空間的三大任務和五大目標，並進一步細化133支網絡戰分隊的建設目標。

三是為維持全面的軍事優勢打造新的支柱。報告明確提出，當美國面臨針對美國本土或美國在網絡空間利益的攻擊時，美軍可以進行網絡作戰，實施網絡攻擊。這是此次網絡空間戰略最重要的調整。未來，美軍將把網絡攻擊作為重要的作戰手段使用。這是美國在網絡空間“動網就動武”理念的主要體現。

四是為重塑國際網絡體系創造新條件。報告強調，對內重點加強軍民協同；對外重點發展與盟友合作。合作的主要目標是分擔成本和風險，推行對美有利的國際行為準則，搶奪網絡空間規則制定的話語權和主導權。

The three key pillars of the United States to accelerate the development of cyber war

There are three key pillars for the United States to accelerate the development of cyber warfare:

Technical pillar. The “Prism Gate Incident” further confirms that the United States has been monitoring the global network to the point of pervasiveness. The United States occupies the upstream of the industrial chain. From basic chips to hardware applications, from operating systems to commercial software, Midea has an absolute technological advantage, forming a complete set of industrial chains, supply chains and information chains. The overwhelming advantages of technology and the monopoly in many core markets are key to the acceleration of cyber warfare in the United States.

Discourse pillar. The powerful ability of the United States to act in cyberspace determines its strong voice in online diplomacy. No matter what double standards it exhibits in cyberspace, it can influence the global public opinion space under the support of powerful discourse. Without the emergence of the “Prism Gate Incident,” the United States has created two “lie” that have become truths around the world: first, the West is a victim of cyberattacks; and second, China is a source of cyberattacks. This has greatly damaged China’s national image, reputation and international status in the international community, seriously affecting China’s high-tech exports, and achieving the “four-two-pound” effect that is difficult to achieve using trade protection and WTO rules. Even if the “Prism Gate Incident” tears open the “fair of justice” of the United States, it still shows superior combat capability, claiming to be monitored by itself, and placing national security on the basis of personal privacy in the name of counter-terrorism. Firmly control the right to speak in cyberspace.

Strategic pillar. A higher level than the technical pillar and discourse pillar is the strategic pillar. The core of the US strategic pillar is reflected in the pre-emptive global strategy and the overall layout of the game power. First, the advantages of multiple forces complement each other. At present, the United States is actively cultivating cyber security companies such as “Fire Eyes”, using their technological advantages and unofficial background to globally control, long-term tracking, collecting evidence, and acting as a pioneer, while the government and the military are hiding behind the scenes. This has earned the US diplomacy a flexible space for attack and retreat. Second, the network attack and defense and theft of intelligence are clear. The clear strategic division of labor has brought the benefit to the United States. Even if the “Prime Gate Incident” broke the news, the National Security Agency was “spoken” by the world, but there was no such thing as its cyberspace command. Instead, the cyberspace command made the cyberspace command The maintenance of national security is an excuse to accelerate the expansion of the army and develop at a high level. The United States has two clear main lines in cyberspace, namely: the National Security Agency is in charge of the network, and the Cyberspace Command is in charge of the network. This clear strategic thinking has provided strong support for the United States to accelerate the development of cyber warfare.

Original Mandarin Chinese:

美國加快網絡戰發展的三個關鍵支柱

美國加快網絡戰發展有三個關鍵性支柱：

技術支柱。 “棱鏡門事件”進一步證實美國對全球網絡的監控達到了無孔不入的程度。美國占據了產業鏈上游，從基礎芯片到硬件應用，從操作系統到商用軟件，美都具有絕對的技術優勢，形成了一整套完整的產業鏈、供應鍊和信息鏈。技術領域的壓倒性優勢和在眾多核心市場的壟斷地位是美國能加快網絡戰發展的關鍵。

話語支柱。美國在網絡空間強大的行動能力決定了其在網絡外交上強大的話語權。無論它在網絡空間展現怎樣的雙重標準，都能在強大的話語支撐下影響全球輿論空間。要是沒有“棱鏡門事件”的出現，美國已在全球製造出兩個已經成為真理的“謊言”：第一，西方是網絡攻擊受害者；第二，中國是網絡攻擊源。這在國際社會極大地損害了中國的國家形象、信譽和國際地位，嚴重影響了中國的高科技出口，達到了利用貿易保護和WTO規則博弈難以實現的“四兩撥千斤”效果。即便是“棱鏡門事件”撕開了美國的“正義面紗”，它仍然表現出超強的戰鬥能力，對外聲稱自己被監控；對內以反恐為名，將國家安全置於個人隱私之上，牢牢掌握著網絡空間的話語權。

戰略支柱。比技術支柱和話語支柱更高一層的是戰略支柱。美方的戰略支柱核心體現在先發製人的全球戰略和博弈力量的整體佈局。一是多元力量的優勢互補。目前，美國積極培植“火眼”這樣的網絡安全企業，利用他們的技術優勢和非官方背景在全球布控、長期跟踪、蒐集證據、充當先鋒，而政府和軍隊則躲在背後，水到渠成時再投入博弈，這為美國的外交贏得了進可攻、退可守的彈性空間。二是網絡攻防和竊取情報涇渭分明。清晰的戰略分工對美國帶來的好處是，即使“棱鏡門事件”的爆料讓美國國家安全局被世界“吐槽”，但是卻絲毫沒有殃及其網絡空間司令部，反而使網絡空間司令部以維護國家安全為藉口，理直氣壯加速擴軍，高調發展。美國在網絡空間有兩條清晰的主線，即：國家安全局主管網絡獲情，網絡空間司令部主管網絡攻防。這種清晰的戰略思路為美國加快網絡戰發展提供了強有力的支撐。

Absolute Security: Double Standards and Realistic Paradox of American Cybersecurity Concept

It can be seen that on the issue of network security, the United States pursues the concept of absolute security and attempts to use force to move the military to achieve absolute control over cyberspace. It can be seen from Snowden’s breaking news that the US network monitoring of the international community is systematic, large-scale, and uninterrupted, but it requires other countries to strictly control itself, and it cannot be half-step. This is an asymmetrical mindset and a double standard.

Is it feasible? The problem of cyberspace is very complicated, and the processing methods cannot be too simple. To deal with these problems, new rules, new methods, and new thinking are needed. First, there are many kinds of cyberspace actors, and they are mixed. Second, the attack path and source can be virtual forged, and the source of evidence must rely on multiple parties. Due to the complexity and uncertainty of virtual space, many rules of armed conflict law for physical space are difficult to use in cyberspace. For example: How to define war and peace in cyberspace? How to distinguish between military targets and civilian targets? How does the neutral concept apply? In a country that declares neutrality, it is difficult to control the computer malicious code of others without flowing through the network equipment in its own territory, and it is difficult to avoid the control and utilization of the network facilities of the belligerents. For example, in the case of cyber attacks in foreign countries, network equipment in China has also been used by hackers as “broilers” and “springboards”. China is an innocent victim. If “the state responsibility of cyberattacks launched through the country is not properly prevented by “neutral state standards” and “the destruction of cyberattacks by force”, China may suffer innocent blame. And the United States has such a strong technology that it is difficult to completely prevent being exploited, attacked, and controlled. Cyberspace cannot easily be judged or written. Management methods and patterns suitable for physical space may not be suitable for virtual space. Feel free to reduce the trajectory of cyberspace, and at the same time push up the risk of conflict escalation. Therefore, any dispute arising out of cyberspace should be resolved in a peaceful manner and should not be threatened by force or by force.

Is the effect controllable? There are two situations in which a consequence assessment is required. First, what should I do if I misjudge? Simplifying the threshold of attack can make a neutral country or an innocent suffer a disaster. Second, can you solve the problem? In 2014, local conflicts such as the Ukrainian crisis and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict led to cyber conflicts, and large-scale cyber attacks continued to take place. Western countries headed by the United States have imposed sanctions on Russian banks and enterprises, resulting in a clear upward trend in cyberattacks against the US financial industry. It can be seen from the effect evaluation that it cannot be said that deterrence and force have no effect on the solution of the problem, but it is not a panacea. If a big country like the United States and Russia uses force in cyberspace, what kind of negative effects and consequences will this bring to world peace?

Is it desirable to think? Although the United States has the most powerful army and the most advanced technology in the world, it is still constantly looking for opponents, rendering crises and exaggerating threats. This makes the whole world lack of security, objectively induces unstable factors, and stimulates negative energy and potential threats. It is precisely because the United States pays too much attention to its own national interests and is unwilling to adjust its strategic demands for the sound development of the international system. This has led the United States to continually fall into the “security dilemma” and “more anti-terrorism” circles since the “9.11” incident. This phenomenon deserves the United States to ponder.

(The author is the vice president of the National Innovation and Development Strategy Research Association)

Original Mandarin Chinese:

絕對安全：美國網絡安全觀的雙重標準及現實悖論

可以看出，在網絡安全問題上，美國奉行絕對安全的理念，企圖通過動網就動武，實現對網絡空間的絕對控制。通過斯諾登的爆料可以看出，美國對國際社會的網絡監控是系統的、大規模的、不間斷的，但是其要求其他國家嚴格自我管控，不能越雷池半步。這是一種不對稱的思維，也是一種雙重標準。

方法上是否可行？網絡空間的問題非常複雜，處理方法不能過於簡單，處理這些問題需要有新規則、新方法、新思維。一是網絡空間行為體多種多樣，“魚龍混雜”。二是攻擊路徑、源頭可以虛擬偽造，溯源取證要靠多方配合。由於虛擬空間的複雜性、不確定性，用於實體空間的武裝衝突法的很多規則很難在網絡空間使用。例如：在網絡空間戰爭與和平如何界定？軍用目標和民用目標如何區分？中立概念如何適用？一個宣布中立的國家，很難控制他人的計算機惡意代碼不流經自己領土內的網絡設備，也很難躲避交戰方對其網絡設施的控制和利用。例如在外國發生的網絡攻擊事件中，中國境內的網絡設備也被黑客用作“肉雞”和“跳板”，中國是無辜的受害方。如果以“中立國標準追究沒有適時阻止經由本國發動的網絡攻擊的國家責任”，“以武力毀傷摧毀網絡攻擊來源”，中國可能會遭受無辜的非難。而美國有那麼強的技術也難以完全阻止被利用、被攻擊、被控制。網絡空間不能輕易下判書、下戰書。適合實體空間的管理方法和模式未必適合虛擬空間。隨意降低網絡空間動武門檻，同時會推高衝突升級的風險。因此，網絡空間發生的任何爭端應以和平方式解決，不應使用武力或以武力相威脅。

效果上是否可控？有兩種情況需要作後果評估。第一，誤判了怎麼辦？簡單化地降低打擊門檻可能會讓中立國或無辜者蒙受災難。第二，能否解決問題？ 2014年，烏克蘭危機、巴以沖突等局部地區對抗導致網絡衝突不斷，大規模網絡攻擊事件持續上演。以美國為首的西方國家對俄銀行、企業進行製裁，導致對美金融行業的網絡攻擊呈明顯上升趨勢。由此可見，從效果評估看，不能說威懾和武力對問題的解決沒有效果，但它不是萬能的。如果美俄這樣的大國在網絡空間動武，這會給世界和平帶來什麼樣的負面效應和惡果？

思維上是否可取？儘管美國擁有世界上最強大的軍隊、最先進的科技，但仍然在不斷尋找對手、渲染危機、誇大威脅。這讓整個世界缺少安全感，客觀上誘發不安定因素，激發負能量和潛在威脅。正是因為美國過度關注自身的國家利益，不願意為了國際體系良性發展，調整戰略訴求，才導緻美國從“9·11”事件以來，不斷陷入“安全困境”和“越反越恐”的怪圈，這種現象值得美國深思。

（作者係國家創新與發展戰略研究會副會長）。

Original Referring URL: http://www.81.cn/wjsm/2016-02/17/

China Cyber Dilemma in the 21st Century, China Internet Soverignty, China National Cyber Security Strategy, China's Informatization - 中國信息化, Chinese Military Views - 中國軍事觀, Strategic Support Forces, 中华人民共和国网络安全法

How Chinese Cyber Warfare Rejects Foreign Intruders Focuses on National Security // 中國網絡戰如何拒絕外國入侵者關注國家安全

09/28/2018 admin Leave a comment

How Chinese Cyber Warfare Rejects Foreign Intruders Focuses on National Security //

中國網絡戰如何拒絕外國入侵者關注國家安全

New “Thirty-six” mobile target defense

Increase the difficulty of attack by building a dynamic network

As a new idea in the field of cyberspace security, mobile target defense reflects the technological development trend of future network defenses to turn “dead” networks into “live” networks.

The new “Thirty-six” honey cans deceive defense

Reduce cyberattack threats by consuming attacker resources

New “Thirty-six Meters” linkage synergy defense

Integrate multiple defense technologies to “reject enemy from outside the country”

The optimal strategy defense of the new “Thirty-six”

Seeking a balance between cybersecurity risks and investments

The new “Thirty-six” intrusion tolerance defense

Create a “last line of defense” for cyberspace security

Original Mandarin Chinese:

新聞緣由

新“三十六計”之移動目標防禦

通過構建動態網絡增加攻擊難度

作為網絡空間安全領域的新思路，移動目標防禦反映了未來網絡防禦將“死”網絡變成“活”網絡的技術發展趨勢。

新“三十六計”之蜜罐誘騙防禦

通過消耗攻擊者的資源減少網絡攻擊威脅

新“三十六計”之聯動協同防禦

整合多種防禦技術“拒敵於國門之外”

新“三十六計”之最優策略防禦

在網絡安全風險和投入之間尋求一種均衡

新“三十六計”之入侵容忍防禦

打造網絡空間安全 “最後一道防線”

Original Referring URL: http://www.81.cn/jskj/2016-08/11/

China National Cyber Security Strategy, China's Informatization - 中國信息化, Chinese Military - Network & Space Forces, Chinese Military Views - 中國軍事觀

What is the main reason for US military network warfare? // 美军网络战主要干什么？

09/27/2018 admin Leave a comment

What is the main reason for US military network warfare? //

美军网络战主要干什么？

Source: PLA Daily Author: Chen Hanghui Editor: Yao Yuan

Recently, the US military has been “big move” in the field of cyber warfare. On October 24th, the US Department of Defense announced in a high-profile manner that the network task force directly under the US Cyber Command has the initial operational capability to perform basic cyber warfare tasks. From wielding the “cyber weapon stick” to the announcement of major progress in the construction of network forces, the United States intends to send a message to the outside world – the US military has basically built a network warfare power system and strives for the hegemonic position of the “fifth space.”

Strategic guidance –

Create a network action force system

As the creator of the Internet, the US military was the first to plan the formation of a cyber warfare army. As early as 1995, the US National Defense University trained 16 network warriors who relied on computers for information confrontation. From the development history of the past 20 years, strengthening strategic guidance and doing a good overall planning is a basic experience for the rapid development of the US military’s cyber warfare forces.

In 2002, the then President Bush signed the “National Security Order No. 16” and asked the Ministry of Defense to take the lead in formulating a cyberspace action strategy. In December of the same year, the US Navy took the lead in setting up the Cyber Command, and the Air Force and the Army also quickly followed up to form a service network force. In March 2005, the US Department of Defense issued the “Defense Strategy Report,” which defined the strategic position of cyberspace and characterized it as the fifth-dimensional space that is as important as land, sea, air, and sky. The development of US cyber warfare forces is ushered in. The first wave of climax. In general, in the early stage of development, although the development speed of the US military’s cyber warfare forces was fast, it lacked overall planning, and the various military cyber warfare units were stacked in flames and failed to form a joint force.

After President Obama, who relied on the Internet to win the general election, took the stage, he focused on strengthening the strategic guidance for cyber warfare capacity building from two aspects. On the one hand, in May 2010, the network headquarters of the entire army was established to coordinate the cyber warfare forces of various services and strengthen the command and control of cyberspace operations. On the other hand, in 2011 and 2015, two strategic reports, the Cyberspace Action Strategy and the DoD Network Strategy, were launched. The former explained the five pillars of the US military’s cyberspace operations, and the latter clarified the mission of cyber warfare forces. Mission and construction goals.

At present, the US military cyber warfare power system has basically taken shape. At the heart of the system is a network mission force directly under the US Cyber Command, which plays a key role in the US cyber warfare operations. As of the end of October 2016, the number of US military network task forces has reached 5,000, and all of the 133 network task forces compiled have initial operational capabilities, of which nearly half have full operational capabilities. According to the US Department of Defense program, by September 30, 2018, the number of network missions will increase to 6,187, with full operational capability.

Practical traction –

Conduct cyberspace attack and defense drills

In recent years, as cyber warfare has moved from behind the scenes to the front of the stage as an independent warfare style, the US military’s cyberspace action strategy has shifted from “precaution-based” to “attack and defense”, and improving the cyberspace combat capability has become the focus of the US military. At present, the US military mainly promotes network training under actual combat conditions from four aspects.

Open online courses according to actual needs and lay a solid foundation for cyber warfare skills. In response to the new situation in the field of cyberspace, the US military major military academies have added online courses. In 2012, the US Air Force Ordnance Academy launched its first offensive cyber action course, focusing on how to combine network capabilities with traditional combat methods. In 2014, West Point Military Academy established the Army Cyber Warfare Academy to train network elites. In the past few years, military colleges such as the West Point Military Academy and the Naval Academy have conducted network offensive and defensive drills with the “Red Cell” team composed of experts from the US National Security Agency to cultivate the backbone of future cyber warfare.

Develop a general-purpose network warfare training platform to improve the comprehensive benefits of training. At the Department of Defense, led by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the “National Network Shooting Range” was developed to simulate the cyberspace attack and defense operational environment, test network weaponry, and test new operational concepts. At the military level, a virtual environment was developed that could serve as a network range or test platform for testing, planning, and evaluating cyberspace operations. For example, the network virtual city built by the US Air Force can be used to conduct network attack and defense tactics; the naval development of the “tactical network shooting range” can extend network training to the radio frequency physical environment, achieving efficient integration of joint firepower and information advantages.

Conduct integrated network warfare exercises to improve the actual combat capability of network forces. In early 2016, the US Department of Defense’s Office of Combat Test and Evaluation recommended in a report to Congress that, in view of the fact that the US military will perform its tasks under the violent confrontation of cyberspace, it should regularly organize network offensive and defensive units and combat units to jointly conduct operations. drill. Since the beginning of this year, the US Army has conducted a number of exercises using network squadrons such as “Network Exploration” and “Network Flash Battle”, focusing on the actions of network detachments to support combat troops under field conditions. In April of this year, the US Army’s 25th Infantry Division and the 7th Communications Command Network Protection Brigade jointly held a “Network Flash Battle” exercise to test the feasibility of multi-sectoral interdisciplinary collaboration such as communication, network, and firepower.

Organize comprehensive cyber war exercises to strengthen military and network joint network operations capabilities. The US military believes that “the strategic war in the industrial era is a nuclear war, and the strategic war in the information age is mainly a cyber war.” Only by implementing the overall network war of the military and the land can we win the future cyber war. Since 2012, the US Army Network Command has jointly led the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to jointly organize a “Network Guardian” military joint exercise to strengthen information sharing between the US Department of Defense and other federal government agencies and private companies. In the “Network Guardian-2016” exercise held in June this year, more than 100 organizations and more than 800 organizations from government, academia, industry and allies participated in the exercise, focusing on the response to large-scale blackouts, oil refinery oil spills, and ports. Close other network attack scenarios.

Built with one –

Exploring the use of network forces

The United States was the first country to propose the concept of cyber warfare and the first country to use cyber forces for actual combat. As early as 2007, the National Security Agency used computer viruses to infect militants’ mobile phones and laptops, deceiving the enemy by sending false information, and even introducing the enemy into the US ambush to assist the US military in its operations.

After the establishment of the network mission force in 2012, in order to maintain the first-mover advantage in the field of cyberspace, the US military has followed the principle of “building and using, building and integrating” and actively explored and promoted the operational use of network forces. At the end of 2012, the US Army Network Command took the lead in deploying a network mission detachment with full operational capabilities at the Central Command to support US military operations in Syria and Iraq. In October 2015, US Naval Network Task Force Commander Paul Nakaso revealed at the seminar of the Center for Strategic and International Studies that although it had not yet been formed, the network task force had begun to participate in actual military operations. According to reports, from January to October 2015, the US military network task force participated in seven major military operations.

In April this year, under the direction of Defense Minister Carter, the US Cyber Command publicly announced a cyberattack against the “Islamic State” terrorist organization and became the “first show” of the US military network forces. In the course of the operation, the US military network forces focused on the communication network, publicity websites, and social networking websites of the “Islamic State”, and downgraded the information, issued instructions, recruited new people, and paid electronic payments through network downgrades and false orders. ability.

With the increasingly prominent role of cyberspace operations in US military joint operations, the US military has focused on the construction of the network force command and control architecture. After the completion of the US Cyber Command in 2010, the US Army, Sea, and Air Forces established the Service Network Command. In May 2012, the US military formed a “Joint Network Center” at each theater headquarters to serve as a link between the theater command and the US Cyber Command to better use the network mission force to support theater operations. At present, the US military executives are actively promoting the upgrading of the Cyber Command to an independent combatant command. Once this vision becomes a reality, the command relationship of the US military network forces will be clearer and the chain of command will be more efficient.

(Author: Nanjing Army Command Academy)

Picture: Yang Lei

Original Mandarin Chinese:

近段時間，美軍在網絡戰領域“大招”頻出。 10月24日，美國國防部高調宣布，直屬於美國網絡司令部的網絡任務部隊已具備初始作戰能力，能夠執行基本的網絡戰任務。從揮舞“網絡武器大棒”到公佈網絡部隊建設重大進展，美國意在向外界傳遞一個訊息——美軍已基本建成網絡戰力量體系，全力謀求“第五空間”的霸權地位。

戰略引導——

打造網絡行動力量體系

作為互聯網的締造者，美軍是最早籌劃組建網絡戰部隊的軍隊。早在1995年，美國國防大學就培養了16名依托計算機從事信息對抗的網絡戰士。從過去20年的發展歷程看，強化戰略指導、搞好統籌規劃是美軍網絡戰力量快速發展的一條基本經驗。

2002年，時任總統布什簽署“國家安全第16號總統令”，要求國防部牽頭制定網絡空間行動戰略。同年12月，美國海軍率先成立網絡司令部，空軍和陸軍也迅速跟進，組建軍種網絡部隊。 2005年3月，美國國防部出台《國防戰略報告》，明確了網絡空間的戰略地位，將其定性為與陸、海、空、天同等重要的第五維空間，美軍網絡戰力量發展迎來第一波高潮。總體而言，在發展初期，美軍網絡戰力量發展速度雖快，但缺乏統籌規劃，各軍種網絡戰部隊煙囪林立，未能形成合力。

依靠互聯網贏得大選的奧巴馬總統上台後，重點從兩方面強化對網絡戰能力建設的戰略引導。一方面，於2010年5月建成統管全軍的網絡司令部，統籌各軍種網絡戰力量，強化網絡空間行動指揮控制。另一方面，分別於2011年和2015年推出《網絡空間行動戰略》和《國防部網絡戰略》兩份戰略報告，前者闡述了美軍網絡空間行動的五大支柱，後者明確了網絡戰力量的使命任務和建設目標。

目前，美軍網絡戰力量體系已基本成型。位於該體系中心的是直屬於美國網絡司令部的網絡任務部隊，其在美軍網絡戰行動中扮演關鍵角色。截至2016年10月底，美軍網絡任務部隊人數已達5000人，編制的133個網絡任務組全部具備初始作戰能力，其中近一半具備了完全作戰能力。根據美國國防部計劃，到2018年9月30日，網絡任務部隊規模將增至6187人，具備完全作戰能力。

實戰牽引——

開展網絡空間攻防演練

近年來，隨著網絡戰作為獨立作戰樣式從幕後走向台前，美軍網絡空間行動策略由“以防為主”向“攻防兼備”轉變，提升網絡空間實戰能力成為美軍的練兵重點。當前，美軍主要從4方面推進實戰條件下的網絡訓練。

根據實戰需求開設網絡課程，打牢網絡戰技能基礎。為應對網絡空間領域新情況，美軍各大軍事院校紛紛增設網絡課程。 2012年，美國空軍軍械學院首次開設進攻性網絡行動課程，重點講授如何將網絡能力與傳統戰斗方式有機結合；2014年，西點軍校成立了陸軍網絡戰研究院，負責培養網絡精英。過去幾年，西點軍校、海軍軍官學院等軍事院校每年都會與由美國國家安全局專家組成的“紅細胞”隊進行網絡攻防演練，培養未來的網絡戰骨幹力量。

開發通用型網絡戰訓練平台，提高訓練綜合效益。在國防部層面，由國防高級研究項目局牽頭，開發了“國家網絡靶場”，用於模擬網絡空間攻防作戰環境，測試網絡武器裝備，檢驗新型作戰概念。在軍種層面，研發了可作為網絡靶場或測試平台的虛擬環境，用於測試、規劃和評估網絡空間行動。例如，美國空軍打造的網絡虛擬城市，可用於演練網絡攻防戰術；海軍開發的“戰術網絡靶場”可以將網絡訓練拓展到射頻物理環境，實現聯合火力與信息優勢的高效集成。

開展集成性網絡戰演練，提升網絡部隊實戰能力。 2016年初，美國國防部作戰測試與評估辦公室在向國會提交的一份報告中建議，考慮到美軍將在網絡空間領域激烈對抗的條件下執行任務，應定期組織網絡攻防部隊和作戰部隊聯合開展作戰演練。今年以來，美國陸軍已開展“網絡探索”“網絡閃擊戰”等多場運用網絡分隊的演習，重點演練網絡分隊在野戰條件下支援作戰部隊的行動。今年4月，美國陸軍第25步兵師和第7通信司令部網絡防護旅聯合舉行了“網絡閃擊戰”演習，檢驗了通信、網絡、火力等多部門跨專業協同的可行性。

組織綜合性網絡戰演習，強化軍地聯合網絡行動能力。美軍認為，“工業時代的戰略戰是核戰爭，信息時代的戰略戰主要是網絡戰”，只有實施軍地聯合的網絡總體戰，才能打贏未來網絡戰爭。 2012年以來，美軍網絡司令部每年都與國土安全部和聯邦調查局聯合牽頭組織“網絡衛士”軍地聯合演習，以便加強美國國防部與其他聯邦政府機構和私營企業之間的信息共享。在今年6月舉行的“網絡衛士-2016”演習中，來自政府、學界、業界和盟國的100多個組織、800多人參加了演習，重點演練了應對大面積停電、煉油廠漏油、港口關閉等網絡襲擊場景。

建用一體——

探索網絡部隊作戰運用

美國是第一個提出網絡戰概念的國家，也是第一個將網絡部隊用於實戰的國家。早在2007年，美國國家安全局就曾使用電腦病毒感染武裝分子的手機和筆記本電腦，通過發送虛假信息欺騙敵方，甚至將敵引入美軍埋伏圈，協助美軍開展行動。

2012年開始組建網絡任務部隊後，為保持在網絡空間領域的先發優勢，美軍遵循“邊建邊用、建用一體”的原則，積極探索和推進網絡部隊的作戰運用。 2012年底，美軍網絡司令部率先在中央司令部部署擁有完全作戰能力的網絡任務分隊，支持美軍在敘利亞和伊拉克的軍事行動。 2015年10月，美軍網絡任務部隊指揮官保羅·納卡索在參加戰略與國際研究中心研討會時透露，雖然尚未組建完畢，但網絡任務部隊已經開始參與實際軍事行動。據報導，僅2015年1月至10月，美軍網絡任務部隊就參與了7次重大軍事行動。

今年4月，在國防部長卡特的授意下，美國網絡司令部公開宣布對“伊斯蘭國”恐怖組織發動網絡攻擊，成為美軍網絡部隊的“首秀”。行動中，美軍網絡部隊以“伊斯蘭國”組織的通信網絡、宣傳網站、社交網站賬號為主要目標，通過網絡降級、發布虛假指令等方式，削弱其傳遞信息、下達指示、招募新人和電子支付等能力。

隨著網絡空間作戰在美軍聯合作戰中的作用日益突出，美軍重點推進了網絡部隊指揮控制架構建設。 2010年建成美國網絡司令部後，美國陸、海、空三大軍種相繼成立了軍種網絡司令部。 2012年5月，美軍在各戰區總部組建“聯合網絡中心”，作為連接戰區司令部與美國網絡司令部的紐帶，以便更好地使用網絡任務部隊支援戰區作戰。當前，美軍高層正積極推動將網絡司令部升格為獨立的作戰司令部，一旦該設想成為現實，美軍網絡部隊的指揮關係將更加清晰，指揮鏈運轉將更加高效。

（作者單位：南京陸軍指揮學院）

圖片資料：楊磊

Referring URL: http://www.81.cn/jskj/2017-03/

China Cyber Dilemma in the 21st Century, China Internet Soverignty, China National Cyber Security Strategy, China's Informatization - 中國信息化, Chinese Military Views - 中國軍事觀, Cyberspace Adminstration of China 中央網絡安全和信息勇, Strategic Support Forces

China analysis for winning mechanisms of victory on the cyberspace battlefield // 中國對網絡空間戰場胜利機制的分析

09/26/2018 admin Leave a comment

China analysis for winning mechanisms of victory on the cyberspace battlefield //

中國對網絡空間戰場胜利機制的分析

2017年04月17日 15:xx:xx

If the First World War was a chemist’s war and the Second World War was a physicist’s war, then the 21st century war would undoubtedly become a game between informatics. The cyberspace war has moved from the background to the front. From the supporting role to the protagonist, become a new battlefield and combat platform. With the gradual emergence of the cyber warfare deterrent effect, countries have introduced network strategies and formed “cyber warfare forces”. The global network arms race has shown its tempo. At present, more than 20 countries have established “cyber warfare forces”. Committed to the application of network technology to war, the “seismic network” incident and the “hacker door” incident fully proved the remarkable power of cyber warfare in the new generation of war mode.

We must profoundly understand the new forms of war reflected by these events and actively respond to the threats and challenges brought by cyber sovereignty, network defense, network frontiers, and cyber warfare, because whoever masters the new war winning mechanism will be able to Win the initiative in the round of war.

Network Sovereignty: A New Dimension

The world today is moving rapidly toward informationization, and cyberspace has become the “fifth largest territory” beyond land, sea, air and sky. The original sovereignty is the sovereignty of physical space, while the network sovereignty is the sovereign space of network electromagnetic space; national sovereignty is a concept that expands with the expansion of human activity space. Network sovereignty is a new content and an important part of national sovereignty.

(1) Cyber sovereignty has become the “commanding height” of national sovereignty. The network carries a large amount of content such as politics, economy, military, culture, transportation and social, and becomes the basic platform for the efficient operation and accelerated progress of the entire society. Once the cyber sovereignty is lost, the network public opinion orientation will be out of control. The national industrial, transportation, energy and other national economic lifeline industry control systems and military information networks will be out of control, just as sea power challenges land rights and air rights challenges sea power and land rights. The latecomers of cyber sovereignty have become the “commanding heights” of national sovereignty, directly affecting the security and stability of all areas of the country.

(2) The violation of cyber sovereignty will directly affect the “heart” of the country. Compared with traditional physical space, the existence and defense of cyberspace sovereignty is not only easily overlooked, but also vulnerable to violations. The network hinges the information nodes on the earth that are thousands of miles apart. Through it, it can be easily and easily moved from one country to the heart of another country to the heart. A keystroke can surround the Earth for two weeks in a period of 0.3 seconds, and the attack is difficult to locate.

(3) The use of “combination boxing” is required to defend the cyberspace sovereignty. In the Google turmoil in 2010, the Chinese government categorically rejected Google’s request for “freedom” beyond Chinese legal management, which is a firm defense of cyber sovereignty. For any violation of the cyber sovereignty of our network, we must not only resist and counterattack in the cyberspace, but also play a “combination boxing” of politics, economy, and diplomacy to counterattack if necessary.

Network Frontiers – A New Border of National Security

China’s Internet users have reached 731 million. In this context, the network frontier far surpasses the status of the Great Wall in history and has become an important “warning line” for national security in the information age.

(1) Fully recognize the “new situation” of the network frontier. The first is the lack of network protection awareness among the people. Many systems have the same firewall, the network security problem is serious, and the cyber crime is increasing. Secondly, the network security products and security equipment in key areas rely on imports. The mainstream firewall technology and anti-virus technology are mostly from abroad, and they can control themselves independently. The lack of high-tech network security products; the third is that as China is increasingly connected to the world, the introduction of technology and equipment network remote services increases, the foreign party can monitor the operation and production of the equipment in real time, making me “portal opening”; finally In actual network operations, Western network powers monopolize a large number of network resources. For example, most of the world’s online information comes from or passes through the United States.

(2) Accurately define the “new boundary” of cyberspace. On the one hand, we must correctly understand the essential meaning of the network frontier. A country’s network infrastructure, state-specific Internet domain names and their domains, as well as financial, telecommunications, transportation, energy and other national core network systems in the national economy and the people’s livelihood should be regarded as an important part of the national network frontier, and no vandalism is allowed. On the one hand, we must correctly understand the importance of guarding the network frontier. Watching the network frontier is actually an authorization relationship, that is, it must meet the requirements and be allowed to enter. Otherwise, it cannot enter. For example, national financial, power, transportation and other systems of protection measures, firewalls and bank card cryptosystems are the “watchers” of the network frontier.

(3) Focus on creating a “new sword” that guards the frontiers of the network. The frontiers of guarding the network must be supported by powerful technical means. Various firewalls, cryptosystems, etc. are equivalent to building thick lines on the frontiers of the network, but this is not enough to resist external “invasion”, but also requires “patrol sentinels” and “frontier forces” to detect “intrusion” in a timely manner. In 2003, the US Einstein Plan for monitoring abnormal traffic at government agencies and institutional networks was the world’s first intrusion detection system. By the end of 2008, the Einstein system had been deployed in 600 government agency website systems, forming an intrusion detection system that supports dynamic protection.

Network Defense – The New Great Wall of National Defense

Sovereignty without armed protection is a fragile sovereignty, and frontiers without defense and defense are endangered frontiers. Therefore, people have a strong sense of border defense, coastal defense, and air defense.

(1) Firmly establishing a network defense concept is a “premise.” The countries of the world, especially the western developed countries, have not only woke up early, got up early, but also ran fast in the construction of network defense. Among them, the United States is both the creator of the Internet and the country that first paid attention to the construction of network security protection. The United States not only took the lead in formulating a series of policy documents such as the National Strategy for Ensuring Cyberspace Security, but also established a strong “net army” and a strong network defense.

(2) Vigorously building the network’s national defense force is a “trend.” The United States, Britain, Japan, Russia and other countries, as well as Taiwan, have formed cyber warfare units and command agencies. Strengthening the construction of cyber security forces and improving the national cyber defense capabilities are both the general trend and the successful practices of all countries in the world. They are also an urgent task for safeguarding China’s national security.

(III) Overall planning of network defense construction is “key”. The overall strategic concept should be proposed for the current cyberspace struggle, and the “three hands” should be highlighted in the top-level design: that is, to compete as a “flag-bearer” in public opinion, to select “hands-on” in the construction focus, and to stay on the struggle strategy. There is a “backhand”.

Cyber Warfare: A New Battlefield for the Game of Great Powers

In today’s world, the globalization of network battlefields, the normalization of network attack and defense, and the white-hotness of network attacks have made it possible to scientifically and effectively control cyberspace and occupy cyberspace, and become a new battlefield for strategic games of big countries.

The first is to regard the cyberspace situational awareness as the core of the power system. The four capabilities of “network security, situational awareness, network defense, and network deterrence” are the core capabilities for comprehensively promoting the construction of the cyberspace capability system. The war first requires the commander to grasp and understand the enemy’s and his own situation, make correct decisions based on the real-time situation, and the ever-changing characteristics of the network situation determine the success or failure of the network operation. Therefore, network situational awareness has become the primary capability of the cyberspace combat confrontation system.

The second is to use offensive operations as the main way to seize the initiative of cyberspace. The US military has strategically considered the cyberspace attacks as aggression in real space and has been attacked by the military. At present, the US military has built 100 teams to operate in cyberspace. In cyberspace operations, the offensive and defensive subjects have a certain degree of separation, and the offensive and defensive effects have asymmetry. The key to seizing the initiative in cyberspace operations is to use the offensive action to contain enemy attacks and ensure my stability.

The third is to establish a cyberspace defense force system with national co-ordination and military-civilian integration. To attack and defend, not to ignore the defense. Therefore, in accordance with the idea of “optimizing the overall existing strength, developing the gap to fill the gap, and building a new mechanism to protect the forces”, the company will build a professional, support and reserve based on the requirements of “moderate scale, structural optimization, integration of technology and warfare, and complementary functions”. The new cyberspace security defense force system composed of other forces will enhance the national network counterattack capability and form a network deterrent. (Li Yiyang: School of Secondary School Affiliated to Renmin University of China; Li Minghai: Deputy Director, Network Space Research Center, National Defense University)

Original Mandarin Chinese:

如果說第一次世界大戰是化學家的戰爭，第二次世界大戰是物理學家的戰爭，那麼，21世紀的戰爭無疑將成為信息學家之間的博弈，網絡空間戰已從後台走向前台，從配角轉向主角，成為新的戰場和作戰平台隨著網絡戰威懾效果的逐步顯現，各國紛紛出台網絡戰略，組建“網絡戰部隊”，全球網絡軍備競賽呈燎原之勢 – 目前已有20多個國家組建了“網絡戰部隊”，各國都致力於將網絡技術運用於戰爭“震網”事件，“黑客門”事件充分證明了網絡戰在新一代戰爭模式中的顯著威力。

我們必須深刻認識這些事件所折射出來的新的戰爭形態，積極應對網絡主權，網絡國防，網絡邊疆，網絡戰爭帶來的威脅和挑戰，因為，誰掌握新的戰爭制勝機理，誰就能在下一輪戰爭中贏得主動。

網絡主權 – 國家主權的新維度

當今世界正在向著信息化快速邁進，網絡空間成為繼陸，海，空，天之外的“第五大疆域”原有的主權均為物理空間的主權，而網絡主權是網絡電磁空間主權。國家主權是一個隨著人類活動空間的拓展而不斷拓展的概念，網絡主權是國家主權的全新內容和重要組成部分。

（一）網絡主權已成為國家主權的“制高點”。網絡承載了政治，經濟，軍事，文化，交通和社交等大量內容，成為整個社會高效運轉和加速進步的基本平台。一旦喪失網絡主權，網絡輿情導向將會失控，國家工業，交通，能源等國民經濟命脈行業控制系統和軍事信息網絡都將會失控，如同海權挑戰陸權，空權挑戰海權與陸權一樣，網絡主權後來者居上，成為國家主權的“制高點”，直接影響國家各領域的安全穩定。

（二）網絡主權的侵犯將直逼國家的“心臟”。與傳統實體空間相比，網絡空間主權的存在與捍衛不僅易被忽視，而且易遭侵犯。網絡把地球上相距萬里的信息節點鉸鏈為一體，通過它可以悄無聲息，輕而易舉地從一國進入另一國腹地直至心臟部位。一次擊鍵0.3秒時間內即可環繞地球兩週，而且，攻擊很難被定位。

（三）捍衛網絡空間主權需用“組合拳”。2010年谷歌風波中，中國政府斷然拒絕谷歌要求超越中國法律管理的“自由”，就是對網絡主權的堅決捍衛。對於任何侵犯我網絡主權的行為，不僅要在網絡空間予以抵制和反擊，必要時還可打出政治，經濟，外交等“組合拳”給予還擊。

網絡邊疆 – 國家安全的新邊界

中國網民已達7.31億，在這個背景下，網絡邊疆遠超歷史上萬里長城的地位，成為信息時代國家安全的重要“警戒線”。

（一）充分認清網絡邊疆的“新形勢”首先是民眾缺乏網絡防護意識，很多系統的防火牆形同虛設，網絡安全問題嚴重，網絡犯罪日益增加;其次是網絡安全產品和關鍵領域安全設備依賴進口，主流防火牆技術和殺毒技術大都來自國外，自主可控，高技術含量的網絡安全產品匱乏;第三是隨著我國日益與世界接軌，引進技術設備的網絡遠程服務增加，外方能實時監控設備運轉和生產情況，令我自身“門戶洞開”;最後是在實際網絡運營上，西方網絡大國壟斷著大量網絡資源，比如，全球大多數網上信息發自或經過美國。

（二）準確界定網絡空間的“新邊界”。一方面，要正確理解網絡邊疆的本質內涵。一個國家的網絡基礎設施，國家專屬的互聯網域名及其域內以及金融，電信，交通，能源等關係國計民生領域的國家核心網絡系統都應視為國家網絡邊疆的重要組成部分，不允許肆意破壞;另一方面，要正確認識值守網絡邊疆的重要性值守網絡邊疆，其實是一種授權關係，即必須符合要求，得到允許才能進入，否則，不能進入。比如，國家金融，電力，交通等系統的防護措施，防火牆以及銀行卡密碼系統等都是網絡邊疆的“值守者”。

（三）著力打造守護網絡邊疆的“新利劍”。守護網絡邊疆必須以強大的技術手段為支撐。各種防火牆，密碼系統等相當於在網絡邊疆上建起了粗線條的籬笆，但這不足以抵禦外來“入侵”，還需要“巡邏哨兵”和“邊防部隊”及時檢測“入侵”行為。2003年，美國用於監測政府部門和機構網絡關口非正常流量的“愛因斯坦計劃”，就是世界上第一個入侵檢測系統。到2008年年底，愛因斯坦系統已部署在600個政府機構網站系統中，形成了一個支撐動態保護的入侵檢測系統。

網絡國防 – 國家防禦的新長城

沒有武裝保護的主權是脆弱的主權，沒有國防捍衛的邊疆是瀕危的邊疆。因此，人們才產生了強烈的邊防，海防，空防意識。

（一）牢固樹立網絡國防理念是“前提”。世界各國，尤其是西方發達國家在網絡國防建設上，不僅醒得早，起得早，而且跑得快。其中，美國既是互聯網的締造者，也是最早關注網絡安全防護建設的國家。美國不僅率先制定了“確保網絡空間安全的國家戰略”等一系列政策文件，而且建立了強大的“網軍”和強大的網絡國防。

（二）大力建設網絡國防力量是“勢趨”。美國，英國，日本，俄羅斯等國以及中國台灣地區，紛紛組建了網絡戰部隊和指揮機構。加強網絡安全力量建設，提高國家網絡防衛能力，這既是大勢所趨，也是世界各國的成功做法，更是維護我國國家安全的一項緊迫任務。

（三）整體統籌網絡國防建設是“關鍵”應針對當前網絡空間鬥爭實際提出總體戰略構想，並在頂層設計上突出“三手”：即在輿論造勢上爭當“旗手”，在建設重點上選好“抓手”，在鬥爭策略上留有“後手”。

網絡戰爭 – 大國博弈的新戰場

當今世界，網絡戰場的全球化，網絡攻防的常態化，網絡攻心的白熱化等突出特點，使得科學高效地管控網絡空間，佔領網絡空間，成為大國戰略博弈的新戰場。

一是把網絡空間態勢感知能力作為力量體系建設核心。“網絡安全保障，態勢感知，網絡防禦，網絡威懾”四大能力，是全面推進網絡空間能力體系建設的核心能力。戰爭首先需要指揮員能夠掌握和理解敵方，己方態勢，根據實時態勢作出正確決策，網絡態勢瞬息萬變的特點決定了網絡作戰的成敗。因此，網絡態勢感知能力就成為網絡空間作戰對抗體系的首要能力。

二是將攻勢作戰作為奪取網絡空間主動權的主要方式。美軍在戰略上已將網絡空間的攻擊行為視為現實空間的侵略行為，並予以軍事打擊。目前美軍已建成100個小組在網絡空間活動。網絡空間作戰，攻防主體具有一定的分離性，攻防效果具有不對稱性。奪取網絡空間作戰的主動權，關鍵在於以攻勢行動遏制敵攻擊，保證我穩定。

三是建立國家統籌，軍民融合的網絡空間防禦力量體系。以攻助防，不是忽視防禦。因此，需要按照“優化整體現有力量，發展填補空白力量，組建新機理防護力量”的思路，依據“規模適度，結構優化，技戰一體，功能互補”的要求，構建由專業，支援和預備役等力量構成的新型網絡空間安全防禦力量體系，提升國家網絡反擊能力，形成網絡威懾力（李昊洋：中國人民大學附屬中學分校;李明海：國防大學網絡空間研究中心副主任）

Original Referring URL: http://www.cac.gov.cn/2017-04/

China Cyber Dilemma in the 21st Century, China National Cyber Security Strategy, China's Informatization - 中國信息化, China's Military Infratsructure, China's Military Organization - Intelligence, Chinese Military - Network & Space Forces, Chinese Military Views - 中國軍事觀

Chinese Military Cyber Warfare Capacity Building Achieving Situational Awareness in Cyberspace // 中國軍事網絡戰能力建設在網絡空間實現態勢感知

09/26/2018 admin Leave a comment

Chinese Military Cyber Warfare Capacity Building Achieving Situational Awareness in Cyberspace //

中國軍事網絡戰能力建設在網絡空間實現態勢感知

2017/05/20

Cyberspace has become a new territory alongside land, sea, air and space, and it is also the most extensive territory. Since the birth of the computer, computer and network-based information systems have gradually developed, and the software and resources on it have been continuously enriched, eventually forming a network space.

With the continuous development of the US military’s weapons and equipment and combat theory, the “cyberspace warfare” began to move from reality to reality. Compared with the traditional “platform center warfare”, the role of the command and control system “combat multiplier” in “cyberspace warfare” will be more prominent, and the impact on combat will be even greater. In the future modern war, in cyberspace Command and control should have its own characteristics and concerns.

In theory, cyberspace is synonymous with the digital society of all available electronic information and networks. The United States “National Security Presidential Decree No. 45 and General Homeland Security Order No. 23” defines cyberspace as: information technology infrastructure and interdependent networks, including the Internet, telecommunications networks, computer systems, and processors in key industries. And the controller, usually also includes the information virtual environment and the interaction between people.

Cyberspace has four elements: communication devices and lines; computers; software; data communication and resource sharing. Communication equipment and lines: It is one of the infrastructures of network space, including routing/switching equipment, wired/wireless communication equipment, cables, and so on. Computer: One of the infrastructures of cyberspace with computing, storage, and data processing capabilities. Software: It is the core supporting part of cyberspace, and software systems running various functions in communication devices and computers. Data communication and resource sharing: It is the basic capability of cyberspace, providing the required information for users at all levels.

Commanding operations in the vast new territory of cyberspace will inevitably require the linkage of multiple arms and services. First, it should have security protection capabilities, provide multiple levels of security, and secondly must master the battlefield situation. In addition, it must have resource scheduling capabilities, etc. Provide support for integrated joint operations.

Security protection refers to the protection of data in the hardware, software and systems of network systems by using various technologies and management measures so that they are not damaged, falsified or leaked due to accidental or malicious reasons, so that the system can continue Reliable and normal operation, network services are not interrupted.

In the cyberspace command operation, the whole process of generating, storing, transmitting and using all kinds of allegations is faced with one or the other security threats. The traditional form of conflict has been extended to cyberspace.

Security protection technology and attack technology have been developing together. The contest between “spear” and “shield” has existed since ancient times. Although the US military has consistently expressed its position through various channels, it claims that the “core of the US military’s cyberspace operations is to defend against cyberattacks, and defensive capabilities are the basis of all other combat capabilities.” However, a little analysis shows that the US military must achieve this in cyberspace. The goal is to combine attack and defense, build a network deterrent system, and consolidate its own “networking rights” in the military. US Deputy Defense Secretary Lynn has made it clear that the US will retain the right to respond to serious cyber attacks and will make a commensurate and legitimate military response at the time and place we choose. Former Defense Secretary Panetta has pointed out: “Now we live in a completely different world and face the cyberspace attack that can be compared with Pearl Harbor.” “We must be prepared to deal with it. In cyberspace, we have to Have a good network attack and network defense capabilities.” These speeches fully demonstrate that the US military pays attention to the deterrent effect of cyberspace, emphasizes the combination of attack and defense in cyberspace, and takes the initiative to launch cyberattacks when necessary. Its military goal is not only to ensure its own network security, but to discourage by improving its cyber attack capabilities. And deterrence all cyberattacks that are not conducive to oneself, to achieve its absolute freedom, absolute superiority and absolute security in cyberspace.

In the cyberspace, the offensive and defensive drills between the state and the country have never stopped. In July 2008, Russia used a covert injection of attack software to launch a comprehensive cyberattack against Georgia, causing the network to collapse. In December 2011, Iran declared that its “electronic warfare force” used a “hacker hijacking” method to cause an American RQ-170 stealth drone to leave the route and land in Iran. The “super flame” virus discovered in May 2012 spread widely in the Middle East, hiding in the computer and stealing data. In March 2014, the official website of the Russian president suffered a cyber attack. From the previous cyberattacks, the cyber attack is as good as the fire of conventional weapons. The security of cyberspace is the security of the country, and cyberspace has become a space in the field of national sovereignty.

Security protection in cyberspace should employ multiple levels of security mechanisms. At the national strategic level, it is a national-level network security protection; in key areas, there are network security protections in the military, government, and economic fields; in large enterprises, there are network security protections of state-owned and private enterprises and institutions; There are network security protections for individuals and families. Among them, the national level of security protection mainly includes border network security and backbone network security; enterprise-level (and military) security protection mainly includes border network security and intranet security; personal computer security protection mainly includes computer terminal security, terminal software security and terminal Data Security. At different levels of security, the content of protected information varies from national strategic planning to development routes to personal privacy and bank passwords. The leakage of information will undoubtedly have a blow and negative impact on the survival and development of the country, enterprises and individuals, and even undermine the security and stability of the country.

Situational awareness is the perception, understanding and prediction of environmental factors under certain time and space conditions. In 1988, Endsley divided situational awareness into three levels of information processing: perception, understanding, and prediction. In 1999, TimBass first proposed the concept of network situational awareness, and pointed out that “convergence-based network situational awareness” will become the development direction of network management.

“Know yourself and know each other, there is no war.” In the new battle space of cyberspace, how can we be confidant and know each other? It is necessary to grasp the situation of the battlefield and have the ability to sense the situation, that is, to acquire, understand and present the key factors that can cause changes in the state of the enemy and the enemy, and to predict the future development trend.

The battlefield situation in cyberspace has the characteristics of wide coverage, huge amount of information, and extremely complicated conditions. For all levels of commanders, they hope to clearly understand and master the current cyberspace operations from the situation map, so that they can make decisions quickly and issue correct command orders.

To gain insight into the state and situation of cyberspace battlefield development, it must have the ability to collect, transmit, store, monitor, analyze, and present state data. In the key position of the network space, the detection points are laid, the network running status is detected, and the state data is collected. Based on various state data, network posture, security situation, spectrum situation, etc. are formed. Then, it is transmitted to the node with data analysis and processing capability through various communication means to analyze the situation data, including situational integration, situation assessment and situation prediction. The results of the analysis and processing are transmitted to the command posts at all levels, and the battlefield situation is presented to the commanders at all levels in a layered, multi-dimensional, on-demand manner. The basic process of situational awareness is consistent with the traditional approach, but each process is different.

The battlefield situation of cyberspace should be layered, global, and partial, which puts higher demands on the situation. With the continuous development of rendering technology, simple planar situational maps can no longer meet the operational needs, especially in the cyberspace combat environment, the demand for stereoscopic and multidimensional situations is prominent. Even if you are in the command post, the commander should be able to understand the battlefield situation and face the real opponent through the situation map. In the American war movie, you can often see the stereoscopic, touchable electronic sandbox, and the multi-dimensional display of the real-time battlefield situation enables the commanding function to make quick and accurate decisions and improve command and control capabilities. The battlefield environment of cyberspace is extremely complex, network environment, equipment operation, software operation… Many places need to have clear and intuitive display. In order to improve the user experience and shorten the decision time, the cyberspace situation should have multi-dimensional dynamic characteristics, and can support multi-screen display, multi-screen linkage and so on. From the top-level situation map, you can understand the whole picture of the war. From the local situation map, you can understand the status of the combat units at all levels. The commanders at different levels can view different situation maps as needed based on their own authority.

As a new type of combat space, cyberspace has objective differences with traditional physical space, and there are special requirements for command and control of cyberspace. However, cyberspace command and control still faces many other problems, such as how to integrate cyberspace command and control with traditional physical space command and control systems, and how to conduct cyberspace command and control effectiveness evaluation.

Original Mandarin Chinese:

網絡空間已成為與陸地、海洋、空中、太空並列的一片新疆域，也是覆蓋面最廣的疆域。從計算機誕生之日起，以計算機和網絡為基礎的信息系統就逐漸發展起來，其上的軟件和資源也不斷豐富，最終形成了網絡空間。

隨著美軍武器裝備和作戰理論的不斷發展，“網絡空間戰”從設想開始走向現實。與傳統的“平台中心戰”相比，在“網絡空間戰”中指揮控制系統“戰鬥力倍增器”的作用將更加突出，對作戰的影響也更加巨大’在未來的現代化戰爭中，網絡空間中的指揮控制應有它自身的特點和關注點。

從理論上講，網絡空間是所有可利用的電子信息、網絡構成的數字社會的代名詞。美國《第45號國家安全總統令暨第23號國土安全總令》中將網絡空間定義為：信息技術基礎設施和相互依存的網絡，包括互聯網、電信網、電腦系統以及重要產業中的處理器和控制器，通常還包括信息虛擬環境以及人與人之間的互動。

網絡空間具有四個要素：通信設備和線路；計算機；軟件；數據通信與資源共享。通信設備和線路：是網絡空間的基礎設施之一，具體包括路由/交換設備、有線/無線通信設備、線纜等。計算機：是網絡空間的基礎設施之一，具有計算、存儲和數據處理等能力。軟件：是網絡空間的核心支撐部分，通信設備和計算機中均運行著各種功能的軟件系統。數據通信與資源共享：是網絡空間具備的基本能力，為各類各級用戶提供所需的信息。

在網絡空間這一遼闊的新疆域中指揮作戰，必然需要多個軍兵種聯動，首先應當具備安全防護能力，提供多級安全保障，其次必須掌握戰場態勢，另外還必須具有資源調度能力等，能夠為一體化聯合作戰提供支撐。

安全防護是指通過釆用各種技術和管理措施，保護網絡系統的硬件、軟件及系統中的數據，使其不因偶然的或者惡意的原因而遭受到破壞、篡改、洩露，使得系統能夠連續可靠正常地運行，網絡服務不中斷。

網絡空間指揮作戰中，各類指控信息的產生、存儲、傳輸和使用的全過程，均面臨著這樣或那樣的安全威脅，傳統的衝突形式已擴展到網絡空間。

安全防護技術和攻擊技術一直在共同發展著，“矛”與“盾”的較量自古就有。雖然美軍不斷通過各種渠道表態，宣稱美軍網絡空間行動的“核心是防禦網絡攻擊行為，防禦能力是其他一切作戰能力的基礎”,但稍加分析即可看出，美軍在網絡空間要達成的目標是：攻防結合，構建網絡威懾體系，在軍事上鞏固自己的“製網權”。美國國防部副部長林恩曾明確表示，美方將保留回應嚴重網絡攻擊的權利，會在“我們選擇的時間和地點做出相稱且正當的軍事回應”。前任國防部長帕內塔曾指出：“現在我們生活在一個完全不同的世界裡，要面對可與珍珠港比擬的網絡空間攻擊”，“我們必須做好應對準備，在網絡空間，我們要同時擁有良好的網絡進攻與網絡防禦能力”。這些講話充分顯示了美軍注重網絡空間威懾效應、在網絡空間強調攻防結合、必要時不惜主動發動網絡攻擊的心態，其軍事目標絕不僅僅是保證自身網絡安全，而是要通過提升網絡攻擊能力勸阻和威懾所有不利於己的網絡攻擊行為，實現其在網絡空間的絕對自由、絕對優勢和絕對安全。

在網絡空間中，國家與國家之間的攻防演練也從來沒有停止過。 2008年7月，俄羅斯利用攻擊軟件的隱蔽注入，對格魯吉亞實施了全面的網絡攻擊，導致網絡癱瘓。 2011年12月，伊朗宣稱其“電子戰部隊”用“黑客劫持”的方法使得美國的一架RQ-170隱形無人機脫離航線，降落在伊朗境內。 2012年5月被發現的“超級火焰”病毒在中東大範圍傳播，在計算機內隱蔽駐留、竊取數據。 2014年3月，俄羅斯總統官網遭遇網絡攻擊。從歷次的網絡攻擊事件來看，網絡攻擊效果不亞於常規武器的火力打擊。網絡空間的安全，就是國家的安全，網絡空間已成為國家主權領域空間。

網絡空間中的安全防護應採用多級安全保障機制。在國家戰略層面，是國家級網絡安全防護；在關鍵部位，有軍隊、政府、經濟等領域的網絡安全防護；在大型企業中，有國有、私有等企事業單位的網絡安全防護；在局部，有個人、家庭等範圍的網絡安全防護。其中，國家層面的安全防護主要包括邊界網絡安全和骨幹網絡安全；企業級（及軍隊）安全防護主要包括邊界網絡安全和內網安全；個人計算機安全防護主要包括計算機終端安全、終端軟件安全及終端數據安全。在不同的安全級別上，保護的信息內容各不相同，大到國家戰略規劃、發展路線，小到個人隱私、銀行密碼等。信息的洩漏，無疑會對國家、企業、個人的生存和發展帶來打擊和負面影響，甚至會破壞國家的安全和穩定。

態勢感知是在一定的時間和空間條件下，對環境因素的感知、理解以及對其發展趨勢的預測。 1988年，Endsley把態勢感知分為感知、理解和預測三個層次的信息處理。 1999年，TimBass首次提出了網絡態勢感知的概念，並且指出，“基於融合的網絡態勢感知”必將成為網絡管理的發展方向。

“知己知彼，百戰不殆。”在網絡空間這一新型作戰空間中，如何才能做到知己和知彼？必須掌握戰場態勢，具有態勢感知能力，即對能夠引起敵我狀態發生變化的關鍵因素進行獲取、理解和呈現，並能夠預測未來的發展趨勢。

網絡空間中的戰場態勢具有覆蓋面廣、信息量巨大、情況異常複雜等特點。對於各級指揮員來說，都希望能夠從態勢圖上清晰地了解和掌握當前網絡空間作戰狀況，以便能夠快速地進行決策，下達正確的指揮作戰命令。

要洞察網絡空間戰場發展的狀態和形勢，必須具備狀態數據釆集、傳輸、存儲、監控、分析處理和展現的能力。在網絡空間的關鍵位置，佈設檢測點，對網絡運行狀態進行檢測，並採集狀態數據。基於各類狀態數據，形成網絡態勢、安全態勢、頻譜態勢等。再通過各種通信手段傳輸到具有數據分析處理能力的節點上，進行態勢數據分析，主要包括態勢融合、態勢評估和態勢預測等。分析處理的結果再傳輸到各級指揮所，並以分層、多維、按需等方式將戰場態勢呈現給各級指揮員。態勢感知的基本流程與傳統方式一致，但每個處理環節都有不同之處。

網絡空間的戰場態勢應該是分層的，有全局的，也有局部的，這對態勢呈現效果提出了更高的要求。隨著呈現技術的不斷發展，簡單的平面態勢圖已不能滿足作戰需求，尤其是在網絡空間作戰環境下，立體、多維的態勢呈現需求凸顯。就算身在指揮所內，通過態勢圖，指揮員也應能洞悉戰場態勢，直面真正的對手。在美國戰爭大片中，經常能夠看到立體的、可觸控的電子沙盤，實時的戰場態勢多維展現，使得指揮官能快速準確決策，提高指揮控制能力。網路空間的戰場環境異常複雜，網絡環境、設備運行情況、軟件運行情況……很多地方都需要有清晰直觀的展現。為了提高用戶體驗，縮短決策時間，網絡空間態勢呈現應具有多維動態特性，並能支持多屏顯示，多屏聯動等。從頂層態勢圖能了解戰爭全貌，從局部態勢圖能了解各級作戰部隊的狀態；不同級別的指揮員基於自身的權限，能夠按需查看不同的態勢圖。

網絡空間作為一種新型的作戰空間，存在和傳統物理空間的客觀差異，網絡空間的指揮控制也存在特殊的需求。然而，網絡空間指揮控制還面臨著其他諸多問題，t匕如如何將網絡空間指揮控制與傳統物理空間指揮控制的體系互相融合、以及如何進行網絡空間指揮控制的效能評估等，這些都是有待進.

Referring url: http://www.81.cn/

Red Dragon 1949 / 紅龍1949

Category Archives: Chinese Military Views – 中國軍事觀

Chinese Military Analysis of American Information Warfare Strategy Theory and Its Practical Conception // 中國對美國信息戰戰略理論的軍事分析及其實踐觀

Chinese Military Analysis of American Information Warfare Strategy Theory and Its Practical Conception //

中國對美國信息戰戰略理論的軍事分析及其實踐觀

Chinese Military Information Warfare: The First Game of Modern Warfare // 中國軍事信息戰：現代戰爭的第一場戰爭

Chinese Military Information Warfare: The First Game of Modern Warfare //

中國軍事信息戰：現代戰爭的第一場戰爭

General Qiao Liang: Confident Cyber Leadership Wins the future “network space war” // 喬亮將軍：充滿信心的網絡領導贏得了未來的“網絡太空戰爭”

General Qiao Liang: Confident Cyber Leadership Wins the future “network space war” //

喬亮將軍：充滿信心的網絡領導贏得了未來的“網絡太空戰爭”

Chinese Military Information Warfare Attacks on Mind and Spirit // 中國軍隊信息戰隊思想和精神的攻擊

Chinese Military Information Warfare Attacks on Mind and Spirit //

中國軍隊信息戰隊思想和精神的攻擊

Chinese Military Intent to Defeat US Military Cyber Forces Using the “Thirty-Six” Strategy of Cyber Warfare //中國軍事意圖利用“三十六”網絡戰策略擊敗美國軍事網絡部隊

Chinese Military Intent to Defeat US Military Cyber Forces Using the “Thirty-Six” Strategy of Cyber Warfare //

中國軍事意圖利用“三十六”網絡戰策略擊敗美國軍事網絡部隊

America Instigating Cyber Warfare – How China Will Realize the Chinese Dream in the Age of American Cyber Warfare // 美國煽動網絡戰 – 中國如何在美國網絡戰時代實現中國夢

America Instigating Cyber Warfare – How China Will Realize the Chinese Dream in the Age of American Cyber Warfare //

美國煽動網絡戰 – 中國如何在美國網絡戰時代實現中國夢

How Chinese Cyber Warfare Rejects Foreign Intruders Focuses on National Security // 中國網絡戰如何拒絕外國入侵者關注國家安全

How Chinese Cyber Warfare Rejects Foreign Intruders Focuses on National Security //

中國網絡戰如何拒絕外國入侵者關注國家安全

What is the main reason for US military network warfare? // 美军网络战主要干什么？

What is the main reason for US military network warfare? //

美军网络战主要干什么？

China analysis for winning mechanisms of victory on the cyberspace battlefield // 中國對網絡空間戰場胜利機制的分析

China analysis for winning mechanisms of victory on the cyberspace battlefield //

中國對網絡空間戰場胜利機制的分析

Chinese Military Cyber Warfare Capacity Building Achieving Situational Awareness in Cyberspace // 中國軍事網絡戰能力建設在網絡空間實現態勢感知

Chinese Military Cyber Warfare Capacity Building Achieving Situational Awareness in Cyberspace //

中國軍事網絡戰能力建設在網絡空間實現態勢感知

中國網絡衝突討論，信息與研究 // Chinese Cyber Conflict Discussions, Information & Research

Chinese Military Analysis of American Information Warfare Strategy Theory and Its Practical Conception //

中國對美國信息戰戰略理論的軍事分析及其實踐觀

Chinese Military Information Warfare: The First Game of Modern Warfare //

中國軍事信息戰：現代戰爭的第一場戰爭

General Qiao Liang: Confident Cyber Leadership Wins the future “network space war” //

喬亮將軍：充滿信心的網絡領導贏得了未來的“網絡太空戰爭”

Chinese Military Information Warfare Attacks on Mind and Spirit //

中國軍隊信息戰隊思想和精神的攻擊

Chinese Military Intent to Defeat US Military Cyber Forces Using the “Thirty-Six” Strategy of Cyber Warfare //

中國軍事意圖利用“三十六”網絡戰策略擊敗美國軍事網絡部隊

America Instigating Cyber Warfare – How China Will Realize the Chinese Dream in the Age of American Cyber ​​Warfare //

美國煽動網絡戰 – 中國如何在美國網絡戰時代實現中國夢

How Chinese Cyber Warfare Rejects Foreign Intruders Focuses on National Security //

中國網絡戰如何拒絕外國入侵者關注國家安全

What is the main reason for US military network warfare? //

美军网络战主要干什么？

China analysis for winning mechanisms of victory on the cyberspace battlefield //

中國對網絡空間戰場胜利機制的分析

Chinese Military Cyber Warfare Capacity Building Achieving Situational Awareness in Cyberspace //

中國軍事網絡戰能力建設在網絡空間實現態勢感知

中國網絡衝突討論，信息與研究 // Chinese Cyber Conflict Discussions, Information & Research

America Instigating Cyber Warfare – How China Will Realize the Chinese Dream in the Age of American Cyber Warfare //