Category Archives: Cognitive Confrontation

#Artificial #Intelligence, #Chinese #Quantum #technology, #Information Support Force, #informatization, #intelligent warfare, #intellligentization, #quantum computing warfare, China's Informatization - 中國信息化, Chinese Artificial Intelligence, Chinese Military Characteristics & Development Trends of Cognitive Domain Operations and Warfare, Chinese Military Cognitive Domain Operations, Chinese military cognitive warfare, Chinese Military Informatization, Chinese Military Intelligentization, Chinese Military Use of Cognitive Confrontation within the Combat Domain, Cognitive Confrontation, Cognitive Domain Warfare, Command information Systems, Information Support Force, Intelligent Warfare, quantum computing warfare, 量子計算戰爭

Chinese Military Grasping Pulse of Information and Intelligent Warfare Development

Leave a comment

中國軍方掌握資訊戰和智慧戰發展的脈搏

現代英語：

Currently, the deep penetration and integrated application of cutting-edge technologies such as artificial intelligence in the military field are profoundly reshaping the form of warfare and driving the evolution of informationized and intelligent warfare to a higher and more complex level. This process brings new challenges, such as the full-dimensional expansion of the operational space, but also contains the enduring underlying logic of the essential laws of warfare. We must deeply analyze the evolutionary mechanism of informationized and intelligent warfare, understand and clarify the specific manifestations of the new challenges and underlying logic, and continuously explore the practical paths and winning principles for strategizing future warfare.

Recognizing the new challenges that information technology and intelligent technology bring to warfare

Technological iteration and upgrading have driven profound changes in combat styles, which in turn bring new challenges. Currently, with the accelerated development of information and intelligent technologies, the form of warfare is showing significant changes such as cross-domain integration, system confrontation, and intelligent dominance, thereby giving rise to new challenges such as mixed-domain nature, intelligence, and all-personnel involvement.

The Challenges of Multi-Domain Operations. In future warfare, the physical boundaries of traditional operational domains will be broken, with information and social domains deeply nested, forming a new type of battlefield characterized by multi-domain coordination. This multi-dimensional battlefield environment presents two challenges to current combat systems. First, system compatibility is difficult. In a multi-domain operational environment, combat operations “span” multiple physical and virtual spaces, while traditional combat systems are often built based on specific operational domains, making seamless compatibility of their technical standards and information interfaces difficult. Second, command and control are highly complex. In informationized and intelligent warfare, combat operations unfold simultaneously or alternately across multiple dimensions, with various demands exhibiting non-linear, explosive, and multi-domain characteristics. Traditional, hierarchical, tree-like command structures are ill-suited to handle this complex multi-domain coordination situation.

The Challenges of Intelligence. The deep integration of technologies such as artificial intelligence into the war decision-making and action chain presents new challenges to traditional decision-making models and action logic. On the one hand, defining the boundaries and dominance of human-machine collaboration is challenging. Intelligent systems demonstrate superior capabilities in information processing, decision support, and even autonomous action, but over-reliance on algorithms can lead to a “decision black box”; excessive restrictions on machine intelligence may result in the loss of the speed and efficiency advantages of intelligent algorithms. Therefore, how to construct a human-machine symbiotic, human-led, and intelligence-assisted decision-making model has become an unavoidable “test” in winning informationized and intelligent warfare. On the other hand, the complexity and vulnerability of algorithmic warfare are becoming increasingly prominent. The higher the level of intelligence in warfare, the stronger the dependence on core algorithms. Adversaries may launch attacks through data pollution, model deception, and network intrusion, inducing intelligent systems to misjudge and fail. This kind of “bottom-up” attack based on algorithmic vulnerabilities is far more covert and destructive than traditional methods, placing higher demands on the construction and maintenance of defense systems.

A challenge affecting all personnel. Informationized and intelligent warfare blurs the lines between wartime and peacetime, front lines and rear areas. Combat operations are no longer confined to professional soldiers and traditional battlefields; non-military sectors such as economics, finance, and technology, along with related personnel, may all be integrated into modern combat systems to varying degrees, bringing entirely new challenges. Specifically, non-military sectors may become new focal points of offense and defense. In an information society, critical infrastructure such as energy networks, transportation hubs, and information platforms are highly interconnected and interdependent, with broad social coverage and significant influence, making them prime targets for attack or disruption in hybrid warfare, thus significantly increasing the difficulty of protection. The national defense mobilization system faces transformation pressure. The traditional “peacetime-wartime conversion” model is ill-suited to the demands of high-intensity, fast-paced, and high-consumption informationized and intelligent warfare. There is an urgent need to build a modern mobilization mechanism that is “integrated in peacetime and wartime, military-civilian integrated, precise, and efficient,” ensuring the rapid response and efficient transformation of core resources such as technological potential, industrial capabilities, and professional talent.

Clarifying the underlying logic of information-based and intelligent warfare

Although the development of information and intelligent technologies has profoundly reshaped the mode of force application, the inherent attributes of war have not been fundamentally shaken. Ensuring that strategy follows policy, adhering to the principle that people are the decisive factor, and recognizing that the “fog of war” will persist for a long time are still key measures for us to understand, plan, and respond to future wars.

Strategic subordination with political strategy is paramount. Currently, the proliferation of new technologies and attack methods easily fosters “technocentrism”—when algorithms and computing power are seen as the key to victory, and when technological superiority in equipment is considered an absolute advantage, military operations risk deviating from the political and strategic trajectory. This necessitates that we always integrate military operations within the overall national political framework, ensuring that technological advantages serve strategic objectives. Under informationized and intelligent conditions, strategic subordination with political strategy transcends the purely military level, requiring precise alignment with core national political goals such as diplomatic maneuvering and domestic development and stability. Therefore, it is essential to clearly define the boundaries, intensity, and scope of information and intelligent means of application, avoid significant political and strategic risks arising from the misuse of technology, and strive for a dynamic unity between political objectives and military means.

The decisive factor remains human. While intelligent technology can indeed endow weapons with superior autonomous perception and decision-making capabilities, the ultimate control and winning formula in war always firmly rests in human hands. Marxist warfare theory reveals that regardless of how warfare evolves, humans are always the main actors and the ultimate decisive force. Weapons, as tools, ultimately rely on human creativity in their effective use. Therefore, facing the wave of informationized and intelligent warfare, we must achieve deep integration and synchronous development of human-machine intelligence, building upon a foundation of human dominance. Specifically, intelligentization must not only “transform” things—improving equipment performance—but also “transform” people—enhancing human cognitive abilities, decision-making levels, and human-machine collaborative efficiency, ensuring that no matter how high the “kites” of intelligent equipment fly, humanity always firmly grasps the “control chain” that guides their development.

Recognizing the persistent nature of the “fog of war,” while information technology has significantly improved battlefield transparency, technological means can only reduce the density of the “fog,” not completely dispel it. The fundamental reason is that war is a dynamic game; the deception generated by the continuous strategic feints and other maneuvers employed by opposing sides transcends the scope of mere technological deconstruction, possessing an inherent unpredictability. Therefore, we must acknowledge the perpetual nature of the “fog of war” and employ appropriate measures to achieve the goal of “reducing our own fog and increasing the enemy’s confusion.” Regarding the former, we must strengthen our own reconnaissance advantages by integrating multi-source intelligence, including satellite reconnaissance, drone surveillance, and ground sensors, to achieve a real-time dynamic map of the battlefield situation. Regarding the latter, we must deepen the enemy’s decision-making dilemma by using techniques such as false signals and electronic camouflage to mislead their intelligence gathering, forcing them to expend resources in a state of confusion between truth and falsehood, directly weakening their situational awareness.

Exploring the winning factors of information-based and intelligent warfare

To plan for future wars, we must recognize the new challenges they bring, follow the underlying logic they contain, further explore the winning principles of informationized and intelligent warfare, and work hard to strengthen military theory, make good strategic plans, and innovate tactics and methods.

Strengthening theoretical development is crucial. Scientific military theory is combat power, and maintaining the advancement of military theory is essential for winning informationized and intelligent warfare. On the one hand, we must deepen the integration and innovation of military theory. We must systematically integrate modern scientific theories such as cybernetics, game theory, and information theory, focusing on new combat styles such as human-machine collaborative operations and cross-domain joint operations, to construct an advanced military theoretical system that is forward-looking, adaptable, and operable. On the other hand, we must adhere to practical testing and iterative updates. We must insist on linking theory with practice, keenly observing problems, systematically summarizing experiences, and accurately extracting patterns from the front lines of military struggle preparation and training, forming a virtuous cycle of “practice—understanding—re-practice—re-understanding,” ensuring that theory remains vibrant and effectively guides future warfare.

Strategic planning is crucial. Future-oriented strategic planning is essentially a proactive shaping process driven by technology, driven by demand, and guaranteed by dynamic adaptation. It requires a broad technological vision and flexible strategic thinking, striving to achieve a leap from “responding to war” to “designing war.” First, we must anticipate technological changes. We must maintain a high degree of sensitivity to disruptive technologies that may reshape the rules of war and deeply understand the profound impact of the cross-integration of various technologies. Second, we must focus on key areas. Emerging “high frontiers” such as cyberspace, outer space, the deep sea, and the polar regions should be the focus of strategic planning, concentrating on shaping the rules of operation and seizing advantages to ensure dominance in the invisible battlefield and emerging spaces. Third, we must dynamically adjust and adapt. The future battlefield is constantly changing and full of uncertainty. Strategic planning cannot be a static, definitive text, but rather a resilient, dynamic framework. We must assess the applicability, maturity, and potential risks of various solutions in conjunction with reality to ensure that the direction of military development is always precisely aligned with the needs of future warfare.

Promoting Tactical Innovation. Specific tactics serve as a bridge connecting technological innovation and combat operations. Faced with the profound changes brought about by informationized and intelligent warfare, it is imperative to vigorously promote tactical innovation and explore “intelligent strategies” adapted to the future battlefield. On the one hand, it is necessary to deeply explore the combat potential of emerging technologies. We should actively explore new winning paths such as “algorithms as combat power,” “data as firepower,” “networks as the battlefield,” and “intelligence as advantage,” transforming technological advantages into battlefield victories. On the other hand, it is necessary to innovatively design future combat processes. Various combat forces can be dispersed and deployed across multiple intelligent and networked nodes, constructing a more flattened, agile, and adaptive “observation-judgment-decision-action” cycle. Simultaneously, we must strengthen multi-domain linkage, breaking down inherent barriers between different services and combat domains, striving to achieve cross-domain collaboration, system-wide synergy, autonomous adaptation, and dynamic reorganization, promoting the overall emergence of combat effectiveness.

現代國語：

目前，人工智慧等尖端技術在軍事領域的深度滲透與融合應用，正深刻重塑戰爭形態，推動資訊化、智慧化戰爭朝向更高、更複雜的層面演進。這個過程帶來了作戰空間全方位擴展等新挑戰，同時也蘊含著戰爭基本法則的持久邏輯。我們必須深入分析資訊化、智慧化戰爭的演進機制，理解並釐清新挑戰的具體表現及其內在邏輯，不斷探索未來戰爭戰略的實踐路徑與勝利原則。

認識資訊科技和智慧科技為戰爭帶來的新挑戰

技術的迭代升級推動了作戰方式的深刻變革，進而帶來了新的挑戰。目前，隨著資訊科技與智慧科技的加速發展，戰爭形態呈現出跨域融合、系統對抗、智慧主導等顯著變化，由此產生了混合域作戰、智慧化作戰、全員參與等新挑戰。

多域作戰的挑戰。在未來的戰爭中，傳統作戰領域的物理邊界將被打破，資訊領域和社會領域將深度交織，形成以多域協同為特徵的新型戰場。這種多維戰場環境對現有作戰系統提出了兩大挑戰。首先，系統相容性面臨挑戰。在多域作戰環境中，作戰行動「跨越」多個實體和虛擬空間，而傳統作戰系統通常基於特定的作戰領域構建，難以實現技術標準和資訊介面的無縫相容。其次，指揮控制高度複雜。在資訊化和智慧化戰爭中，作戰行動在多個維度上同時或交替展開，各種需求呈現出非線性、爆發性和多域性的特徵。傳統的層級式、樹狀指揮結構難以應付這種複雜的多域協同局面。

情報的挑戰。人工智慧等技術深度融入戰爭決策和行動鏈，對傳統的決策模型和行動邏輯提出了新的挑戰。一方面，界定人機協作的邊界和主導地位極具挑戰性。智慧型系統在資訊處理、決策支援乃至自主行動方面展現出卓越的能力，但過度依賴演算法可能導致「決策黑箱」；對機器智慧的過度限制則可能喪失智慧演算法的速度和效率優勢。因此，如何建構人機共生、人主導、智慧輔助的決策模型，已成為贏得資訊化和智慧化戰爭的必經「考驗」。另一方面，演算法戰的複雜性和脆弱性日益凸顯。戰爭智能化程度越高，對核心演算法的依賴性就越強。敵方可能透過資料污染、模型欺騙和網路入侵等手段發動攻擊，誘使智慧型系統誤判和失效。這種基於演算法漏洞的「自下而上」攻擊比傳統手段更加隱蔽和破壞性，對防禦系統的建構和維護提出了更高的要求。

這是一項影響全體人員的挑戰。資訊化與智慧化戰爭模糊了戰時與和平時期、前線與後方的界線。作戰行動不再侷限於職業軍人和傳統戰場；經濟、金融、科技等非軍事領域及其相關人員都可能在不同程度上融入現代作戰體系，帶來全新的挑戰。具體而言，非軍事領域可能成為攻防的新焦點。在資訊社會中，能源網路、交通樞紐、資訊平台等關鍵基礎設施高度互聯互通、相互依存，覆蓋範圍廣、影響力大，使其成為混合戰爭中攻擊或破壞的主要目標，大大增加了防禦難度。國防動員體系面臨轉型壓力。傳統的「和平時期向戰爭時期轉換」模式已無法滿足高強度、快節奏、高消耗的資訊化和智慧化戰爭的需求。迫切需要…建構「和平時期與戰爭時期一體化、軍民融合、精準高效」的現代化動員機制，確保技術潛力、產業能力、專業人才等核心資源的快速反應與高效轉換。

釐清資訊化與智慧化戰爭的內在邏輯

儘管資訊和智慧科技的發展深刻地重塑了兵力運用方式，但戰爭的固有屬性並未發生根本性改變。確保戰略服從政策，堅持以人為本的原則，並認識到「戰爭迷霧」將長期存在，仍然是我們理解、規劃和應對未來戰爭的關鍵。

戰略服從政治戰略至關重要。目前，新技術和新攻擊手段的湧現容易滋生「技術中心主義」——當演算法和運算能力被視為取勝的關鍵，裝備的技術優勢被視為絕對優勢時，軍事行動就有可能偏離政治戰略軌道。這就要求我們始終將軍事行動納入國家整體政治框架，確保技術優勢服務於戰略目標。在資訊化和智慧化條件下，戰略對政治戰略的服從超越了純粹的軍事層面，需要與外交斡旋、國內發展穩定等核心國家政治目標精準契合。因此，必須明確界定資訊和智慧手段應用的邊界、強度和範圍，避免因技術濫用而引發重大政治和戰略風險，並努力實現政治目標與軍事手段的動態統一。

決定性因素仍然是人。雖然智慧科技確實可以賦予武器卓越的自主感知和決策能力，但戰爭的最終控制權和勝利之道始終牢牢掌握在人手中。馬克思主義戰爭理論表明，無論戰爭如何演變，人類始終是主要行動者和最終的決定性力量。武器作為工具，其有效使用最終依賴於人的創造力。因此，面對資訊化、智慧化戰爭的浪潮，我們必須在人類主導的基礎上，實現人機智慧的深度融合與同步發展。具體而言，智慧化不僅要「改造」物——提升裝備性能——更要「改造」人——增強人類的認知能力、決策水平和人機協同效率，確保無論智慧裝備的「風箏」飛得多高，人類始終牢牢掌控著引導其發展的「控制鏈」。

認識到「戰爭迷霧」的持久性，儘管資訊技術顯著提升了戰場透明度，但技術手段只能降低「迷霧」的密度，而無法徹底驅散它。根本原因在於戰爭是一場動態賽局；交戰雙方不斷進行的戰略佯攻和其他戰術動作所產生的欺騙性，遠非簡單的技術解構所能及，具有固有的不可預測性。因此，我們必須正視「戰爭迷霧」的永恆性，並採取適當措施，實現「減少自身迷霧，增加敵方混亂」的目標。就前者而言，我們必須整合衛星偵察、無人機監視、地面感測器等多源情報，強化自身偵察優勢，以實現戰場態勢的即時動態測繪。就後者而言，我們必須運用假訊號、電子偽裝等手段，誤導敵方情報蒐集，使其在真假難辨的狀態下耗費資源，從而直接削弱其態勢感知能力，加深敵方決策困境。

探索資訊化、智慧化戰爭的勝利要素

為因應未來戰爭，我們必須體認到戰爭帶來的新挑戰，掌握其內在邏輯，進一步探索資訊化、智慧化戰爭的勝利原則，努力加強軍事理論建設，制定完善的戰略規劃，並創新戰術方法。

加強理論發展至關重要。科學的軍事理論就是戰鬥力，維持軍事理論的進步是贏得資訊化、智慧化戰爭的關鍵。一方面，我們必須深化軍事理論的整合與創新，有系統地將現代科學融入軍事理論。

運用控制論、博弈論、資訊理論等理論，著重研究人機協同作戰、跨域聯合作戰等新型作戰方式，建構前瞻性、適應性和可操作性的先進軍事理論體系。另一方面，必須堅持實戰檢驗、迭代更新。必須堅持理論與實踐結合，敏銳觀察問題，系統總結經驗，準確提煉軍事鬥爭前線備戰訓練中的規律，形成「實踐—理解—再實踐—再理解」的良性循環，確保理論保持活力，有效指導未來戰爭。

策略規劃至關重要。面向未來的策略規劃本質上是一個由技術驅動、需求驅動、動態調適保障的主動塑造過程。它需要廣闊的技術視野和靈活的戰略思維，力求實現從「應對戰爭」到「設計戰爭」的飛躍。首先，我們必須預見技術變革。我們必須對可能重塑戰爭規則的顛覆性技術保持高度敏感，並深刻理解各種技術交叉融合的深遠影響。其次，我們必須聚焦重點領域。網路空間、外太空、深海、極地等新興「高前沿」應成為戰略規劃的重點，著力塑造作戰規則，奪取優勢，確保在無形戰場和新興空間佔據主導地位。第三，我們必須動態調整與適應。未來的戰場瞬息萬變，充滿不確定性。策略規劃不能是一成不變的固定文本，而應是一個具有韌性的動態架構。我們必須結合實際情況，評估各種解決方案的適用性、成熟度和潛在風險，確保軍事發展方向始終與未來戰爭的需求精準契合。

推進戰術創新。具體戰術是連結技術創新與作戰行動的橋樑。面對資訊化、智慧化戰爭帶來的深刻變革，必須大力推動戰術創新，探索適應未來戰場的「智慧戰略」。一方面，要深入挖掘新興技術的作戰潛力，積極探索「演算法即戰力」、「數據即火力」、「網路即戰場」、「情報即優勢」等新的致勝路徑，將技術優勢轉化為戰場勝利。另一方面，要創新地設計未來作戰流程，使各類作戰力量分散部署於多個智慧化、網路化的節點，建構更扁平、更敏捷、適應性更強的「觀察-判斷-決策-行動」循環。同時，要加強多域連結，打破不同軍種、不同作戰域之間的固有壁壘，力爭實現跨域協同、系統協同、自主適應、動態重組，進而提升整體作戰效能。

（編：任嘉慧、彭靜）

李书吾 丁 盛

2026年01月27日0x:xx | 来源：解放军报

中國原創軍事資源：https://military.people.com.cn/n1/2026/08127/c10811-4808868538648.html

#Artificial #Intelligence, #Information Support Force, #informatization, #intelligent warfare, #intellligentization, China's Informatization - 中國信息化, Chinese Military Characteristics & Development Trends of Cognitive Domain Operations and Warfare, Chinese Military Cognitive Domain Operations, Chinese military cognitive warfare, Chinese Military Informatization, Chinese Military Use of Cognitive Confrontation within the Combat Domain, Cognitive Confrontation, Cognitive Domain Warfare, Command information Systems, Information Support Force

Looking at Intelligent Warfare: Focusing on Counter-AI Operations in Chinese Military Operations During Intelligent Warfare

Leave a comment

檢視情報戰：聚焦中國軍事行動中的反空戰策略

現代英語：

Original Title: A Look at Intelligent Warfare: Focusing on Counter-AI Operations in Intelligent Warfare

　　  introduction

　　  The widespread application of science and technology in the military field has brought about profound changes in the form of warfare and combat methods. Military competition among major powers is increasingly manifested as technological subversion and counter-subversion, surprise attacks and counter-surprise attacks, and offsetting and counter-offsetting. To win future intelligent warfare, it is necessary not only to continuously promote the deep transformation and application of artificial intelligence technology in the military field, but also to strengthen dialectical thinking, adhere to asymmetric thinking, innovate and develop anti-AI warfare theories and tactics, and proactively plan research on anti-AI technologies and the development of weapons and equipment to achieve victory through “breaking AI” and strive to seize the initiative in future warfare.

　　  Fully recognize the inevitability of anti-artificial intelligence warfare

　　  In his essay “On Contradiction,” Comrade Mao Zedong pointed out that “the law of contradiction in things, that is, the law of unity of opposites, is the most fundamental law of dialectical materialism.” Throughout the history of military technology development and its operational application, there has always been a dialectical relationship between offense and defense. The phenomenon of mutual competition and alternating suppression between the “spear” of technology and the “shield” of corresponding countermeasures is commonplace.

　　  In the era of cold weapons, people not only invented eighteen kinds of weapons such as knives, spears, swords, and halberds, but also corresponding helmets, armor, and shields. In the era of firearms, the use of gunpowder greatly increased attack range and lethality, but it also spurred tactical and technical innovations, exemplified by defensive fortifications such as trenches and bastions. In the mechanized era, tanks shone brightly in World War II, and the development of tank armor and anti-tank weapons continues to this day. In the information age, “electronic attack” and “electronic protection,” centered on information dominance, have sparked a new wave of interest, giving rise to electronic warfare units. Furthermore, numerous opposing concepts in the military field, such as “missiles” versus “anti-missile,” and “unmanned combat” versus “counter-unmanned combat,” abound.

　　  It should be recognized that “anti-AI warfare,” as the opposite concept of “intelligent warfare,” will inevitably emerge gradually with the widespread and in-depth application of intelligent technologies in the military field. Forward-looking research into the concepts, principles, and tactical implementation paths of anti-AI warfare is not only a necessity for a comprehensive and dialectical understanding of intelligent warfare, but also an inevitable step to seize the high ground in future military competition and implement asymmetric warfare.

　　  Scientific Analysis of Counter-AI Combat Methods and Paths

　　  Currently, artificial intelligence (AI) technology is undergoing a leapfrog development, moving from weak to strong and from specialized to general-purpose applications. From its underlying support perspective, data, algorithms, and computing power remain its three key elements. Data is the fundamental raw material for training and optimizing models, algorithms determine the strategies and mechanisms for data processing and problem-solving, and computing power provides the hardware support for complex calculations. Seeking ways to “break through” AI by addressing these three elements—data, algorithms, and computing power—is an important methodological approach for implementing counter-AI warfare.

　　  Counter-data warfare. Data is the raw material for artificial intelligence to learn and reason, and its quality and diversity significantly impact the accuracy and generalization ability of models. Numerous examples in daily life demonstrate how minute changes in data can cause AI models to fail. For instance, facial recognition models on mobile phones may fail to accurately identify individuals due to factors such as wearing glasses, changing hairstyles, or changes in ambient light; autonomous driving models may also misjudge road conditions due to factors like road conditions, road signs, and weather. The basic principle of counter-data warfare is to mislead the training and judgment processes of military intelligent models by creating “contaminated” data or altering its distribution characteristics. This “inferiority” in the data leads to “errors” in the model, thereby reducing its effectiveness. Since AI models can comprehensively analyze and cross-verify multi-source data, counter-data warfare should focus more on multi-dimensional features, packaging false data information to enhance its “authenticity.” In recent years, foreign militaries have conducted relevant experimental verifications in this area. For example, by using special materials for coating and infrared emitter camouflage, the optical and infrared characteristics of real weapon platforms, and even the vibration effects of engines, can be simulated to deceive intelligent intelligence processing models; in cyberspace, traffic data camouflage can be implemented to improve the silent operation capability of network attacks and reduce the effectiveness of network attack detection models.

　　  Anti-algorithm warfare. The essence of an algorithm is a strategy mechanism for solving problems described in computer language. Because the scope of application of such strategy mechanisms is limited, they may fail when faced with a wide variety of real-world problems. A typical example is Lee Sedol’s “divine move” in the 2016 human-machine Go match. Many professional Go players, after reviewing the game, stated that the “divine move” was actually invalid, yet it worked against AlphaGo. AlphaGo developer Silva explained this by saying that Lee Sedol exploited a previously unknown vulnerability in the computer; other analyses suggest that this move might have contradicted AlphaGo’s Go logic or been outside its strategic learning range, making it unable to respond. The basic principle of anti-algorithm warfare is to target the vulnerabilities in the algorithm’s strategy mechanism and weaknesses in its model architecture through logical attacks or deception to reduce the algorithm’s effectiveness. Anti-algorithm warfare should be combined with specific combat actions to achieve “misleading and deceiving” the algorithm. For example, drone swarm reconnaissance operations often use reinforcement learning algorithms to plan reconnaissance paths. In this case, irregular or abnormal actions can be created to reduce or disable the reward mechanism in the reinforcement learning algorithm model, thereby reducing its reconnaissance search efficiency.

　　  Counter-computing power warfare. The strength of computing power represents the speed at which data processing can be converted into information and decision-making advantages. Unlike counter-data warfare and counter-algorithm warfare, which primarily rely on soft confrontation, counter-computing power warfare employs a combination of hard and soft tactics. Hard destruction mainly refers to attacks on enemy computing centers and computing network infrastructure, crippling their AI models by cutting off their computing power. Soft confrontation focuses on increasing the enemy’s computing costs, primarily by creating a “fog of war” and data noise. For example, during operations, large quantities of meaningless data of various types, such as images, audio, video, and electromagnetic data, can be generated to constrain and deplete the enemy’s computing resources, reducing their effective utilization rate. Furthermore, attacks can also be launched against weak points in the defenses of the computing power support environment and infrastructure. Computing centers consume enormous amounts of electricity; attacking and destroying their power support systems can also achieve the effect of counter-computing power warfare.

　　  Forward-looking planning for the development of anti-artificial intelligence combat capabilities

　　  In all warfare, one engages with conventional tactics and wins with unconventional ones. Faced with intelligent warfare, while continuously advancing and improving intelligent combat capabilities, it is also necessary to strengthen preparedness for counter-AI warfare, proactively planning for theoretical innovation, supporting technology development, and equipment platform construction related to counter-AI warfare, ensuring the establishment of an intelligent combat system that integrates offense and defense, and combines defense and counter-attack.

　　  Strengthen theoretical innovation in counter-AI warfare. Scientific military theory is combat effectiveness. Whether it’s military strategic innovation, military technological innovation, or other aspects of military innovation, all are inseparable from theoretical guidance. We must adhere to liberating our minds, broadening our horizons, and strengthening dialectical thinking. We must use theoretical innovation in counter-AI warfare as a supplement and breakthrough to construct an intelligent warfare theoretical system that supports and serves the fight for victory. We must adhere to the principle of “you fight your way, I fight my way,” strengthening asymmetric thinking. Through in-depth research on the concepts, strategies, and tactics of counter-AI warfare, we must provide scientific theoretical support for seizing battlefield intelligence dominance and effectively leverage the leading role of military theory. We must adhere to the integration of theory and technology, enhancing our scientific and technological awareness, innovation, and application capabilities. We must establish a closed loop between counter-AI warfare theory and technology, allowing them to complement and support each other, achieving deep integration and positive interaction between theory and technology.

　　  Emphasis should be placed on accumulating military technologies for countering artificial intelligence. Science and technology are crucial foundations for generating and enhancing combat effectiveness. Breakthroughs in some technologies can have disruptive effects, potentially even fundamentally altering the traditional landscape of warfare. Currently, major world powers view artificial intelligence as a disruptive technology and have elevated the development of military intelligence to a national strategy. Simultaneously, some countries are actively conducting research on technologies related to countering artificial intelligence warfare, exploring methods to counter AI and aiming to reduce the effectiveness of adversaries’ military intelligent systems. Therefore, it is essential to both explore and follow up, strengthening research and tracking of cutting-edge technologies, actively discovering, promoting, and fostering the development of technologies with counter-disruptive capabilities, such as intelligent countermeasures, to seize the technological advantage at the outset of counter-AI warfare and prevent enemy technological surprise attacks; and to carefully select technologies, maintaining sufficient scientific rationality and accurate judgment to dispel the technological “fog” and avoid falling into the adversary’s technological traps.

Developing anti-AI warfare weapons and equipment. Designing weapons and equipment is designing future warfare; we develop weapons and equipment based on the types of warfare we will fight in the future. Anti-AI warfare is an important component of intelligent warfare, and anti-AI weapons and equipment will play a crucial role on the future battlefield. When developing anti-AI warfare weapons and equipment, we must first closely align with battlefield needs. We must closely integrate with the adversary, mission, and environment to strengthen anti-AI warfare research, accurately describe anti-AI warfare scenarios, and ensure that the requirements for anti-AI warfare weapons and equipment are scientifically sound, accurate, and reasonable. Secondly, we must adopt a cost-conscious approach. Recent local wars have shown that cost control is a crucial factor influencing the outcome of future wars. Anti-AI warfare focuses on interfering with and deceiving the enemy’s military intelligent systems. Increasing the development of decoy weapon platforms is an effective way to reduce costs and increase efficiency. By using low-cost simulated decoy targets to deceive the enemy’s intelligent reconnaissance systems, the “de-intelligence” effect can be extended and amplified, aiming to deplete their high-value precision-guided missiles and other high-value strike weapons. Finally, we must emphasize simultaneous development, use, and upgrading. Intelligent technologies are developing rapidly and iterating quickly. It is crucial to closely monitor the application of cutting-edge military intelligent technologies by adversaries, accurately understand their intelligent model algorithm architecture, and continuously promote the upgrading of the latest counter-artificial intelligence technologies in weapon platforms to ensure their high efficiency in battlefield application. (Kang Ruizhi, Li Shengjie)

現代國語：

原文標題：智慧化戰爭面面觀－關注智慧化戰爭中的反人工智慧作戰

引言

科學技術在軍事領域的廣泛運用，引起戰爭形態和作戰方式的深刻變化，大國軍事博弈越來越表現為技術上的顛覆與反顛覆、突襲與反突襲、抵消與反抵消。打贏未來智慧化戰爭，既要不斷推進人工智慧技術在軍事領域的深度轉化應用，還應加強辯證思維、堅持非對稱思想，創新發展反人工智慧作戰理論和戰法，前瞻佈局反人工智慧技術研究和武器裝備研發，實現「破智」制勝，努力掌握未來戰爭主動權。

充分認識反人工智慧作戰必然性

毛澤東同志在《矛盾論》中指出：「事物的矛盾法則，即對立統一的法則，是唯物辯證法的最根本的法則。」縱觀軍事技術發展及其作戰運用歷史，從來都充滿了攻與防的辯證關係，技術之矛與反制止制、反制止制相較制、相較制抗擊現象之間的技術之緣關係。

冷兵器時代，人們不僅發明出「刀、槍、劍、戟」等十八般兵器，與之對應的「盔、甲、盾」等也被創造出來。熱兵器時代，火藥的使用大幅提升了攻擊距離和殺傷力，但同時也催生了以「塹壕」「稜堡」等防禦工事為代表的技戰術創新。機械化時代，坦克在二戰中大放異彩，人們對「坦克裝甲」與「反坦克武器」相關技術戰術的開發延續至今。資訊時代，圍繞制資訊權的「電子攻擊」與「電子防護」又掀起一陣新的熱潮，電子對抗部隊應運而生。此外，「飛彈」與「反導」、「無人作戰」與「反無人作戰」等軍事領域的對立概念不勝枚舉。

應當看到，「反人工智慧作戰」作為「智慧化作戰」的對立概念，也必將隨著智慧科技在軍事領域的廣泛深度運用而逐漸顯現。前瞻性研究反人工智慧作戰相關概念、原則及其技戰術實現路徑，既是全面辯證認識智慧化戰爭的時代需要，也是搶佔未來軍事競爭高地、實施非對稱作戰的必然之舉。

科學分析反人工智慧作戰方法路徑

目前，人工智慧技術正經歷由弱向強、由專用向通用的跨越式發展階段。從其底層支撐來看，數據、演算法、算力依舊是其三大關鍵要素。其中，資料是訓練與最佳化模型的基礎原料，演算法決定了資料處理與問題解決的策略機制，算力則為複雜運算提供硬體支撐。從資料、演算法、算力三個要素的角度尋求「破智」之道，是實施反人工智慧作戰的重要方法路徑。

反資料作戰。數據是人工智慧實現學習和推理的原始素材，數據的品質和多樣性對模型的準確度和泛化能力有重要影響。生活中因為微小數據變化而導致人工智慧模型失效的例子比比皆是。例如，手機中的人臉辨識模型，可能會因人戴上眼鏡、改變髮型或環境明暗變化等原因，而無法準確辨識身分；自動駕駛模型也會因路況、路標及天氣等因素，產生對道路狀況的誤判。實施反數據作戰，其基本原理是透過製造“污染”數據或改變數據的分佈特徵，來誤導軍事智能模型的訓練學習過程或判斷過程，用數據之“差”引發模型之“謬”，從而降低軍事智能模型的有效性。由於人工智慧模型能夠對多源數據進行綜合分析、交叉印證，反數據作戰應更加註重從多維特徵出發，包裝虛假數據信息，提升其「真實性」。近年來，外軍在這方面已經有相關實驗驗證。例如，利用特殊材料塗裝、紅外線發射裝置偽裝等方式，模擬真實武器平台光學、紅外線特徵甚至是引擎震動效果，用來欺騙智慧情報處理模型；在網路空間，實施流量資料偽裝，以提升網路攻擊靜默運作能力，降低網路攻擊偵測模型的效果。

反演算法作戰。演算法的本質，是用電腦語言描述解決問題的策略機制。由於這種策略機制的適應範圍有限，在面對千差萬別的現實問題時可能會失效，一個典型例子就是2016年人機圍棋大戰中李世石的「神之一」。不少職業圍棋選手複盤分析後表示，「神之一手」其實並不成立，但卻對「阿爾法狗」發揮了作用。 「阿爾法狗」開發者席爾瓦對此的解釋是，李世石點中了電腦不為人知的漏洞；還有分析稱，可能是「這一手」與「阿爾法狗」的圍棋邏輯相悖或不在其策略學習範圍內，導致其無法應對。實施反演算法作戰，其基本原理是針對演算法策略機制漏洞和模型架構弱點，進行邏輯攻擊或邏輯欺騙，以降低演算法有效性。反演算法作戰應與具體作戰行動結合，達成針對演算法的「誤導欺騙」。例如，無人機群偵察行動常採用強化學習演算法模型規劃偵察路徑，針對此情況，可透過製造無規則行動或反常行動，致使強化學習演算法模型中的獎勵機制降效或失效，從而達成降低其偵察搜尋效率的目的。

反算力作戰。算力的強弱代表著將資料處理轉換為資訊優勢和決策優勢的速度。有別於反數據作戰和反演算法作戰以軟對抗為主，反算力作戰的對抗方式是軟硬結合的。硬摧毀主要指對敵算力中心、計算網路設施等實施的打擊，透過斷其算力的方式使其人工智慧模型難以發揮作用；軟對抗著眼加大敵算力成本，主要以製造戰爭「迷霧」和資料雜訊為主。例如，作戰時大量產生影像、音訊、視訊、電磁等多類型的無意義數據，對敵算力資源進行牽制消耗，降低其算力的有效作用率。此外，也可對算力的支撐環境和配套建設等防備薄弱環節實施攻擊，算力中心電能消耗巨大，對其電力支援系統進行攻擊和摧毀，也可達成反算力作戰的效果。

前瞻佈局反人工智慧作戰能力建設

凡戰者，以正合，以奇勝。面對智慧化戰爭，持續推動提升智慧化作戰能力的同時，也需強化對反人工智慧作戰的未雨綢繆，前瞻佈局反人工智慧作戰相關理論創新、配套技術發展與裝備平台建設，確保建立攻防兼備、防反一體的智慧化作戰體系。

加強反人工智慧作戰理論創新。科學的軍事理論就是戰鬥力，軍事戰略創新也好，軍事科技創新也好，其他方面軍事創新也好，都離不開理論指導。要堅持解放思想、開拓視野，強化辯證思維，以反人工智慧作戰理論創新為補充和突破，建構支撐和服務打贏制勝的智慧化作戰理論體系。要堅持你打你的、我打我的，強化非對稱思想，透過對反人工智慧作戰概念、策略戰法等問題的深化研究，為奪取戰場制智權提供科學理論支撐，切實發揮軍事理論的先導作用。要堅持理技融合，增強科技認知力、創新力、運用力，打通反人工智慧作戰理論與技術之間的閉環迴路，讓兩者互相補充、互為支撐，實現理論與技術的深度融合與良性互動。

注重反人工智慧軍事技術累積。科學技術是產生和提高戰鬥力的重要基礎，有些技術一旦突破，影響將是顛覆性的，甚至可能從根本上改變傳統的戰爭攻防格局。目前，世界各主要國家將人工智慧視為顛覆性技術，並將發展軍事智慧化上升為國家戰略。同時，也有國家積極進行反人工智慧作戰相關技術研究，探索人工智慧對抗方法，意圖降低對手軍事智慧系統效能。為此，既要探索跟進，加強對前沿技術的跟踪研究，積極發現、推動、催生智能對抗這類具有反顛覆作用的技術發展，在反人工智能作戰起步階段就搶佔技術先機，防敵技術突襲；還要精挑細選，注重保持足夠科學理性和準確判斷，破除技術“迷霧”，避免陷入對手技術陷阱。

研發反人工智慧作戰武器裝備。設計武器裝備就是設計未來戰爭，未來打什麼仗就發展什麼武器裝備。反人工智慧作戰是智慧化戰爭的重要組成部分，反人工智慧武器裝備也將在未來戰場上發揮重要作用。在研發反人工智慧作戰武器裝備時，首先要緊貼戰場需求。緊密結合作戰對手、作戰任務和作戰環境等，加強反人工智慧作戰研究，把反人工智慧作戰場景描述準確，確保反人工智慧作戰武器裝備需求論證科學、準確、合理。其次要建立成本思維。最新局部戰爭實踐表明，作戰成本控制是影響未來戰爭勝負的重要因素。反人工智慧作戰重在對敵軍事智慧系統的干擾與迷惑，加大誘耗型武器平台研發是一種有效的降本增效方法。透過低成本模擬示假目標欺騙敵智能偵察系統，可將「破智」效應延伸放大，力求消耗其精確導引飛彈等高價值打擊武器。最後要注重邊建邊用邊升級。智慧技術發展速度快、更新迭代快，要緊密追蹤對手前沿軍事智慧技術應用，摸準其智慧模型演算法架構，不斷推動最新反人工智慧技術在武器平台中的運用升級，確保其戰場運用的高效性。 （康睿智 李聖傑）

中國原創軍事資源：https://mil.news.sina.com.cn/zonghe/2025-05-20/doc-inexeiih2818486808984.shtml

#Artificial #Intelligence, #Information Support Force, #informatization, #intelligent warfare, #intellligentization, China's Informatization - 中國信息化, Chinese Artificial Intelligence, Chinese Military Characteristics & Development Trends of Cognitive Domain Operations and Warfare, Chinese Military Cognitive Domain Operations, Chinese military cognitive warfare, Chinese Military Informatization, Chinese Military Intelligentization, Chinese Military Use of Cognitive Confrontation within the Combat Domain, Cognitive Confrontation, Cognitive Domain Warfare, Information Support Force, Intelligent Warfare

Chinese Military Embracing the Challenges of Intelligent Warfare with New Combat Concepts

Leave a comment

中國軍隊以新的作戰概念迎接智慧戰爭的挑戰

現代英語：

Foreword

Breakthroughs in artificial intelligence technology, marked by deep learning, and their applications across various fields have propelled intelligentization to new heights globally, becoming a focal point of attention. In the military field, where technological innovation and application are never lagging behind, a new revolution is also actively brewing. We must accurately grasp the pulse of intelligent warfare’s evolution and analyze its intrinsic nature in order to embrace and master intelligent warfare with a fresh perspective.

How far away is intelligent warfare from us?

Intelligent warfare is warfare primarily supported by artificial intelligence technology. Imbuing weapon platforms with human-like intelligence and replacing human combatants on the battlefield has been a dream for humanity for millennia. With the powerful impact of AI systems like AlphaGo and Atlas, and the emerging concepts and platforms of new warfare such as swarm warfare and flying aircraft carriers, the door to intelligent warfare seems to be quietly opening.

The laws of historical development foreshadow the inevitable rise of intelligent warfare on the battlefield. Advances in science and technology drive the evolution of weaponry, triggering fundamental changes in military organization, combat methods, and military theory, ultimately forcibly propelling a historical transformation in the form of warfare. The arrival of intelligent warfare aligns with this inevitable historical trend. Looking back at the evolution of human warfare, every major advancement in science and technology has driven significant military transformations. The invention of gunpowder ushered in the era of firearms, wiping out infantry and cavalry formations under the linear warfare tactics of firearms. The application of the steam engine in the military led to the mechanized era, giving rise to large-scale mechanized warfare led by armored ships, tanks, and aircraft. The emergence and application of intelligent technology will profoundly change human cognition, war thinking, and combat methods, once again triggering a major military revolution, and intelligent warfare will inevitably take center stage.

The development of artificial intelligence (AI) technology determines the pace of intelligent warfare. The continuous development and widespread application of AI technology are propelling intelligent warfare from its initial stages of uncertainty to reality, gradually emerging and growing, step by step approaching us. To truly enter the era of intelligent warfare, AI technology needs to advance through four stages. The first stage is computational intelligence, which means breaking through the limitations of computing power and storage space to achieve near real-time computing and storage capabilities—capabilities far beyond the reach of large computers and massive servers. The widespread application of cloud computing has already firmly placed humanity on this first stage. The second stage is perceptual intelligence, where machines can understand, see, distinguish, and recognize, enabling direct communication and dialogue with humans. Natural language understanding, image and graphics recognition, and biometric identification technologies based on big data have allowed humanity to reach this second stage. The third stage is cognitive intelligence, where machines can understand human thought, reason and make judgments and decisions like humans. Knowledge mining, knowledge graphs, artificial neural networks, and decision tree technologies driven by deep learning algorithms are propelling humanity towards this third stage. The fourth stage is human-machine integrated augmented intelligence, which involves complementary and two-way closed-loop interaction between humans’ strengths in perception, reasoning, induction, and learning, and machines’ strengths in search, computation, storage, and optimization. Virtual reality augmentation technology, brain-like cognitive technology, and brain-like neural network technology are exploring how humanity can reach this fourth stage. When humanity reached the second stage, the intelligent warfare began to approach; when we step onto the fourth stage, the era of intelligent warfare will fully begin.

Self-learning and growth are accelerating the sudden arrival of the intelligent warfare revolution. “Learning” ability is the core capability of artificial intelligence; once machines can learn on their own, their learning speed will be astonishing. Once machines possess self-learning capabilities, they will enter a rapid growth trajectory of continuous “intelligence enhancement and accelerated evolution.” All the technical difficulties in moving towards intelligent warfare will be readily resolved as “learning” deepens. The era of intelligent warfare may very well arrive suddenly in ways no one could have imagined!

What exactly will intelligent warfare change?

Intelligent warfare will break through the limits of traditional spatiotemporal cognition . In intelligent warfare, artificial intelligence technology can collect, calculate, and push information on the actions of all forces in combat in real time and across all domains. This will enable humans to break through the logical limits of thought, the physiological limits of senses, and the physical limits of existence, greatly improving the scope of cognition of time and space. It will allow for real-time and precise control over all actions of all forces, and enable the rapid transfer, aggregation, and attack of superior combat resources in multidimensional space and domains. Any time and any space may become a point in time and space where victory can be achieved.

Intelligent warfare will reshape the relationship between humans and weaponry . With the rapid advancement of intelligent technologies and the continuous improvement of their intelligence levels, weapon platforms and combat systems can not only passively and mechanically execute human commands, but also, based on deep understanding and prediction, leverage the computational, storage, and retrieval capabilities that machines excel at, thereby autonomously and proactively executing specific tasks to a certain extent. It can be said that weapon platforms and combat systems can also, to some extent, proactively exert human consciousness, even exceeding the scope of human understanding, autonomously and even creatively completing combat missions according to specific programs. The traditional distinction between humans and weaponry becomes blurred, even making it difficult to differentiate whether it is humans or machines at work. People are exclaiming that “humans and weaponry will become partners.” Therefore, in intelligent warfare, while humans remain the most important factor in combat effectiveness, the changing way humans and weaponry are integrated enriches the connotation of combat effectiveness, and the traditional relationship between humans and weaponry will be restructured on this basis.

Intelligent warfare will spur the emergence of new combat methods . Revolutionary advancements in science and technology inevitably lead to revolutionary changes in combat methods; significant progress in intelligent technologies will inevitably bring about a period of rapid transformation in combat methods. On the one hand, emerging technologies in fields such as deep cognition, deep learning, and deep neural networks, driven by computing, data, algorithms, and biology, along with their cross-integration with achievements in information, biology, medicine, engineering, and manufacturing, will inevitably drive an explosive emergence of new combat methods. On the other hand, the intense confrontation between intelligent weapon platforms and combat systems will inevitably become the target and driving force for innovative combat methods. The higher the level of intelligent technology in a war, the more it will become the focus of confrontation. Disadvantages in areas such as the limits of spatiotemporal cognition, massive information storage and computing capabilities, and neural network organization and generation capabilities will lead to new types of “blinding,” “deafening,” and “paralyzing” combat methods in new domains.

Intelligent warfare will incubate entirely new command and control methods. The advantages of command and control are a focal point in warfare, and intelligent warfare calls for entirely new command and control approaches. First, human-machine collaborative decision-making will become the primary command and decision-making method in intelligent warfare. In previous wars, command and decision-making was primarily driven by commanders, with technology playing a supporting role. In intelligent warfare, intelligent auxiliary decision-making systems will proactively urge or prompt commanders to make decisions based on changes in the battlefield situation. This is because the human brain can no longer quickly absorb and efficiently process the massive and rapidly changing battlefield situational information, and human senses can no longer withstand the extraordinary speed of change. Under such circumstances, decisions made solely by commanders are likely to be delayed and useless. Only human-machine collaborative decision-making driven by intelligent auxiliary decision-making systems can compensate for time and space differences and the gap between machine and brain, ensuring the advantage of command and decision-making. Second, brain-computer interface control will become the primary command and control method in intelligent warfare. In previous wars, commanders issued commands to control troops level by level through documents, radio, and telephone, in written or voice form. In intelligent warfare, commanders use intelligent, brain-like neurons to issue commands to troops through a neural network combat system platform. This reduces the conversion process of command presentation formats and shortens the time for commands to be converted across media, resulting in a faster pace and higher efficiency. When the combat system platform is attacked and partially damaged, this command and control method can autonomously repair or reconstruct the neural network, quickly restoring its main functions or even all functions, making it more resistant to attack.

How should we prepare for intelligent warfare?

In the research and exploration of intelligent warfare, we must not be content with lagging behind and following others. We must aim to win future wars and meet the challenges of intelligent warfare with a more proactive attitude, advanced concepts, and positive actions.

Breakthroughs in intelligent technologies will drive a leap in the effectiveness of intelligent combat systems. While significant progress has been made in areas such as neural network algorithms, intelligent sensing and networking technologies, data mining, and knowledge graph technologies, intelligent technologies are still largely in the weak intelligence stage, far from reaching the advanced stage of strong intelligence, and there is still vast potential for future development. It is essential to strengthen basic research in artificial intelligence, follow the laws of scientific and technological development, scientifically plan the development direction of intelligent technologies, select appropriate technological breakthroughs, and strengthen key core technologies in artificial intelligence, especially fundamental research that plays a supporting role. Emphasis should be placed on research into key military technologies. Driven by military needs, and focusing on key military technologies such as intelligent perception, intelligent decision-making, intelligent control, intelligent strike, and intelligent support, intelligent reconnaissance and perception systems, command and control systems, weapon systems, and combat support systems should be developed. Collaborative innovation between military and civilian technologies should be promoted, fully leveraging the advantages of civilian intelligent technology development, relying on the advantages of military and civilian resources, strengthening strategic cooperation between the military and civilian sectors, and building a service platform for the joint research and sharing of artificial intelligence scientific and technological achievements, the joint construction and sharing of conditions and facilities, and the integration of general standards between the military and civilian sectors, thus forming a new landscape of open, integrated, and innovative development of intelligent combat technologies.

Leading the innovation of combat methods with the concept of intelligent warfare. A shift in mindset is a prerequisite for welcoming the arrival of intelligent warfare. Mindset precedes action; if our mindset remains at the traditional level, it will be difficult to adapt to the needs of intelligent warfare. Intelligent warfare has brought about profound changes in technological support, combat forces, and winning mechanisms, requiring us to first establish the concept of intelligent warfare and use it to guide the innovation of our military’s future combat methods. First, we must strengthen the struggle for “intelligent control.” Artificial intelligence is the foundation of intelligent warfare. Depriving and weakening the opponent’s ability to utilize intelligence, while maintaining our own freedom to utilize intelligence, is fundamental to ensuring the smooth implementation of intelligent warfare. The militaries of developed Western countries are exploring various means, such as electromagnetic interference, electronic suppression, high-power microwave penetration, and takeover control, to block the opponent’s ability to utilize intelligence, seize “intelligent control,” and thus gain battlefield advantage. Second, we must innovate intelligent combat methods. We must focus on fully leveraging the overall effectiveness of the intelligent combat system, strengthening research on new intelligent combat methods such as human-machine collaborative intelligent warfare, intelligent robot warfare, and intelligent unmanned swarm warfare, as well as the processes and methods of intelligent combat command and intelligent combat support. With a view to effectively counter the threat of intelligent warfare from the enemy, we should study strategies to defeat the enemy, such as intelligent disruption warfare and intelligent interdiction warfare.

Intelligent training innovation is driving a transformation in combat capability generation. Intelligent warfare will be a war jointly waged by humans and machines, with intelligent unmanned combat systems playing an increasingly important role. It is imperative to adapt to the new characteristics of intelligent warfare force systems, innovate and develop intelligent training concepts, and explore new models for generating combat capability in intelligent warfare. On the one hand, it is necessary to strengthen training for humans in operating intelligent systems. By leveraging big data, cloud computing, VR technology, and other technologies to create new training environments, we can continuously improve human intelligence literacy, enhance human-machine cognition, understanding, and interaction quality, and improve the ability of humans to operate intelligent combat systems. On the other hand, it is necessary to explore new training models with machines as the primary focus. Previous training has primarily focused on humans, emphasizing the ability of humans to master and use weapons and equipment in specific environments to improve combat effectiveness. To adapt to the new characteristics of the force structure in intelligent warfare, the training organization concept and model of traditional training, which is centered on people, should be changed. Instead, the focus should be on improving the self-command, self-control, and self-combat capabilities of intelligent combat systems. By making full use of the characteristics of intelligent systems that can engage in self-competition and self-growth, a training system, training environment, and training mechanism specifically for intelligent combat systems should be formed. This will enable intelligent combat systems to achieve a geometric leap in combat capability after a short period of autonomous intensive training.

現代國語：

前言

以深度學習為代表的人工智慧技術的突破及其在各個領域的應用，已將全球智慧化推向新的高度，成為關注的焦點。在科技創新與應用從未落後的軍事領域，一場新的革命也正悄悄醞釀。我們必須精確掌握智慧戰爭演進的脈搏，分析其內在本質，才能以全新的視角擁抱和掌握智慧戰爭。

智慧戰爭離我們還有多遠？

智慧戰爭是指以人工智慧技術為主要的支撐戰爭。賦予武器平台類人智能，並在戰場上取代人類作戰人員，一直是人類數千年來的夢想。隨著AlphaGo和Atlas等人工智慧系統的強大影響力，以及集群作戰、飛行航空母艦等新型戰爭概念和平台的湧現，智慧戰爭的大門似乎正在悄悄開啟。

歷史發展的規律預示著智慧戰爭在戰場上的必然崛起。科技進步推動武器裝備的演進，引發軍事組織、作戰方式和軍事理論的根本性變革，最終強而有力地推動戰爭形式的歷史性轉型。智慧戰爭的到來正契合這不可避免的歷史趨勢。回顧人類戰爭的發展歷程，每一次科技的重大進步都帶來了意義深遠的軍事變革。火藥的發明開啟了火器時代，在火器線性戰術下，步兵和騎兵陣型被徹底摧毀。蒸汽機在軍事上的應用開啟了機械化時代，催生了以裝甲艦、坦克和飛機為主導的大規模機械化戰爭。智慧科技的出現與應用將深刻改變人類的認知、戰爭思維和作戰方式，再次引發一場重大的軍事革命，智慧戰爭必定成為戰爭的核心。

人工智慧（AI）技術的發展速度決定著智慧戰爭的進程。人工智慧技術的持續發展和廣泛應用正推動智慧戰爭從最初的不確定階段走向現實，逐步興起、發展壯大，一步步向我們逼近。要真正進入智慧戰爭時代，人工智慧技術需要經歷四個階段。第一階段是運算智能，這意味著突破運算能力和儲存空間的限制，實現近實時運算和儲存能力——這種能力遠遠超出大型電腦和海量伺服器的範疇。雲端運算的廣泛應用已經使人類穩固地邁入了這個階段。第二階段是感知智能，機器能夠理解、觀察、區分和識別，從而實現與人類的直接溝通和對話。基於大數據技術的自然語言理解、影像和圖形識別以及生物特徵識別技術，已經使人類邁入了第二階段。第三階段是認知智能，機器能夠理解人類的思維，像人類一樣進行推理、判斷和決策。知識探勘、知識圖譜、人工神經網路以及由深度學習演算法驅動的決策樹技術，正在推動人類邁向第三階段。第四階段是人機融合增強智能，它涉及人類在感知、推理、歸納和學習方面的優勢與機器在搜尋、計算、儲存和最佳化方面的優勢之間互補的雙向閉環互動。虛擬實境增強技術、類腦認知技術和類腦神經網路技術正在探索人類如何達到這個第四階段。當人類達到第二階段時，智慧戰爭開始逼近；當我們邁入第四階段時，智慧戰爭時代將全面開啟。

自主學習和成長正在加速智慧戰爭革命的到來。 「學習」能力是人工智慧的核心能力；一旦機器能夠自主學習，其學習速度將令人驚嘆。一旦機器擁有自主學習能力，它們將進入持續「智慧增強和加速進化」的快速成長軌跡。隨著「學習」能力的加深，邁向智慧戰爭的所有技術難題都將迎刃而解。智慧戰爭時代很可能以我們無法想像的方式突然降臨！

智慧戰爭究竟會帶來哪些改變？

智慧戰爭將突破…的限制。在傳統時空認知中，人工智慧技術能夠即時、跨域地收集、計算並推送所有作戰力量的行動資訊。這將使人類突破思維的邏輯限制、感官的生理限制以及存在的物理限制，大大拓展時空認知範圍。它將實現對所有作戰力量行動的即時精準控制，並能夠在多維空間和領域內快速調動、聚合和攻擊優勢作戰資源。任何時間、任何空間都可能成為取得勝利的時空點。

智慧戰爭將重塑人與武器之間的關係。隨著智慧技術的快速發展和智慧水準的不斷提升，武器平台和作戰系統不僅可以被動、機械地執行人類指令，還能基於深度理解和預測，充分利用機器強大的運算、儲存和檢索能力，在一定程度上自主、主動地執行特定任務。可以說，武器平台和作戰系統也能在某種程度上主動發揮人類意識，甚至超越人類理解的範疇，根據特定程序自主、甚至創造性地完成作戰任務。人與武器之間的傳統界線變得模糊，甚至難以區分究竟是人在工作還是機器在工作。人們開始高喊「人與武器將成為夥伴」。因此，在智慧戰爭中，雖然人仍是作戰效能的最重要因素，但人與武器融合方式的改變豐富了作戰效能的內涵，傳統的人與武器關係也將在此基礎上重構。

智慧戰爭將催生新的作戰方式。科技的革命性進步必然導致作戰方式的革命性變革；智慧技術的顯著進步必然會帶來作戰方式的快速轉型期。一方面，由計算、數據、演算法和生物學驅動的深度認知、深度學習和深度神經網路等領域的新興技術，以及它們與資訊、生物、醫學、工程和製造等領域成果的交叉融合，必將推動新型作戰方式的爆發式湧現。另一方面，智慧武器平台與作戰系統之間的激烈對抗，必將成為創新作戰方式的目標與驅動力。戰爭中智慧科技的程度越高，就越會成為對抗的焦點。時空認知能力、海量資訊儲存和運算能力以及神經網路組織和生成能力等方面的局限性，將導致在新的領域出現新型的「致盲」、「致聾」和「致癱」作戰方式。

智慧戰爭將孕育全新的指揮控制方式。指揮控制的優勢是戰爭的關鍵所在，而智慧戰爭需要全新的指揮控制方法。首先，人機協同決策將成為智慧戰中主要的指揮決策方式。以往戰爭中，指揮決策主要由指揮官主導，技術僅扮演輔助角色。而在智慧戰中，智慧輔助決策系統將根據戰場態勢的變化，主動敦促或提示指揮官做出決策。這是因為人腦已無法快速有效地吸收和處理大量且瞬息萬變的戰場態勢訊息，人類的感官也無法承受如此巨大的變化速度。在這種情況下，僅由指揮官做出的決策很可能滯後且無效。只有由智慧輔助決策系統驅動的人機協同決策才能彌補時空差異以及人機之間的差距，從而確保指揮決策的優勢。其次，腦機介面控制將成為智慧戰中主要的指揮控制方式。以往戰爭中，指揮官透過文件、無線電、電話等方式，以書面或語音形式，逐級下達命令來控制部隊。在智慧戰爭中，指揮官利用類似大腦的智慧神經元，透過神經網路作戰系統平台向部隊下達命令。這減少了命令呈現格式的轉換過程，並且 縮短跨媒介指令轉換時間，進而加快速度，提高效率。當作戰系統平台遭受攻擊並部分受損時，這種指揮控制方法可以自主修復或重建神經網絡，快速恢復其主要功能甚至全部功能，使其更具抗攻擊能力。

我們該如何應對智慧戰爭？

在智慧戰爭的研究和探索中，我們不能滿足於落後和跟隨他人。我們必須以贏得未來戰爭為目標，以更積極的態度、先進的理念和積極的行動迎接智慧戰爭的挑戰。

智慧技術的突破將推動智慧作戰系統效能的飛躍。雖然在神經網路演算法、智慧感知和網路技術、資料探勘和知識圖譜技術等領域已經取得了顯著進展，但智慧技術仍處於弱智慧階段，距離強智慧的先進階段還有很長的路要走，未來發展潛力巨大。必須加強人工智慧基礎研究，遵循科技發展規律，科學規劃智慧技術發展方向，選擇合適的技術突破點，強化人工智慧核心技術，特別是起到支撐作用的基礎研究。重點要加強關鍵軍事技術的研究。在軍事需求的驅動下，聚焦智慧感知、智慧決策、智慧控制、智慧打擊、智慧支援等關鍵軍事技術，發展智慧偵察感知系統、指揮控制系統、武器系統、作戰支援系統等。要推動軍民技術協同創新，充分發揮民用智慧技術發展優勢，依托軍民資源優勢，加強軍民戰略合作，建構人工智慧科技成果聯合研究共享、條件設施聯合建設共享、軍民通用標準融合的服務平台，形成智慧作戰技術開放、融合、創新發展的新格局。

以智慧戰理念引領作戰方式創新。思維方式的轉變是迎接智能戰到來的先決條件。思考方式先於行動；如果我們的思考方式仍停留在傳統層面，就難以適應智慧戰的需求。智能戰為技術保障、作戰力量和致勝機制帶來了深刻的變革，這就要求我們先確立智能戰的理念，並以此指導我軍未來作戰方式的創新。首先，我們必須加強對「智慧控制」的爭奪。人工智慧是智能戰的基礎。在保障自身智慧運用自由的同時，削弱和限制對手運用智慧的能力，是確保智能戰順利實施的根本。西方已開發國家的軍隊正在探索各種手段，例如電磁幹擾、電子壓制、高功率微波穿透和控制權奪取等，以阻斷對手運用智能的能力，奪取“智能控制權”，從而獲得戰場優勢。其次，我們必須創新智慧作戰方式。我們必須集中精力充分發揮智慧作戰系統的整體效能，加強對人機協同智能戰、智能機器人戰、智能無人集群戰等新型智能作戰方式以及智能作戰指揮、智能作戰支援的流程和方法的研究。為有效應對敵方智能戰的威脅，我們應研究擊敗敵方的策略，例如智慧幹擾戰、智慧封鎖戰等。

智慧訓練創新正在推動作戰能力產生方式的改變。智慧戰將是一場人機協同作戰，智慧無人作戰系統將發揮日益重要的作用。必須適應智慧戰部隊系統的新特點，創新發展智慧訓練理念，探索智慧作戰能力生成的新模式。智慧戰爭。一方面，需要加強操作智慧系統的人員的訓練。利用大數據、雲端運算、虛擬實境等技術創造新的訓練環境，可以不斷提高人員的智慧素養，增強人機認知、理解和互動質量，提高人員操作智慧作戰系統的能力。另一方面，需要探索以機器為核心的新型訓練模式。過去的訓練主要以人為中心，強調人員在特定環境下掌握和使用武器裝備以提升作戰效能的能力。為了適應智慧戰爭部隊結構的新特點，需要改變以人為中心的傳統訓練組織理念和模式，轉而專注於提升智慧作戰系統的自主指揮、自主控制和自主作戰能力。充分利用智慧系統能夠進行自我競爭和自我成長的特性，建構專門針對智慧作戰系統的訓練體系、訓練環境和訓練機制。這將使智慧作戰系統在經過短時間的自主強化訓練後，作戰能力實現幾何級的飛躍。

李始江 杨子明 陈分友

中国军网 国防部网
2018年7月26日 星期四

中國原創軍事資源：http://www.81.cn/jfjbmap/content/28018-07/286/content_28118827.htm

#Artificial #Intelligence, #Information Support Force, #informatization, #intelligent warfare, #intellligentization, China's Informatization - 中國信息化, Chinese Artificial Intelligence, Chinese Military Characteristics & Development Trends of Cognitive Domain Operations and Warfare, Chinese Military Cognitive Domain Operations, Chinese Military Informatization, Chinese Military Intelligentization, Chinese Military Use of Cognitive Confrontation within the Combat Domain, Cognitive Confrontation, Cognitive Domain Warfare, Information Support Force, Intelligent Warfare

A Look at Chinese Intelligent Warfare: Warfare Considerations Brought by AGI

Leave a comment

中國情報戰概覽：AGI帶來的戰爭考量

現代英語：

Technology and war have always been intertwined. While technological innovation constantly changes the face of war, it hasn’t altered its violent nature and coercive objectives. In recent years, with the rapid development and application of artificial intelligence (AI) technology, the debate about its impact on war has never ceased. Compared to artificial intelligence (AI), artificial general intelligence (AGI) is considered to be a higher level of intelligence, comparable to human intelligence. How will the emergence of AGI affect war? Will it change the violent and coercive nature of war? This article will explore this question with a series of reflections.

Is AGI just an enabling technology?

Many believe that while large-scale models and generative artificial intelligence (AGI) demonstrate great potential for future military applications, they are ultimately just enabling technologies. They can only enhance and optimize weapons and equipment, making existing equipment smarter and improving combat efficiency, but they are unlikely to bring about a true military revolution. Just like “cyber warfare weapons,” which were once highly anticipated by many countries when they first appeared, now seem somewhat exaggerated.

The disruptive nature of AGI is entirely different. It brings tremendous changes to the battlefield with reaction speeds and knowledge far exceeding those of humans. More importantly, it produces enormous disruptive results by accelerating technological progress. On the future battlefield, autonomous weapons will be endowed with advanced intelligence by AGI, their performance will be universally enhanced, and they will become “strong in offense and difficult in defense” due to their speed and swarm advantages. At that time, the highly intelligent autonomous weapons predicted by some scientists will become a reality, and AGI will play a key role in this. Currently, the military applications of artificial intelligence include autonomous weapons, intelligence analysis, intelligent decision-making, intelligent training, and intelligent support, which are difficult to summarize simply as “empowerment.” Moreover, AGI develops rapidly, has a short iteration cycle, and is in a state of continuous evolution. In future operations, AGI needs to be prioritized, and special attention should be paid to the potential changes it brings.

Will AGI make wars disappear?

Historian Jeffrey Breeny argues that “wars always occur due to misjudgments of each other’s strength or will,” and that with the application of AGI in the military field, misjudgments will become increasingly rare. Therefore, some scholars speculate that wars will decrease or even disappear. Indeed, relying on AGI can significantly reduce misjudgments, but even so, it’s impossible to eliminate all uncertainty, as uncertainty is a defining characteristic of war. Moreover, not all wars arise from misjudgments, and the inherent unpredictability and inexplicability of AGI, along with people’s lack of experience using AGI, will bring new uncertainties, plunging people into an even deeper “artificial intelligence fog.”

AGI algorithms also present rational challenges. Some scholars believe that AGI’s ability to mine and accurately predict critical intelligence has a dual impact. In practical operation, AGI does indeed make fewer mistakes than humans, improving intelligence accuracy and reducing misjudgments; however, it can sometimes lead to overconfidence and reckless actions. The offensive advantage brought by AGI results in the best defensive strategy being “preemptive strike,” disrupting the balance between offense and defense, creating a new security dilemma, and ultimately increasing the risk of war.

AGI (Automatic Genomics) is highly versatile and easily integrated with weaponry. Unlike nuclear, biological, and chemical technologies, it has a low barrier to entry and is particularly prone to proliferation. Due to technological gaps between countries, immature AGI weapons could potentially be deployed on the battlefield, posing significant risks. For example, the application of drones in recent local conflicts has spurred many small and medium-sized countries to begin large-scale drone procurement. The low-cost equipment and technology offered by AGI could very well stimulate a new arms race.

Will AGI be the ultimate deterrent?

Deterrence is the maintenance of a capability to intimidate an adversary into refraining from actions that exceed one’s own interests. Ultimate deterrence occurs when it becomes so powerful as to be unusable, such as nuclear deterrence that ensures mutual destruction. But ultimately, the deciding factor is “human nature,” a crucial element that will never be absent from war.

Without the considerations of “humanity,” would AGI become a formidable deterrent? AGI is fast but lacks empathy; its resolute execution severely compresses the strategic space. AGI is a key factor on the future battlefield, but due to a lack of practical experience, accurate assessment is difficult, easily leading to overestimation of the adversary’s capabilities. Furthermore, regarding autonomous weapon control, whether to have humans within the system for full-time supervision or to leave it entirely to the outside world requires careful consideration. Should the firing control of intelligent weapons be handed over to AGI? If not, the deterrent effect will be greatly diminished; if so, can the life and death of humanity truly be decided by machines unrelated to them? Research at Cornell University shows that large-scale wargaming models frequently escalate wars with “sudden nuclear attacks,” even when in a neutral state.

Perhaps one day in the future, AGI will surpass human capabilities. Will we then be unable to regulate and control it? Jeffrey Hinton, who proposed the concept of deep learning, said he has never seen a case where something with a higher level of intelligence was controlled by something with a lower level of intelligence. Some research teams believe that humans may not be able to supervise super artificial intelligence. Faced with powerful AGI in the future, will we really be able to control them? This is a question worth pondering.

Will AGI change the nature of war?

With the widespread use of AGI, will battlefields filled with violence and bloodshed disappear? Some argue that AI warfare far exceeds human capabilities and may even push humanity off the battlefield. When AI transforms warfare into a conflict entirely between autonomous robots, will it still be a “violent and bloody war”? When unequal adversaries clash, the weaker party may have no chance to act. Can wars be ended before they even begin through war games? Will AGI change the nature of warfare as a result? Is a “war” without humans still a war?

Yuval Noah Harari, author of Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, states that all human behavior is mediated by language and influences our history. The Large Language Model (AGI) is a typical example of AGI, differing from other inventions in its ability to create entirely new ideas and cultures; “storytelling AI will change the course of human history.” When AGI gains control over language, the entire system of human civilization could be overturned, without even requiring its own consciousness. Like Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, will humanity worship AGI as a new “god”?

AGI establishes a close relationship with humans through human language and alters their perceptions, making them difficult to distinguish and discern, thus posing a risk that the will to fight could be controlled by those with ulterior motives. Harari stated that computers don’t need to send out killer robots; if necessary, they will allow humans to pull the trigger themselves. AGI precisely manufactures and refines situational information, controlling battlefield perception through deep deception. This can be achieved through drones to fabricate battlefield situations and through pre-war public opinion manipulation, as already evident in recent local conflicts. The cost of war would thus decrease significantly, leading to the emergence of new forms of warfare. Would small and weak nations still have a chance? Can the will to fight be changed without bloodshed? Is “force” no longer a necessary condition for defining war?

The form of war may change, but its essence remains. Regardless of how “bloody” war is, it will still force the enemy to submit to its will and inflict significant “collateral damage,” only the methods of resistance may be entirely different. The essence of war lies in the deep-seated “human nature,” which is determined by culture, history, behavior, and values. It is difficult to completely replicate using any artificial intelligence technology, so we cannot outsource all ethical, political, and decision-making issues to AI, nor can we expect AI to automatically generate “human nature.” AI technology may be abused due to impulsive passions, so it must be under human control. Since AI is trained by humans, it will not always be without bias, therefore it cannot be completely free from human oversight. In the future, artificial intelligence can become a creative tool or partner, enhancing “tactical imagination,” but it must be “aligned” with human values. These issues need to be continuously considered and understood in practice.

Will AGI subvert war theory?

Most academic knowledge is expressed in natural language. A comprehensive language model, which integrates the best of human writing, can connect seemingly incompatible linguistic works with scientific research. For example, some have input classical works, and even works from philosophy, history, political science, and economics, into a comprehensive language model for analysis and reconstruction. They have found that it can comprehensively analyze all scholars’ viewpoints and also offer its own “insights,” without sacrificing originality. Therefore, some have asked whether it is possible to re-analyze and interpret war theory through AGI, stimulating human innovation and driving a major evolution and reconstruction of war theory and its systems. Perhaps there would indeed be some theoretical improvements and developments, but war science is not only theoretical but also practical, and AGI simply cannot achieve this practicality and realism. Can classical war theory really be reinterpreted? If so, what is the significance of the theory?

In short, AGI’s disruption of the concept of warfare will far exceed that of “mechanization” and “informatization.” We must embrace AGI boldly, yet remain cautious. Understanding the concept prevents ignorance; in-depth research prevents falling behind; and strengthened oversight prevents oversight. How to cooperate with AGI and guard against adversaries’ AGI technological surprise attacks is our primary concern for the future.

After editing

Look to the future with an open mind

■Ye Chaoyang

Futurist Roy Amalra famously asserted that people tend to overestimate the short-term benefits of a technology while underestimating its long-term impact, a principle known as “Amalra’s Law.” This law emphasizes the non-linear nature of technological development, meaning that the actual impact of technology often only becomes fully apparent over a longer timescale. It reflects the pulse and trends of technological development, and embodies humanity’s acceptance and aspirations towards technology.

Currently, in the development of artificial intelligence from weak AI to strong AI, and from specialized AI to general AI, each time people think they have completed 90% of the process, looking back, they may only have completed less than 10%. The driving role of technological revolution in military revolution is becoming increasingly prominent, especially as high-tech technologies, represented by artificial intelligence, penetrate the military field in multiple ways, causing profound changes in the mechanisms, factors, and methods of winning wars.

In the foreseeable future, intelligent technologies such as AGI will continue to iterate, and the cross-evolution of intelligent technologies and their empowering applications in the military field will become increasingly diversified, perhaps even transcending the boundaries of humanity’s current understanding of warfare. The development of technology is unstoppable and unstoppable. Whoever can use keen insight and a clear mind to see the trends and future of technology, to see its potential and power, and to penetrate the “fog of war,” will be more likely to seize the initiative.

This serves as a reminder that we should adopt a broader perspective and mindset in exploring the future forms of warfare in order to get closer to the underestimated reality. Where is AGI headed? Where is intelligent warfare headed? This tests human wisdom.

現代國語：

科技與戰爭始終密不可分。科技創新不斷改變戰爭的面貌，卻並未改變其暴力本質和強制目的。近年來，隨著人工智慧（AI）技術的快速發展和應用，關於其對戰爭影響的爭論從未停止。與人工智慧（AI）相比，通用人工智慧（AGI）被認為是一種更高層次的智能，堪比人類智能。 AGI的出現將如何影響戰爭？它會改變戰爭的暴力和強製本質嗎？本文將透過一系列思考來探討這個問題。

AGI只是一種賦能技術嗎？

許多人認為，儘管大規模模型和生成式人工智慧（AGI）展現出未來軍事應用的巨大潛力，但它們終究只是賦能技術。它們只能增強和優化武器裝備，使現有裝備更加智能，提高作戰效率，但不太可能帶來真正的軍事革命。就像曾經被許多國家寄予厚望的「網路戰武器」一樣，如今看來似乎有些誇大其詞。

通用人工智慧（AGI）的顛覆性本質截然不同。它以遠超人類的反應速度和知識儲備，為戰場帶來巨大改變。更重要的是，它透過加速技術進步，產生巨大的顛覆性影響。在未來的戰場上，AGI將賦予自主武器先進的智能，使其性能全面提升，並憑藉速度和集群優勢，成為「攻守難攻」的利器。屆時，一些科學家預測的高智慧自主武器將成為現實，而AGI將在其中扮演關鍵角色。目前，人工智慧的軍事應用涵蓋自主武器、情報分析、智慧決策、智慧訓練和智慧支援等領域，難以簡單地以「賦能」來概括。此外，AGI發展迅速，迭代週期短，處於持續演進的狀態。在未來的作戰行動中，AGI必須優先考慮，並應特別關注其可能帶來的潛在變革。

AGI會讓戰爭消失嗎？

歷史學家傑弗裡·布雷尼認為，“戰爭的發生總是源於對彼此實力或意志的誤判”，而隨著通用人工智慧（AGI）在軍事領域的應用，誤判將變得越來越罕見。因此，一些學者推測戰爭將會減少甚至消失。的確，依賴AGI可以顯著減少誤判，但即便如此，也無法完全消除不確定性，因為不確定性是戰爭的本質特徵。此外，並非所有戰爭都源自於誤判，AGI固有的不可預測性和不可解釋性，以及人們缺乏使用AGI的經驗，將會帶來新的不確定性，使人們陷入更深的「人工智慧迷霧」。

AGI演算法也帶來了理性方面的挑戰。一些學者認為，AGI挖掘和準確預測關鍵情報的能力具有雙重影響力。在實際操作中，AGI確實比人類犯的錯誤更少，提高了情報的準確性並減少了誤判；然而，它有時會導致過度自信和魯莽行動。通用人工智慧（AGI）帶來的進攻優勢使得最佳防禦策略成為“先發製人打擊”，打破了攻防平衡，製造了新的安全困境，並最終增加了戰爭風險。

通用人工智慧（AGI）用途廣泛，易於與武器系統整合。與核武、生物武器和化學武器不同，它的進入門檻低，且極易擴散。由於各國之間存在技術差距，不成熟的通用人工智慧武器可能被部署到戰場上，構成重大風險。例如，無人機在近期局部衝突的應用促使許多中小國家開始大規模採購無人機。通用人工智慧提供的低成本裝備和技術很可能引發新一輪軍備競賽。

通用人工智慧會成為最終的威懾力量嗎？

威懾是指維持一種能力，使對手不敢採取超越自身利益的行動。當威懾力量強大到無法使用時，例如確保相互毀滅的核威懾，就達到了終極威懾的境界。但歸根結底，決定性因素是“人性”，這是戰爭中永遠不可或缺的關鍵要素。

如果忽略“人性”，通用人工智慧（AGI）還能成為強大的威懾力量嗎？ AGI速度很快，但缺乏同理心；其果斷的執行會嚴重壓縮戰略空間。 AGI是未來戰場上的關鍵因素，但由於缺乏…實務經驗表明，準確評估十分困難，很容易高估對手的能力。此外，關於自主武器控制，是否應該讓人類在系統中全天候監控，還是完全交給外部世界，都需要仔細斟酌。智慧武器的發射控制權是否應該交給通用人工智慧（AGI）？如果不行，威懾效果將大大降低；如果行，人類的生死真的能由與人類無關的機器來決定嗎？康乃爾大學的研究表明，大規模兵棋推演模型經常會透過「突然的核攻擊」來升級戰爭，即使在中立國也是如此。

或許在未來的某一天，通用人工智慧的能力將超越人類。到那時，我們是否就無法對其進行監管和控制了？深度學習概念的提出者傑弗裡·辛頓表示，他從未見過智能水平更高的系統被智能水平更低的系統控制的情況。一些研究團隊認為，人類或許無法監管超級人工智慧。面對未來強大的通用人工智慧，我們真的能夠控制它們嗎？這是一個值得深思的問題。

通用人工智慧（AGI）會改變戰爭的本質嗎？

隨著AGI的廣泛應用，充滿暴力和血腥的戰場會消失嗎？有人認為，人工智慧戰爭的能力遠遠超出人類，甚至可能將人類逐出戰場。當人工智慧將戰爭完全轉變為自主機器人之間的衝突時，它還會是「暴力和血腥的戰爭」嗎？當實力懸殊的對手交鋒時，弱勢一方可能毫無還手之力。戰爭能否透過戰爭演習在爆發前就結束？ AGI會因此改變戰爭的本質嗎？一場沒有人類參與的「戰爭」還能稱之為戰爭嗎？

《人類簡史》的作者尤瓦爾·赫拉利指出，所有人類行為都受語言的製約，並影響我們的歷史。大型語言模型（AGI）是AGI的典型例子，它與其他發明不同之處在於它能夠創造全新的思想和文化；「講述故事的人工智慧將改變人類歷史的進程。」當通用人工智慧（AGI）掌控語言時，整個人類文明體係都可能被顛覆，甚至無需其自身意識。如同柏拉圖的「洞穴寓言」一般，人類會把AGI當成新的「神」嗎？

AGI透過人類語言與人類建立密切聯繫，並改變人類的感知，使其難以區分和辨別，從而構成一種風險：人類的戰鬥意志可能被別有用心之人操控。哈拉里指出，電腦無需派出殺手機器人；如有必要，它們會允許人類自行扣動扳機。 AGI能夠精確地製造和完善戰場訊息，透過深度欺騙控制戰場態勢感知。這可以透過無人機製造戰場環境以及戰前輿論操縱來實現，正如近期局部衝突中所展現的那樣。戰爭成本將因此大幅降低，進而催生新的戰爭形式。弱小國還有勝算？能否在不流血的情況下改變人類的戰鬥意志？ 「武力」是否不再是定義戰爭的必要條件？

戰爭的形式或許會改變，但本質不變。無論戰爭多麼“血腥”，它最終都會迫使敵人屈服於己方意志，並造成重大的“附帶損害”，只是抵抗的方式可能截然不同。戰爭的本質在於根深蒂固的“人性”，而人性又是由文化、歷史、行為和價值觀決定的。任何人工智慧技術都難以完全複製人性，因此我們不能將所有倫理、政治和決策問題都外包給人工智慧，也不能指望人工智慧會自動產生「人性」。人工智慧技術可能因衝動而被濫用，因此必須置於人類的控制之下。由於人工智慧是由人類訓練的，它並非總是沒有偏見，因此無法完全脫離人類的監督。未來，人工智慧可以成為一種創造性的工具或夥伴，增強“戰術想像”，但它必須與人類價值觀“保持一致”。這些問題需要在實踐中不斷思考和理解。

通用人工智慧（AGI）會顛覆戰爭理論嗎？

大多數的學術知識都是用自然語言表達。一個整合了人類寫作精華的綜合語言模型，可以將看似不相容的語言學著作與科學研究連結起來。例如，一些學者將古典著作，甚至哲學、歷史、政治和經濟學等領域的著作輸入到綜合語言模型中進行分析和重構。他們發現，該模型既能全面分析所有學者的觀點，又能提出自身的“見解”，同時又不失原創性。因此，有人提出了這樣的問題：因此，我們有可能透過通用人工智慧（AGI）重新分析和詮釋戰爭理論，從而激發人類創新，並推動戰爭理論及其體系的重大演進和重構。或許確實會出現一些理論上的改進和發展，但戰爭科學不僅是理論性的，也是實踐性的，而AGI根本無法達到這種實踐性和現實性。經典戰爭理論真的可以被重新詮釋嗎？如果可以，那麼該理論的意義何在？

簡而言之，AGI對戰爭概念的顛覆將遠遠超過「機械化」和「資訊化」。我們必須大膽擁抱AGI，但也要保持謹慎。理解概念可以避免無知；深入研究可以避免落後；加強監督可以避免失職。如何與AGI合作，並防範對手利用AGI技術發動突襲，是我們未來面臨的首要問題。

編輯後

以開放的心態展望未來

■葉朝陽

未來學家羅伊·阿瑪拉曾提出著名的“阿瑪拉定律”，指出人們往往高估一項技術的短期收益，而低估其長期影響。該定律強調技術發展的非線性特徵，意味著技術的實際影響往往需要更長的時間才能完全顯現。它反映了技術發展的脈動和趨勢，反映了人類對科技的接受度和期望。

目前，在人工智慧從弱人工智慧向強人工智慧、從專用人工智慧發展到通用人工智慧的過程中，人們每次認為自己已經完成了90%的工作，回首往事，可能才完成了不到10%。科技革命在軍事革命中的驅動作用日益凸顯，尤其是在以人工智慧為代表的高科技以多種方式滲透軍事領域，深刻改變戰爭的機制、因素和取勝之道的情況下。

在可預見的未來，通用人工智慧（AGI）等智慧技術將不斷迭代發展，智慧科技的交叉演進及其在軍事領域的賦能應用將日益多元化，甚至可能超越人類目前對戰爭的認知邊界。技術的發展勢不可擋。誰能以敏銳的洞察力和清晰的思維洞察技術的趨勢和未來，看到其潛力和力量，並撥開戰爭迷霧，誰就更有可能掌握主動權。

這提醒我們，在探索未來戰爭形態時，應採取更廣闊的視野和思維方式，才能更接近被低估的現實。通用人工智慧將走向何方？智慧戰爭將走向何方？這考驗著人類的智慧。

來源：中國軍事網-解放軍報 作者：榮明、胡曉峰 編輯：吳明奇 發佈時間：2025-01-21 07:xx:xx

中國原創軍事資源：http://www.81.cn/yw_20887827/186836858485.html

#Chinese #Quantum #technology, #cross-domain collaborative operations, #quantum computing warfare, Chinese Military Characteristics & Development Trends of Cognitive Domain Operations and Warfare, Chinese Military Cognitive Domain Operations, Chinese military cognitive warfare, Chinese Military Use of Cognitive Confrontation within the Combat Domain, Cognitive Confrontation, Cognitive Domain Warfare

Chinese Military AI Empowerment: Accelerating the Iterative Upgrade of Cognitive Electronic Warfare

Leave a comment

中國軍事人工智慧賦能：加速認知電子戰迭代升級

現代英語：

In the invisible dimension of war, a silent contest has been raging for a century. From the electromagnetic fog of the Battle of Tsushima to the spectral chaos of modern battlefields, from the rudimentary metal chaff used during World War II to the cognitive electronic warfare systems incorporating artificial intelligence, electronic warfare has undergone a magnificent transformation from a supporting role to a pillar of war. It is now deeply embedded in the “operating system” of modern warfare, rewriting its form and rules. It is invisible and intangible, yet it profoundly controls the lifeline of battlefield operations; it is silent, yet it is enough to determine the life and death of thousands of troops. The balance of future wars will increasingly depend on who can see more clearly, react faster, and control more firmly in this silent yet deadly spectrum.

In modern warfare, the field of electronic warfare is evolving rapidly. The electromagnetic spectrum is considered an important operational domain after land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace, becoming a focal point for both sides to gain comprehensive dominance in joint operations. As warfare accelerates its evolution towards intelligence, cognitive electronic warfare, which integrates artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies, is increasingly demonstrating its autonomous countermeasure advantages, becoming a crucial tool for paralyzing entities in the electromagnetic space.

New Needs of Intelligent Warfare

In informationized and intelligent warfare, information equipment is widely distributed, and unmanned intelligent equipment is deployed, making the battlefield electromagnetic environment increasingly complex. Due to the adoption of cognitive and adaptive technologies, radar and communication equipment are becoming increasingly resistant to interference, rendering traditional electronic countermeasures inadequate. Therefore, it is necessary to leverage artificial intelligence and machine learning to endow electronic warfare systems with the ability to self-identify threats, extract threat source signals in real time, quickly organize and analyze them, determine the threat level and weaknesses of the signals, and promptly and effectively counteract them.

The need for precise perception. In modern warfare, to increase battlefield “transparency,” both sides extensively utilize electronic information equipment. Simultaneously, unmanned equipment and “swarm” systems are widely employed. On a battlefield filled with numerous information devices and massive amounts of electromagnetic signals, a single electronic warfare device may simultaneously receive radiation from dozens or even hundreds of other electronic devices, making signal identification extremely difficult. This necessitates that electronic warfare systems break through existing technological limitations, integrate big data analysis and deep learning technologies, enhance their perception capabilities, and comprehensively identify various electromagnetic radiation targets on the battlefield.

The need for intelligent countermeasures. Driven by emerging technologies, agile radar, frequency-hopping radios, and other equipment have been deployed extensively on the battlefield. These devices form a closed loop between transmission and reception, and can autonomously adjust their operating modes, transmission parameters, and waveform selection according to the environment, possessing autonomous interference avoidance capabilities. Traditional electronic warfare equipment, based on existing experience and pre-set interference rule libraries, has rigid functions and poor flexibility, making it unable to cope with emerging adaptive electronic targets. This necessitates that electronic warfare systems integrate intelligent algorithms to become “smarter,” possessing adaptive countermeasure capabilities of “using intelligence against intelligence.”

The need to disrupt networked systems. The winning mechanism of modern combat systems, when mapped onto the information domain, has spurred the networked operation of radar and communication systems. The aim is to eliminate the global loss of control caused by interference with a single device or part of the link through information fusion and redundant design, leveraging the resilience of the network system. Faced with networked information systems, electronic warfare systems need to embed intelligent countermeasure analysis and reasoning technologies, possessing the ability to effectively identify networked information systems in order to discover key nodes and critical parts, and implement targeted, integrated hardware and software attacks.

A New Transformation Driven by Digital Intelligence

Cognitive electronic warfare can be considered a combination of electronic warfare and artificial intelligence. It is a new generation of electronic warfare systems with autonomous perception, intelligent decision-making, and adaptive jamming capabilities, representing a major upgrade to traditional electronic warfare.

The shift from human to machine cognition. Advances in modern electronic technology have enabled electronic information equipment to offer diverse functions and multiple modes. Traditional electronic warfare systems rely on manually analyzed threat databases for countermeasures, which are only effective against known signal patterns and become significantly less effective against unknown threats. Cognitive electronic warfare systems, through autonomous interactive swarm learning and intelligent algorithms, can quickly intercept and identify signal patterns, analyze changing patterns, make autonomous decisions based on changes in the electromagnetic environment, optimize interference signal waveforms, and autonomously complete the operational cycle of “observation-judgment-decision-action.”

The focus is shifting from precision-driven to data-driven. Electronic warfare systems rely on the measurement and sensing of electronic signals as their fundamental premise. However, with the rise of new technologies, the sensitivity and resolution of these systems are approaching their limits, hindering their development and upgrades. Recognizing that electronic warfare systems can break through traditional models by utilizing big data analytics and mining large datasets can not only efficiently intercept and accurately identify unknown signals, but also predict the timing of frequency changes, mode adjustments, and power conversions. This allows for the correlation analysis of the electronic target’s operational patterns, enabling proactive adjustments to jamming strategies, rules, and parameters to conduct targeted electronic attacks.

The focus has shifted from jamming single targets to disrupting networked targets. Driven by network technology, new-generation radar and communication equipment are beginning to network, using system advantages to compensate for the shortcomings of single points. Traditional electronic warfare jamming relies on human experience and knowledge, lacking sufficient self-learning capabilities. It is mainly used to jam point and chain-like electronic targets, and cannot effectively jam networked targets. Cognitive electronic warfare systems utilize deep learning technology to perceive the network structure and operating modes of new networked systems such as radar and communication. Based on logical reasoning, it can identify nodes, hubs, and key links in the networked system, thereby implementing precise jamming and making it possible to disrupt the system.

New forms of structural reshaping

Cognitive electronic warfare systems, based on the traditional open-loop structure, introduce behavioral learning processes and reshape the modular architecture, enabling them to evaluate the effectiveness of interference and optimize interference strategies based on interference feedback, thus completing a closed loop of “reconnaissance-interference-evaluation” countermeasures.

Reconnaissance and Sensing Module. Reconnaissance and sensing is the primary link in electronic warfare and a crucial prerequisite for the successful implementation of cognitive electronic warfare. This module utilizes deep learning and feature learning techniques to continuously learn from the surrounding environment through constant interaction with the battlefield electromagnetic environment. It performs parameter measurement and sorting of signals, analyzes and extracts characteristic data of target threat signals with the support of prior knowledge, assesses behavioral intent, determines the threat level, and transmits the data to the decision-making and effectiveness evaluation module.

Decision-Making Module. The decision-making module is the core of the cognitive electronic warfare system, primarily responsible for generating interference strategies and optimizing interference waveforms. Based on the analysis and identification results of reconnaissance and perception, the feedback effect of interference assessment, and a dynamic knowledge base, this module uses machine learning algorithms to predict threat characteristics, generates countermeasures through reasoning from past experience, rapidly formulates attack strategies and optimizes interference waveforms, automatically allocates interference resources, and ultimately completes autonomous attacks on target signals.

Effectiveness assessment module. Effectiveness assessment is key to the closed-loop operation of cognitive electronic warfare systems, playing a crucial role in linking all modules. This module analyzes the target’s response to the jamming measures based on feedback information after the signals sensed by reconnaissance are jammed. It calculates and assesses the degree of jamming or damage to the target online, and then feeds the results back to the decision-making module to help adjust jamming strategies and optimize waveforms.

The dynamic knowledge base module primarily provides basic information and data support, including a threat target base, an interference rule base, and a prior knowledge base. This module provides prior information such as models, parameters, and data for reconnaissance and perception, decision-making, and performance evaluation. It utilizes feedback information for cognitive learning, accumulates learning results into experience, and updates the knowledge graph, knowledge rules, and reasoning models in the knowledge base, achieving real-time updates to the knowledge base.

New applications that enhance efficiency

With further breakthroughs in algorithm models and learning reasoning technologies, information-based and intelligent warfare will lead to more mature and sophisticated cognitive electronic warfare systems. Their role in empowering and enhancing efficiency will become more prominent, their application scenarios will become more diverse, and they will become an indispensable weapon on the battlefield.

Precision energy release for strike operations. Under informationized and intelligent conditions, the battlefield situation is presented in real time, command and decision-making are timely and efficient, and combat operations are controlled in real time, enabling precision operations to move from scenario conception to the real battlefield. At the same time, with the connection of cyber information facilities, the combat system has a higher degree of coupling and stronger resilience, becoming an important support for the implementation of joint operations. The cognitive electronic warfare system possesses high-precision perception capabilities and strong directional jamming capabilities. Through its distributed deployment across a wide battlefield, it can work in conjunction with troop assaults and fire strikes, under the unified command of joint operations commanders, to conduct precise attacks on key nodes and important links of the combat system. This includes precise targeting, precise frequency coverage, and precise and consistent modulation patterns, thereby blinding and degrading the effectiveness of enemy early warning detection and command and control systems, and facilitating the implementation of system disruption operations.

Networked Collaborative Swarm Warfare. In future warfare, unmanned swarms such as drones, unmanned vehicles, and unmanned boats will be the main force in combat, making the construction of a low-cost, highly redundant force system crucial for victory. Facing unmanned combat systems like “swarms,” ​​”wolf packs,” and “fish schools,” cognitive electronic warfare systems possess a natural advantage in evolving into unmanned electronic warfare swarms. Based on networked collaborative technologies, reconnaissance and jamming payloads are deployed on unmanned swarm platforms. Information and data exchange between platforms is achieved through information links. With the support of intelligent algorithms, cognitive electronic warfare systems can optimize the combination of jamming functions and dynamically allocate resources based on the battlefield electromagnetic situation. Based on autonomous collaborative guidance and centralized control, they can conduct swarm-to-swarm electronic attacks.

Electronic warfare and cyber warfare are two fundamentally different modes of combat. Electronic warfare focuses on low-level confrontation at the physical and signal layers, while cyber warfare focuses on high-level confrontation at the logical and information layers. However, with information networks covering the electromagnetic spectrum, the convergence of electronic and cyber warfare has become increasingly possible. Breakthroughs in wireless access and encryption technologies have enabled cognitive electronic warfare systems to infiltrate network infrastructure, achieving seamless integration of cyber and electronic space situational awareness and mission decision-making. By combining autonomous learning, pattern evaluation, and algorithmic prediction, a closed-loop system integrating cyber and electronic space perception, evaluation, decision-making, and feedback can be established, enabling integrated cyber and electronic warfare offense and defense.

現代國語：

在戰爭的無形維度中，一場無聲的較量已持續了一個世紀。從馬海戰的電磁迷霧到現代戰場的光譜混亂，從二戰時期簡陋的金屬箔條到融合人工智慧的認知電子戰系統，電子戰經歷了從輔助角色到戰爭支柱的華麗蛻變。如今，它已深深融入現代戰爭的“操作系統”，改寫了戰爭的形式和規則。它無形無質，卻深刻地掌控著戰場行動的生命線；它悄無聲息，卻足以決定成千上萬士兵的生死。未來戰爭的勝負將越來越取決於誰能更清晰地洞察、更快地反應、更牢固地掌控這片無聲卻致命的頻譜。

在現代戰爭中，電子戰領域正快速發展。電磁頻譜被視為繼陸地、海洋、空中、太空和網路空間之後的重要作戰領域，成為交戰雙方在聯合作戰中爭奪全面優勢的關鍵所在。隨著戰爭加速朝向智慧化演進，融合人工智慧和機器學習技術的認知電子戰正日益展現其自主對抗優勢，成為癱瘓電磁空間目標的關鍵工具。

智慧戰爭的新需求

在資訊化和智慧化戰爭中，資訊裝備廣泛分佈，無人智慧裝備也投入使用，使得戰場電磁環境日益複雜。由於認知和自適應技術的應用，雷達和通訊裝備的抗干擾能力不斷增強，傳統的電子對抗手段已難以應對。因此，必須利用人工智慧和機器學習技術，賦予電子戰系統自主識別威脅、即時提取威脅源訊號、快速整理分析、判斷威脅等級和訊號弱點並及時有效對抗的能力。

精準感知的需求。在現代戰爭中，為了提高戰場“透明度”，交戰雙方廣泛使用電子資訊裝備。同時，無人裝備和「集群」系統也被廣泛應用。在充斥著大量資訊設備和海量電磁訊號的戰場上，單一電子戰設備可能同時接收來自數十甚至數百個其他電子設備的輻射，使得訊號識別極為困難。這就要求電子戰系統突破現有技術限制，融合大數據分析與深度學習技術，增強感知能力，並全面辨識戰場上各種電磁輻射目標。

智能對抗的需求。在新興技術的推動下，敏捷雷達、跳頻無線電等設備已廣泛部署於戰場。這些設備在收發之間形成閉環，能夠根據環境自主調整工作模式、發射參數和波形選擇，並具備自主抗干擾能力。傳統的電子戰設備基於現有經驗和預設的干擾規則庫，功能僵化，靈活性差，難以應對新興的自適應電子目標。這就要求電子戰系統融合智慧演算法，變得更加“智慧”，具備“以智制智”的自適應對抗能力。

顛覆網路化系統的需求。現代作戰系統的致勝機制，一旦映射到資訊領域，便會推動雷達和通訊系統的網路化運作。其目標是透過資訊融合和冗餘設計，利用網路系統的韌性，消除因單一設備或連結某部分受到干擾而導致的全局失控。面對網路化資訊系統，電子戰系統需要嵌入智慧對抗分析和推理技術，具備有效識別網路化資訊系統的能力，從而發現關鍵節點和重要部件，並實施有針對性的軟硬體一體化攻擊。

數位智慧驅動的新轉型

認知電子戰可以被視為電子戰與人工智慧的結合。它是新一代電子戰系統，具備自主感知、智慧決策和自適應幹擾能力。智慧電子戰系統代表傳統電子戰的重大升級。

認知方式的轉變：從人腦認知轉向機器認知。現代電子技術的進步使得電子資訊設備能夠提供多樣化的功能和多種模式。傳統的電子戰系統依賴人工分析的威脅資料庫進行對抗，而這種方法僅對已知的訊號模式有效，而對未知威脅的對抗效果則顯著降低。認知電子戰系統透過自主互動群體學習和智慧演算法，能夠快速截獲和識別訊號模式，分析變化的模式，根據電磁環境的變化做出自主決策，優化干擾訊號波形，並自主完成「觀察-判斷-決策-行動」的作戰循環。

電子戰的重點正從精度驅動轉向數據驅動。電子戰系統以測量和感知電子訊號為基本前提。然而，隨著新技術的出現，這些系統的靈敏度和解析度正接近極限，阻礙了其發展和升級。認識到電子戰系統可以透過利用大數據分析和挖掘大型資料集來突破傳統模式，不僅可以高效截獲和準確識別未知訊號，還可以預測頻率變化、模式調整和功率轉換的時機。這使得對電子目標的運作模式進行關聯分析成為可能，從而能夠主動調整幹擾策略、規則和參數，並實施有針對性的電子攻擊。

幹擾的重點已從單一目標轉向幹擾網路化目標。在網路技術的驅動下，新一代雷達和通訊設備開始連網，利用系統優勢彌補單點目標的不足。傳統的電子戰幹擾依賴人的經驗和知識，缺乏足夠的自學習能力，主要用於幹擾點狀和鏈狀電子目標，無法有效幹擾網路化目標。認知電子戰系統利用深度學習技術感知雷達、通訊等新型網路化系統的網路結構與運作模式。基於邏輯推理，該系統能夠識別網路系統中的節點、樞紐和關鍵鏈路，從而實現精準幹擾，並有可能破壞系統。

新型結構重塑

認知電子戰系統在傳統開環結構的基礎上，引入行為學習過程並重塑模組化架構，使其能夠評估幹擾效果，並基於乾擾反饋優化干擾策略，從而形成「偵察-幹擾-評估」對抗的閉環。

偵察感知模組。偵察感知是電子戰的核心環節，也是成功實施認知電子戰的關鍵前提。本模組利用深度學習和特徵學習技術，透過與戰場電磁環境的持續交互，不斷學習周圍環境。它對訊號進行參數測量和分類，在先驗知識的支持下分析和提取目標威脅訊號的特徵數據，評估行為意圖，確定威脅等級，並將數據傳輸至決策和效果評估模組。

決策模組。決策模組是認知電子戰系統的核心，主要負責產生幹擾策略和最佳化干擾波形。此模組基於偵察感知的分析識別結果、幹擾評估的回饋效果以及動態知識庫，利用機器學習演算法預測威脅特徵，透過對過往經驗的推理生成對抗措施，快速制定攻擊策略並優化干擾波形，自動分配幹擾資源，最終完成對目標訊號的自主攻擊。

效果評估模組。效果評估是認知電子戰系統閉環運作的關鍵，在連接所有模組中發揮至關重要的作用。此模組在偵察感知到訊號被幹擾後，基於回饋資訊分析目標對幹擾措施的反應，在線上計算和評估目標受到的干擾或損害程度，並將結果回饋給決策模組，以幫助調整幹擾策略和優化波形。

動態知識庫模組主要提供…此模組提供基礎資訊和資料支持，包括威脅目標庫、幹擾規則庫和先驗知識庫。它提供先驗信息，例如用於偵察感知、決策和性能評估的模型、參數和數據。它利用回饋資訊進行認知學習，將學習結果累積為經驗，並更新知識庫中的知識圖譜、知識規則和推理模型，從而實現知識庫的即時更新。

提升效率的新應用

隨著演算法模型和學習推理技術的進一步突破，資訊化和智慧化戰爭將催生更成熟和精密的認知電子戰系統。它們在增強作戰效率方面的作用將更加突出，應用場景將更加多樣化，並將成為戰場上不可或缺的武器。

精確能量釋放用於打擊行動。在資訊化和智慧化條件下，戰場態勢即時呈現，指揮決策及時高效，作戰行動即時控制，使精確打擊行動能夠從場景構思到實際戰場。同時，隨著網路資訊設施的互聯互通，作戰系統具有更高的耦合度和更強的韌性，成為聯合作戰的重要支撐。認知電子戰系統具備高精度感知能力及強大的定向幹擾能力。透過其在廣大戰場上的分散部署，該系統可在聯合作戰指揮官的統一指揮下，與部隊突擊和火力打擊協同作戰，對作戰系統的關鍵節點和重要環節進行精確打擊。這種打擊包括精確目標定位、精確頻率覆蓋以及精確一致的調製模式，從而乾擾和削弱敵方預警和指揮控制系統的效能，並為系統破壞作戰的實施提供便利。

網路協同集群作戰。在未來的戰爭中，無人機、無人車輛、無人艇等無人集群將成為作戰的主力，因此建造低成本、高冗餘度的作戰系統對於取得勝利至關重要。面對「集群」、「狼群」和「魚群」等無人作戰系統，認知電子戰系統在演進為無人電子戰集群方面具有天然優勢。基於網路協同技術，偵察和乾擾載荷部署在無人集群平台上。平台間的資訊和資料交換透過​​資訊鏈路實現。在智慧演算法的支援下，認知電子戰系統能夠根據戰場電磁態勢優化干擾功能組合併動態分配資源。基於自主協同導引和集中控制，它們可以進行群集間的電子攻擊。

電子戰和網路戰是兩種截然不同的作戰模式。電子戰著重於實體層和訊號層的低層對抗，而網路戰則著重於邏輯層和資訊層的高層對抗。然而，隨著資訊網路覆蓋電磁頻譜，電子戰和網路戰的融合變得越來越可能。無線存取和加密技術的突破使得認知電子戰系統能夠滲透網路基礎設施，實現網路空間和電子空間態勢感知及任務決策的無縫融合。透過結合自主學習、模式評估和演算法預測，可以建立一個整合網路空間和電子空間感知、評估、決策和回饋的閉環系統，從而實現網路戰和電子戰的一體化攻防。

王志勇　楊連山　崔怡然

來源：中國軍網-解放軍報 作者：王志勇　楊連山　崔怡然 責任編輯：林詩清 發布：2026-01-22

中國原創軍事資源：http://www.81.cn/ll_208543/168483878784.html

#Chinese Military Joint Oprations, #cross-domain collaborative operations, #cyber #warfare, #drone #warfare, #Information Support Force, #informatization, #intelligent warfare, #intellligentization, #mosaic #warfare, #智慧戰爭, #網路戰爭, #耗散戰爭, #認知戰, #跨域協同作戰, Asymmetric Warfare, China's Informatization - 中國信息化, Chinese Artificial Intelligence, Chinese Military Characteristics & Development Trends of Cognitive Domain Operations and Warfare, Chinese Military Cognitive Domain Operations, Chinese military cognitive warfare, Chinese Military Future Wars, Chinese Military Informatization, Chinese Military Intelligentization, Chinese Military Use of Cognitive Confrontation within the Combat Domain, Chinese Military Views - 中國軍事觀, Cognitive Confrontation, Cognitive Domain Warfare, Dissipative Warfare, Information Support Force, Intelligent Warfare, 中國解放軍敘事戰爭, 中國軍隊對耗散戰的戰術運用, 以認知為中心的戰爭：應對複雜戰爭的作戰概念, 認知域戰, 認知戰

Functional Orientation of the Modern Combat System with Chinese Characteristics

Leave a comment

中國特色現代作戰體系的功能定位

2018年08月14日 xx:xx　来源：解放军报

現代英語：

Functional Orientation of the Modern Combat System with Chinese Characteristics

　　Key Points

　　● The coexistence, iterative development, dynamic evolution, and integrated development of multiple generations of mechanization, informatization, and intelligentization constitute the historical context of national defense and military construction in the new era, and also represent the historical position of building a modern combat system with Chinese characteristics.

　　● Traditional and non-traditional security threats are intertwined, and various strategic directions and security fields face diverse real and potential threats of local wars. This requires our military to abandon old models such as linear warfare, traditional ground warfare, and homeland defense warfare, and accelerate the transformation to joint operations and all-domain operations.

　　The report to the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China proposed that, standing at a new historical starting point and facing the demands of building a strong country and a strong military, “we should build a modern combat system with Chinese characteristics.” This is a strategic choice to adapt to the rapidly evolving nature of warfare, to thoroughly implement Xi Jinping’s thought on strengthening the military, to comprehensively advance the modernization of national defense and the armed forces, and to aim at building a world-class military. Among these choices, the grasp of the functional orientation of the modern combat system with Chinese characteristics greatly influences the goals, direction, and quality of its construction.

　　Seize the opportunities of the times and take the integrated development of mechanization, informatization and intelligentization as the historical orientation.

　　The combat system is the material foundation of war and is closely related to the form of warfare. In today’s world, a new round of technological and industrial revolution is brewing and emerging. Original and disruptive breakthroughs in some major scientific problems are opening up new frontiers and directions, prompting human society to rapidly transform towards intelligence, and accelerating the evolution of warfare towards intelligence. Currently, our military is in a stage of integrated mechanization and informatization development. Mechanization is not yet complete, informatization is being deeply advanced, and we are facing both opportunities and challenges brought about by the intelligent military revolution. The new era provides us with a rare historical opportunity to achieve innovative breakthroughs and rapid development, and also provides a rare historical opportunity for our military’s combat system construction to achieve generational leaps and leapfrog development.

　　A new era and a new starting point require establishing a new coordinate system. The coexistence, iterative development, dynamic evolution, and integrated development of multiple generations of mechanization, informatization, and intelligentization constitute the historical context of national defense and military construction in the new era, and also the historical position of building a modern combat system with Chinese characteristics. We should accurately grasp the historical process of the evolution of warfare, the historical stage of the combined development of mechanization and informatization, and the historical opportunities brought about by intelligent warfare. We must prioritize the development of military intelligence, using intelligence to lead and drive mechanization and informatization, coordinating mechanization and informatization within the overall framework of intelligent construction, and completing the tasks of mechanization and informatization development within the process of intelligentization. We must focus on top-level design for military intelligence development, researching and formulating a strategic outline and roadmap for military intelligence development, clarifying key areas, core technologies, key projects, and steps for intelligent development, and accelerating the construction of a military intelligent combat system. We must achieve significant progress as soon as possible in key technologies such as deep learning, cross-domain integration, human-machine collaboration, autonomous control, and neural networks, improving the ability to materialize advanced scientific and technological forces into advanced weaponry and equipment, and providing material conditions for building a modern combat system.

　　Emphasizing system-on-system confrontation, with the development of joint operations and all-domain operations capabilities as the core indicators.

　　Information-based local wars are characterized by integrated joint operations as their basic form, with network support, information dominance, and system-on-system confrontation as their main features. The combat capability generation model is shifting towards a network-based information system. Currently and for some time to come, my country’s geostrategic environment remains complex, with traditional and non-traditional security threats intertwined. Various strategic directions and security domains face diverse real and potential threats of local wars. Simultaneously, with the expansion of national interests, the security of overseas interests is becoming increasingly prominent, requiring the PLA to abandon old models such as linear warfare, traditional ground warfare, and territorial defense warfare, and accelerate its transformation towards joint operations and all-domain operations.

　　The report of the 19th CPC National Congress pointed out that “enhancing joint operational capabilities and all-domain operational capabilities based on network information systems” is a new summary of the PLA’s operational capabilities in the new era and a core indicator for building a modern operational system with Chinese characteristics. We should actively explore the characteristics, laws, and winning mechanisms of modern warfare, and proactively design future operational models, force application methods, and command and coordination procedures to provide advanced theoretical support for building a modern operational system with Chinese characteristics. Following the new pattern of the Central Military Commission exercising overall command, theater commands focusing on combat operations, and services focusing on force development, we should adapt to the new joint operational command system, the reform of the military’s size, structure, and force composition, highlighting the network information system as the core support, and building an operational system capable of generating powerful joint operational capabilities to fully leverage the overall power of the various services and branches. With a view to properly addressing various strategic directions and traditional and non-traditional security threats, ensuring the PLA can reliably carry out various operational missions, we should build an operational system capable of generating powerful all-domain operational capabilities, achieving overall linkage across multiple battlefields and domains, including land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace.

　　Focusing on real threats, the strategic objective is to gain an asymmetric advantage over the enemy.

　　The world today is at a new turning point in the international situation, with strategic competition among major powers taking on new forms and the struggle for dominance in the international and regional order becoming unprecedentedly fierce. The specter of hegemonism and power politics lingers, and some countries are intensifying their efforts to guard against and contain China. my country’s geostrategic environment is becoming increasingly complex, with multiple destabilizing factors, facing multi-directional security pressures, and an increasingly complex maritime security environment. All of these factors contribute to increasing the dangers and challenges to national security.

　　Effectively responding to real military security threats is a crucial strategic task in our military preparedness and a strategic direction for building a modern combat system with Chinese characteristics. We should focus on keeping up with technological advancements, vigorously developing advanced equipment, and striving to avoid creating new technological gaps with potential adversaries. This will provide solid material support for the construction of our combat system. Simultaneously, we must emphasize leveraging the PLA’s long-standing principles of flexibility, mobility, and independent operation, capitalizing on our strengths and avoiding weaknesses, targeting the enemy’s vulnerabilities and weaknesses. We should not simply compete with the best in high-tech fields, but rather focus on deterring the enemy and preventing war. We must accelerate the development of asymmetric counterbalancing mechanisms, strengthen the construction of conventional strategic means, new concepts and mechanisms, and strategic deterrence in new domains, supporting the formation of a new combat system with new deterrent and combat capabilities. We must not fear direct confrontation, preparing for the most complex and difficult situations, and building a combat system capable of providing multiple means, forces, and methods to address diverse war threats. This will ensure that, in the event of conflict, the comprehensive effectiveness of the combat system is fully utilized, guaranteeing victory in battle and deterring further war through war.

　　Promoting military-civilian integration and using the national strategic system to support winning the people’s war in the new era is a fundamental requirement.

　　The deepest roots of the power of war lie within the people. The concept of people’s war is the magic weapon for our army to defeat the enemy. Modern warfare is a comprehensive confrontation of the combined strength of opposing sides, involving political, economic, military, technological, and cultural fronts. Various armed forces are closely integrated, and various forms of struggle are coordinated with each other. The role and status of civilian technology and civilian forces in war are increasingly important, which further requires integrating the national defense system into the national economic and social system and striving to win the people’s war in the new era.

　　Leveraging the power of military-civilian integration to support the fight against people’s war in the new era with the national strategic system is a fundamental requirement for building a modern combat system with Chinese characteristics. We must deeply implement the national strategy of military-civilian integration, deeply integrate the construction of our military’s combat system into the national strategic system, utilize national resources and overall strength to achieve a continuous leap in combat effectiveness, and maximize the overall power of people’s war. We must focus on strengthening military-civilian integration in emerging strategic fields, actively seize the commanding heights of future military competition, and continuously create new advantages in people’s war. We must incorporate the military innovation system into the national innovation system, strengthen demand alignment and collaborative innovation, enhance independent innovation, original innovation, and integrated innovation capabilities, and proactively discover, cultivate, and utilize strategic, disruptive, and cutting-edge technologies to provide advanced technological support for building a modern combat system. We must also focus on the in-depth exploitation of civilian resources, strengthen the integration of various resources that can serve national defense and military construction, prevent duplication and waste, self-contained systems, and closed operations, and maximize the incubation effect of civilian resources on the construction of a modern combat system.

　　(Author’s affiliation: Institute of War Studies, Academy of Military Sciences)

Zhang Qianyi

現代國語：

中國特色現代作戰體系的功能取向

要點提示

●機械化信息化智能化多代並存、迭代孕育、動態演進、融合發展，是新時代國防和軍隊建設的時代背景，也是中國特色現代作戰體系建設的歷史方位。

●傳統和非傳統安全威脅相互交織，各戰略方向、各安全領域面臨多樣化現實和潛在的局部戰爭威脅，要求我軍必須摒棄平麵線式戰、傳統地面戰、國土防禦戰等舊模式，加快向聯合作戰、全域作戰轉變。

黨的十九大報告提出，站在新的歷史起點上，面對強國強軍的時代要求，“構建中國特色現代作戰體系”。這是適應戰爭形態加速演變的時代要求，深入貫徹習近平強軍思想、全面推進國防和軍隊現代化、瞄準建設世界一流軍隊的戰略抉擇。其中，對中國特色現代作戰體系功能取向的把握，極大影響著體系構建的目標、方向和質量。

抓住時代機遇，以機械化信息化智能化融合發展為歷史方位

作戰體係是戰爭的物質基礎，與戰爭形態緊密關聯。當今世界，新一輪科技革命和產業革命正在孕育興起，一些重大科學問題的原創性顛覆性突破正在開闢新前沿新方向，促使人類社會向智能化快速轉型，戰爭形態向智能化加速演變。當前，我軍正處於機械化信息化複合發展階段，機械化尚未完成、信息化深入推進，又面臨智能化軍事革命帶來的機遇和挑戰。新時代為我們實現創新超越、快速發展提供了難得歷史機遇，也為我軍作戰體系建設實現跨代超越、彎道超車提供了難得歷史機遇。

新時代新起點，需要確立新的坐標系。機械化信息化智能化多代並存、迭代孕育、動態演進、融合發展，是新時代國防和軍隊建設的時代背景，也是中國特色現代作戰體系建設的歷史方位。應準確把握戰爭形態演變的歷史進程，準確把握機械化信息化複合發展的歷史階段，準確把握智能化戰爭帶來的歷史機遇，堅持把軍事智能化建設擺在優先發展位置，以智能化引領帶動機械化信息化，在智能化建設全局中統籌機械化信息化，在智能化進程中完成機械化信息化發展的任務；注重搞好軍事智能化發展的頂層設計，研究制定軍事智能化發展戰略綱要和路線圖，明確智能化發展的關鍵領域、核心技術、重點項目和步驟措施等，加快軍事智能化作戰體系建設進程；盡快在深度學習、跨界融合、人機協同、自主操控、神經網絡等關鍵技術上取得重大進展，提高先進科技力物化為先進武器裝備的能力，為構建現代作戰體系提供物質條件。

突出體係對抗，以打造聯合作戰和全域作戰能力為核心指標

信息化局部戰爭，一體化聯合作戰成為基本形式，網絡支撐、信息主導、體係對抗成為主要特徵，戰鬥力生成模式向基於網絡信息體系轉變。當前及今後一個時期，我國地緣戰略環境仍然複雜，傳統和非傳統安全威脅相互交織，各戰略方向、各安全領域面臨多樣化現實和潛在的局部戰爭威脅，同時隨著國家利益的拓展，海外利益安全問題日益凸顯，要求我軍必須摒棄平麵線式戰、傳統地面戰、國土防禦戰等舊模式，加快向聯合作戰、全域作戰轉變。

黨的十九大報告指出，“提高基於網絡信息體系的聯合作戰能力、全域作戰能力”，這是對新時代我軍作戰能力的新概括，也是中國特色現代作戰體系建設的核心指標。應積極探索現代戰爭特點規律和製勝機理，前瞻設計未來作戰行動模式、力量運用方式、指揮協同程式等，為構建中國特色現代作戰體系提供先進理論支撐；按照軍委管總、戰區主戰、軍種主建的新格局，適應聯合作戰指揮新體制、軍隊規模結構和力量編成改革，突出網絡信息體系這個核心支撐，打造能夠生成強大聯合作戰能力的作戰體系，充分發揮諸軍兵種作戰力量整體威力；著眼妥善應對各戰略方向、傳統和非傳統安全威脅，確保我軍可靠遂行各種作戰任務，打造能夠生成強大全域作戰能力的作戰體系，實現陸海空天電網多維戰場、多域戰場的整體聯動。

著眼現實威脅，以形成對敵非對稱作戰優勢為戰略指向

當今世界，國際形勢正處在新的轉折點上，大國戰略博弈呈現新態勢，圍繞國際和地區秩序主導權的鬥爭空前激烈。霸權主義和強權政治陰魂不散，一些國家加緊對華防範和遏制。我國地緣戰略環境日趨複雜，存在多重不穩定因素，面對多方向安全壓力，我海上安全環境日趨複雜等，這些都使得國家安全面臨的危險和挑戰增多。

有效應對現實軍事安全威脅，是我軍事鬥爭準備的重要戰略任務，也是中國特色現代作戰體系建設的戰略指向。應注重技術跟進，大力研發先進裝備，力避與潛在對手拉開新的技術代差，為作戰體系建設提供堅實物質支撐，同時注重發揮我軍歷來堅持的靈活機動、自主作戰原則，揚長避短，擊敵弱項、軟肋，不單純在高科技領域“與龍王比寶”，著眼懾敵止戰，加快發展非對稱制衡手段，加強常規戰略手段、新概念新機理和新型領域戰略威懾手段建設，支撐形成具有新質威懾與實戰能力的新型作戰體系；不懼直面過招，立足最複雜最困難情況，構建能夠提供多種手段、多種力量、多種方式應對多樣化戰爭威脅的作戰體系，確保一旦有事，充分發揮作戰體係綜合效能，確保戰而勝之、以戰止戰。

推進軍民融合，以國家戰略體系支撐打贏新時代人民戰爭為根本要求

戰爭偉力之最深厚根源存在於民眾之中。人民戰爭思想是我軍克敵制勝的法寶。現代戰爭是敵對雙方綜合實力的整體對抗，涉及政治、經濟、軍事、科技、文化等各條戰線，各種武裝力量緊密結合、各種鬥爭形式相互配合，民用技術和民間力量在戰爭中的地位作用日益提升，更加要求把國防體系融入國家經濟社會體系，努力打贏新時代人民戰爭。

發揮軍民融合時代偉力，以國家戰略體系支撐打贏新時代人民戰爭，是中國特色現代作戰體系建設的根本要求。要深入實施軍民融合發展國家戰略，推動我軍作戰體系建設深度融入國家戰略體系，利用國家資源和整體力量實現戰鬥力的持續躍升，最大限度發揮人民戰爭的整體威力；注重加強在新興戰略領域的軍民融合發展，積極搶占未來軍事競爭的製高點，不斷創造人民戰爭的新優勢；把軍事創新體系納入國家創新體系之中，加強需求對接、協同創新，增強自主創新、原始創新、集成創新能力，主動發現、培育和運用戰略性顛覆性前沿性技術，為構建現代作戰體系提供先進技術支撐；抓好民用資源深度挖掘，強化可服務於國防和軍隊建設的各種資源整合力度，防止重複浪費、自成體系、封閉運行，最大限度發揮民用資源對現代作戰體系構建的孵化效應。

（作者單位：軍事科學院戰爭研究院）

張謙一

中國原創軍事資源：https://www.chinanews.com.cn/mil/2018/08-14/8599617888.shtml

#Artificial #Intelligence, #cyber #warfare, #Information Support Force, #informatization, #intelligent warfare, #intellligentization, #網路戰爭, #認知戰, Asymmetric Warfare, China Cyber Dilemma in the 21st Century, China's Informatization - 中國信息化, Chinese Artificial Intelligence, Chinese Military Characteristics & Development Trends of Cognitive Domain Operations and Warfare, Chinese Military Cognitive Domain Operations, Chinese military cognitive warfare, Chinese Military Future Wars, Chinese Military Informatization, Chinese Military Intelligentization, Chinese Military Use of Cognitive Confrontation within the Combat Domain, Chinese Military Views - 中國軍事觀, Cognitive Confrontation, Cognitive Domain Warfare, Combat Planning, Cross-domain attacks, Dissipative Warfare, Information Support Force, Intelligent Warfare, Mosaic Warfare, Strategic Support Forces, 中國解放軍敘事戰爭, 中國軍隊做好戰爭準備, 中國軍隊對耗散戰的戰術運用, 以認知為中心的戰爭：應對複雜戰爭的作戰概念, 認知域戰, 認知戰

Chinese Military Intelligence Drives Accelerated Development of Cyberspace Warfare

Leave a comment

中國軍事情報推動網絡空間戰爭加速發展

現代英語：

The report to the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China pointed out that it is necessary to “accelerate the development of military intelligence and improve joint operational capabilities and all-domain operational capabilities based on network information systems.” Today’s *PLA Daily* published an article stating that military intelligence is a new trend and direction in the development of the military field after mechanization and informatization. We must develop intelligence on the basis of existing mechanization and informatization, while using intelligence to drive mechanization and informatization to a higher level and a higher standard. Cyberspace, as a new operational domain, is a new field with high technological content and the greatest innovative vitality. Under the impetus of military intelligence, it is ushering in a period of rapid development opportunities.Illustration: Lei Yu

Military intelligence is driving the accelerated development of cyberspace operations.

■ Respected soldiers Zhou Dewang Huang Anwei

Three key technologies support the intelligentization of cyberspace weapons.

Intelligence is a kind of wisdom and capability; it is the perception, cognition, and application of laws by all systems with life cycles. Intelligentization is the solidification of this wisdom and capability into a state. Cyberspace weapons are weapons used to carry out combat missions in cyberspace. Their form is primarily software and code, essentially a piece of data. The intelligence of cyberspace weapons is mainly reflected in the following three aspects:

First, there’s intelligent vulnerability discovery. Vulnerabilities are the foundation of cyber weapon design. The ransomware that spread globally this May exploited a vulnerability in the Microsoft operating system, causing a huge shock in the cybersecurity community. Vulnerabilities are expensive, with a single zero-day vulnerability costing tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Previously, vulnerability discovery relied mainly on experienced hackers using software tools to inspect and analyze code. However, at the International Cybersecurity Technology Competition finals held during this year’s China Internet Security Conference, participants demonstrated how intelligent robots could discover vulnerabilities on-site, then use these vulnerabilities to write network code, creating cyber weapons to breach target systems and capture the flag. This change signifies that vulnerability discovery has entered the era of intelligent technology.

Second, intelligent signal analysis and cryptography. Signals are the carriers of network data transmission, and cryptography is the last line of defense for network data security. Signal analysis and cryptography are core technologies for cyberspace warfare. Breaking through signals and cryptography is the fundamental path to entering cyberspace and a primary target of cyber weapons attacks. Intelligent signal analysis solves problems such as signal protocol analysis, modulation identification, and individual identification through technologies such as big data, cloud computing, and deep learning. Cryptography is the “crown jewel” of computational science. Intelligent cryptography, through the accumulation of cryptographic data samples, continuously learns and searches for patterns to find the key to decryption, thereby opening the last door of the network data “safe” and solving the critical links of network intrusion and access.

Thirdly, there is the design of intelligent weapon platforms. In 2009, the U.S. military proposed the “Cyber ​​Aircraft” project, providing platforms similar to armored vehicles, ships, and aircraft for cyberspace operations. These platforms can automatically conduct reconnaissance, load cyber weapons, autonomously coordinate, and autonomously attack in cyberspace. When threatened, they can self-destruct and erase traces, exhibiting a certain degree of intelligence. In the future, the weapons loaded onto “Cyber ​​Aircraft” will not be pre-written code by software engineers, but rather intelligent cyber weapons will be designed in real-time based on discovered vulnerabilities, enabling “order-based” development and significantly improving the targeting of cyberspace operations.

The trend of intelligentization in network-controlled weapons is becoming increasingly prominent.

Weapons controlled by cyberspace, or cyber-controlled weapons, are weapons that connect to a network, receive commands from cyberspace, execute cross-domain missions, and achieve combat effects in physical space. Most future combat weapon platforms will be networked, making military information networks essentially the Internet of Things (IoT). These networks connect to satellites, radars, drones, and other network entities, enabling control from perception and detection to tracking, positioning, and strike. The intelligence of cyber-controlled weapons is rapidly developing across land, sea, air, space, and cyber domains.

In 2015, Syria used a Russian robotic force to defeat militants. The operation employed six tracked robots, four wheeled robots, an automated artillery corps, several drones, and a command system. Commanders used the command system to direct drones to locate militants, and the robots then charged, supported by artillery and drone fire, inflicting heavy casualties. This small-scale battle marked the beginning of robotic “team” operations.

Network-controlled intelligent weapons for naval and air battlefields are under extensive research and development and verification. In 2014, the U.S. Navy used 13 unmanned surface vessels to demonstrate and verify the interception of enemy ships by unmanned surface vessel swarms, mainly by exchanging sensor data, and achieved good results. When tested again in 2016, functions such as collaborative task allocation and tactical coordination were added, and “swarm awareness” became its prominent feature of intelligence.

The development of swarms of small, micro-sized drones for aerial combat is also rapid. In recent years, the U.S. Department of Defense has conducted multiple tests of the Partridge micro-drone, capable of deploying dozens or even hundreds at a time. By enhancing its coordination capabilities during reconnaissance missions, progress has been made in drone formation, command, control, and intelligent management.

Space-based cyber-control weapons are becoming increasingly “intelligent.” The space-based cyber-control domain primarily comprises two categories of weapons: reconnaissance and strike weapons. Satellites of various functions mainly perform reconnaissance missions and are typical reconnaissance sensors. With the emergence of various microsatellite constellations, satellites are exhibiting new characteristics: small size, rapid launch, large numbers, and greater intelligence. Microsatellite constellations offer greater flexibility and reliability in performing reconnaissance and communication missions, and currently, the world’s leading satellite powers are actively developing microsatellite constellation plans with broader coverage.

Various hypersonic strike weapons are cruising in the air, like a sword of Damocles hanging over people’s heads. The U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory stated that the “hypersonic strike weapon” will begin flight testing around 2018, and other countries are also actively developing similar weapons. The most prominent features of these weapons are their high speed, long range, and high level of intelligence.

Intelligent command information systems are changing traditional combat command methods.

Cyber ​​weapons and weapons controlled by cyberspace constitute the “fist” of intelligent warfare, while the command information systems that direct the use of these weapons are the “brain” of intelligent warfare. Cyberspace operational command information systems must keep pace with the process of intelligentization. Currently, almost all global command information systems face the challenge of “intelligent lag.” Future warfare requires rapid and autonomous decision-making, which places higher demands on intelligent support systems.

In 2007, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) launched the “Deep Green Program,” a research and development program for command and control systems, aiming to enable computer-aided commanders to make rapid decisions and gain a decisive advantage. This is a campaign-level command information system, developed to be embedded into the U.S. Army’s brigade-level C4ISR wartime command information system, enabling intelligent command by commanders. Even today, the U.S. military has not relaxed its development of intelligent command information systems.

In cyberspace warfare, network targets are represented by a single IP address accessing the network. Their sheer number makes efficient manual operation difficult, necessitating the support of intelligent command and information systems. Currently, intelligent command and information systems need to achieve functions such as intelligent intelligence analysis, intelligent sensing, intelligent navigation and positioning, intelligent decision support, intelligent collaboration, intelligent assessment, and intelligent unmanned combat. In particular, they must enable swarm operational control of unmanned network control systems. All of these requirements urgently demand intelligent command and information systems, necessitating accelerated research and development and application of relevant key technologies.

In conclusion, intelligent cyber weapons and network control weapons, coordinated through intelligent information systems, will form enormous combat capabilities, essentially enabling them to carry out all actions in current combat scenarios. Future warfare, from command force organization to target selection, action methods, and tactical applications, will all unfold within an intelligent context. The “gamification” of warfare will become more pronounced, and operational command methods will undergo significant changes.

In future battlefields, combat will require not only courage but also intelligence.

■ Yang Jian, Zhao Lu

Currently, artificial intelligence is entering a new stage of development and is rapidly penetrating various fields. Influenced by this process, military competition among nations surrounding intelligent technologies has begun. Our army has always been a brave and tenacious people’s army, determined to fight and win. On the future battlefield, we should continue to carry forward our glorious traditions while more broadly mastering and utilizing the latest technological achievements to develop more intelligent weapons and equipment, thereby gaining a decisive advantage on the future battlefield.

Intelligentization is a trend in human societal development, and intelligent warfare is rapidly approaching. The development of military intelligence has a solid foundation thanks to successful innovations that transcend existing computational models, the gradual popularization of nanotechnology, and breakthroughs in research on the mechanisms of the human brain. Consequently, intelligent weaponry is increasingly prominent, surpassing and even replacing human capabilities in areas such as intelligence analysis and combat response. Furthermore, intelligent weaponry offers significant advantages in terms of manpower requirements, comprehensive support, and operating costs, and is increasingly becoming the dominant force in warfare.

The development and application of intelligent weaponry have proven to expand the scope of military operations and significantly enhance the combat effectiveness of troops. In the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, drones have undertaken most of the reconnaissance, intelligence, and surveillance support missions, and have been responsible for approximately one-third of the air strike missions. In the past two years, Russia has also repeatedly used highly intelligent unmanned reconnaissance aircraft and combat robots in the Syrian theater. Intelligent weaponry is increasingly demonstrating its significant value, surpassing that of traditional weapons.

In future wars, the contest of intelligent combat systems will be the key to victory in high-level competition and ultimate showdowns. As the development of technology-supported military means becomes increasingly uneven, whoever first acquires the capability to conduct intelligent warfare will be better positioned to seize the initiative on the battlefield. Those with a technological advantage will minimize the costs of war, while the weaker will inevitably suffer enormous losses and pay a heavy price. We must not only accelerate innovation in core technologies and the development of weaponry, but also research and explore organizational structures, command methods, and operational models adapted to the development of intelligent military operations. Furthermore, we must cultivate a talent pool capable of promoting intelligent military development and forging intelligent combat capabilities, fully leveraging the overall effectiveness of our military’s combat system, and winning wars in a more “intelligent” manner against our adversaries.

現代國語：

党的十九大报告指出，要“加快军事智能化发展，提高基于网络信息体系的联合作战能力、全域作战能力”。今天的《解放军报》刊发文章指出，军事智能化是机械化、信息化之后军事领域发展的新趋势和新方向，我们要在现有机械化和信息化基础上发展智能化，同时用智能化牵引机械化和信息化向更高水平、更高层次发展。网络空间作为新型作战领域，是科技含量高、最具创新活力的新领域，在军事智能化的牵引下，正在迎来快速发展的机遇期。制图：雷 煜

军事智能化牵引网络空间作战加速发展

■敬兵 周德旺 皇安伟

三大技术支撑网络空间武器智能化

智能是一种智慧和能力，是一切有生命周期的系统对规律的感应、认知与运用，智能化就是把这种智慧和能力固化下来，成为一种状态。网络空间武器是网络空间遂行作战任务的武器，其形态以软件和代码为主，本质上是一段数据。网络空间武器的智能化主要体现在以下三个方面：

一是智能化漏洞挖掘。漏洞是网络武器设计的基础，今年5月在全球范围内传播的勒索病毒软件，就是利用了微软操作系统漏洞，给网络安全界带来了巨大震动。漏洞价格昂贵，一个零日漏洞价值几万到几十万美元不等。以往漏洞的发现，主要依靠有经验的黑客，利用软件工具对代码进行检查和分析。在今年中国互联网安全大会期间举办的国际网络安全技术对抗联赛总决赛中，参赛人员演示由智能机器人现场进行漏洞挖掘，然后通过漏洞编写网络代码，形成网络武器，攻破目标系统，夺取旗帜。这一变化，意味着漏洞挖掘进入了智能化时代。

二是智能化信号分析和密码破译。信号是网络数据传输的载体，密码是网络数据安全最后的屏障，信号分析和密码破译是网络空间作战的核心技术，突破信号和密码是进入网络空间的基本路径，是网络武器攻击的首要目标。智能化信号分析将信号的协议分析、调制识别、个体识别等问题，通过大数据、云计算、深度学习等技术进行解决。密码破译是计算科学“皇冠上的明珠”，智能化密码破译通过对密码数据样本的积累，不断学习、寻找规律，能找到破译的钥匙，从而打开网络数据“保险柜”的最后一道门，解决网络入侵和接入的关键环节。

三是智能化武器平台设计。美军在2009年提出“网络飞行器”项目，为网络空间作战提供像战车、舰艇、飞机这样的平台，可以实现在网络空间里自动侦察、加载网络武器、自主协同、自主攻击，受到威胁时自我销毁、清除痕迹，具备了一定的智能化特征。未来“网络飞行器”加载的武器，不是软件人员编好的代码，而是根据侦察结果直接对发现的漏洞，现场实时进行智能化网络武器设计，实现“订购式”开发，从而极大地提高网络空间作战的针对性。

网控武器的智能化趋势愈加凸显

受网络空间控制的武器简称网控武器，是通过网络连接，接受网络空间指令，执行跨域任务，在物理空间达成作战效果的武器。未来的各种作战武器平台，大多是联网的武器平台，这样军事信息网本质上就是物联网，上联卫星、雷达、无人机等网络实体，从感知到发现、跟踪、定位、打击都可通过网络空间控制，网控武器的智能化已在陆海空天电等战场蓬勃发展。

2015年，叙利亚利用俄罗斯机器人军团击溃武装分子，行动采用了包括6个履带式机器人、4个轮式机器人、1个自动化火炮群、数架无人机和1套指挥系统。指挥员通过指挥系统调度无人机侦察发现武装分子，机器人向武装分子发起冲锋，同时伴随火炮和无人机攻击力量支援，对武装分子进行了致命打击。这仅仅是一场小规模的战斗，却开启了机器人“组团”作战的先河。

海空战场网控智能武器正在大量研发验证。2014年，美国海军使用13艘无人水面艇，演示验证无人艇集群拦截敌方舰艇，主要通过交换传感器数据，取得了不错的效果。2016年再次试验时，新增了协同任务分配、战术配合等功能，“蜂群意识”成为其智能化的显著特点。

用于空中作战的小微型无人机蜂群也在快速发展。近年来，美国国防部多次试验“山鹑”微型无人机，可一次投放数十架乃至上百架，通过提升其执行侦察任务时的协同能力，在无人机编队、指挥、控制、智能化管理等方面都取得了进展。

空天网控武器越来越“聪明”。空天领域主要包含侦察和打击两类网控武器，各种功能的卫星主要执行侦察任务，是典型的侦察传感器。随着各种小微卫星群的出现，使卫星表现出新的特征：体积小、发射快、数量多、更加智能。小微卫星群在执行侦察和通信任务时，有了更大的灵活度和可靠性，目前世界卫星强国都在积极制定覆盖范围更广的小微卫星群计划。

各种高超音速打击武器在空天巡航，仿佛悬在人们头顶的利剑。美国空军研究室称“高速打击武器”将在2018年前后启动飞行试验，其它各国也正在积极研发类似武器。这类武器最大的特点是速度快、航程远、智能化程度高。

智能化指挥信息系统改变传统作战指挥方式

网络空间武器和受网络空间控制的武器，是智能化战争的“拳头”，而指挥这些武器运用的指挥信息系统是智能化战争的“大脑”，网络空间作战指挥信息系统要同步跟上智能化的进程。当前，几乎全球的指挥信息系统都面临着“智能滞后”的难题，未来战争需要快速决策、自主决策，这对智能辅助系统提出了更高要求。

2007年，美国国防部高级研究计划局启动关于指挥控制系统的研发计划——“深绿计划”，以期能实现计算机辅助指挥员快速决策赢得制胜先机。这是一个战役战术级的指挥信息系统，其研发目的是将该系统嵌入美国陆军旅级C4ISR战时指挥信息系统中去，实现指挥员的智能化指挥。直到今天，美军也没有放松对智能化指挥信息系统的开发。

在网络空间作战中，网络目标表现为一个接入网络的IP地址，数量众多导致人工难以高效操作，作战更需要智能化指挥信息系统的辅助支撑。当前，智能化指挥信息系统需要实现智能情报分析、智能感知、智能导航定位、智能辅助决策、智能协同、智能评估、智能化无人作战等功能，尤其是实现对无人网控系统的集群作战操控，这都对智能化指挥信息系统提出了迫切需求，需要加快相应关键技术的研发和运用。

综上所述，智能化的网络武器和网控武器，通过智能化的信息系统调度，将形成巨大的作战能力，基本能遂行现行作战样式中的所有行动。未来战争，从指挥力量编组、到目标选择、行动方式、战法运用等，都将在智能化的背景下展开，战争“游戏化”的特点将更显著，作战指挥方式也将发生重大变化。

未来战场 斗勇更需斗“智”

■杨建　赵璐

当前，人工智能发展进入崭新阶段，并开始向各个领域加速渗透。受这一进程的影响，各国围绕智能化的军事竞争已拉开帷幕。我军历来是一支英勇顽强、敢打必胜的人民军队，未来战场上应继续发扬光荣传统，同时要更加广泛地掌握和利用最新的科技成果，研制出更多智能化的武器装备，在未来战场上掌握制胜先机。

智能化是人类社会发展的趋势，智能化战争正在加速到来。正是由于超越原有体系结构计算模型的成功创新、纳米制造技术的逐步普及，以及对人脑机理研究的突破性进展，军事智能化发展才拥有了坚实的基础。因此，智能化武器装备的表现日益突出，并在情报分析、战斗反应等方面开始超越并替代人类。此外，在人力需求、综合保障、运行成本等方面，智能化武器装备也具有明显的优势，正在日益成为战争的主导力量。

事实证明，智能化武器装备的发展应用，拓展了军事行动的能力范围，大幅提升了部队的作战效能。在阿富汗和伊拉克战场上，无人机已承担了大部分侦察、情报、监视等作战保障任务，并担负了约三分之一的空中打击任务。近两年，俄罗斯在叙利亚战场上也多次使用具有较高智能化程度的无人侦察机、战斗机器人等装备。智能化武器装备正在愈来愈多地展现出超越传统武器的重要价值。

未来战争中，作战体系智能化的较量将是高手过招、巅峰对决的制胜关键。随着以科技为支撑的军事手段发展的不平衡性越来越大，谁先具备实施智能化作战的能力，谁就更能掌握战场的主动权，拥有技术代差优势的强者会尽可能将战争成本降到最低，而弱者必然遭受巨大损失，付出惨重代价。我们不仅要加紧核心技术创新、武器装备研制，还要研究探索适应军事智能化发展的组织结构、指挥方式和运用模式，更要培养一支能够担起推进军事智能化发展、锻造智能化作战能力的人才队伍，充分发挥我军作战体系的整体效能，在与对手的较量中，以更加“智慧”的方式赢得战争。

中國原創軍事資源：http://www.81.cn/jwzl/2017-11/24/content_7841898885.htm

#Artificial #Intelligence, #Information Support Force, #informatization, #intelligent warfare, #Network #Centric #Warfare, China's Informatization - 中國信息化, Chinese Artificial Intelligence, Chinese Military Characteristics & Development Trends of Cognitive Domain Operations and Warfare, Chinese Military Cognitive Domain Operations, Chinese military cognitive warfare, Chinese Military Informatization, Cognitive Confrontation, Cognitive Domain Warfare, Dissipative Warfare, Information Support Force, Intelligent Warfare, 中國解放軍敘事戰爭, 中國軍隊對耗散戰的戰術運用, 以認知為中心的戰爭：應對複雜戰爭的作戰概念, 認知域戰, 認知戰

Chinese Military Development Trends & Governance Strategies of Weaponizing Artificial Intelligence

Leave a comment

中國軍事發展趨勢與人工智能武器化治理策略

現代英語：

The weaponization of artificial intelligence (AI) is an inevitable trend in the new round of military revolution. Recent local wars have further spurred relevant countries to advance their AI weaponization strategies in order to seize the high ground in future warfare. The potential risks of AI weaponization cannot be ignored. It may intensify the arms race and disrupt the strategic balance; empower operational processes and increase conflict risks; increase accountability and collateral damage; and lower the proliferation threshold, leading to misuse and abuse. To address this, it is necessary to strengthen international strategic communication to ensure consensus and cooperation among countries on the military applications of AI; promote dialogue and coordination in the development of laws and regulations to form a unified and standardized legal framework; strengthen ethical constraints on AI to ensure that technological development conforms to ethical standards; and actively participate in global security governance cooperation to jointly maintain peace and stability in the international community.

    [Keywords] Artificial intelligence, military applications, security risks, security governance [Chinese Library Classification Number] F113 [Document Code] A

    The weaponization of artificial intelligence (AI) refers to the application of AI-related technologies, platforms, and services to the military field, making them a crucial driving force for military operations and thereby enhancing their efficiency, precision, and autonomy. With the widespread application of AI technology in the military, major powers and military leaders have increased their strategic and resource investment, accelerating research and application. The frequent regional conflicts in recent years have further stimulated the battlefield application of AI, profoundly shaping the nature of warfare and the future direction of military transformation.

    It cannot be ignored that artificial intelligence, as a rapidly developing technology, inherently carries potential risks due to its immature technology, inaccurate scenario matching, and incomplete supporting conditions. Furthermore, human misuse, abuse, or even malicious use can easily bring various risks and challenges to the military and even international security fields. To earnestly implement the global security initiatives proposed by General Secretary Xi Jinping, we must directly confront the global trend of weaponizing artificial intelligence, deeply analyze the potential security risks arising from the weaponization of AI, and consider scientifically feasible governance approaches and measures.

    Current trend of weaponization of artificial intelligence

    In recent years, the application of artificial intelligence in the military field is fundamentally reshaping the future form of warfare, changing future combat systems, and influencing the future direction of military transformation. Major military powers have regarded artificial intelligence as a disruptive key technology that will change the rules of future warfare, and have invested heavily in the research and development and application of AI weapons.

    The weaponization of artificial intelligence is an inevitable trend in military transformation.

    With the rapid development of science and technology, the necessity and urgency of military transformation are becoming increasingly prominent. Artificial intelligence, by simulating human thought processes, extends human mental and physical capabilities, enabling rapid information processing, analysis, and decision-making. It can also develop increasingly complex unmanned weapon system platforms, thereby providing unprecedented intelligent support for military operations.

    First, it provides intelligent support for military intelligence reconnaissance and analysis. Traditional intelligence reconnaissance methods are constrained by multiple factors such as manpower and time, making it difficult to effectively cope with the demands of large-scale, high-speed, and highly complex intelligence processing. The introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) technology has brought innovation and breakthroughs to the field of intelligence reconnaissance. In military infrastructure, the application of AI technology can build intelligent monitoring systems, providing high-precision, real-time intelligence perception services. In the field of intelligence reconnaissance, AI technology has the ability to process multiple “information streams” in real time, thereby greatly improving analysis efficiency. ① By using technologies such as deep learning, it is also possible to “see through the phenomena to the essence,” uncovering the deep-seated connections and causal relationships within various fragmented intelligence information, rapidly transforming massive amounts of fragmented data into usable intelligence, thereby improving the quality and efficiency of intelligence analysis.

    Secondly, it provides data support for combat command and decision-making. Artificial intelligence provides strong support for combat command and military decision-making in terms of battlefield situational awareness. Its advantage lies in its ability to perform key tasks such as data mining, data fusion, and predictive analysis. In informationized and intelligent warfare, the battlefield environment changes rapidly, and the amount of intelligence information is enormous, requiring rapid and accurate decision-making responses. Therefore, advanced computer systems have become important tools to assist commanders in managing intelligence data, assessing the enemy situation, proposing operational plans, and formulating plans and orders. For example, the US military’s ISTAR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Identification and Tracking) system, developed by Raytheon Technologies Corporation, encompasses intelligence gathering, surveillance, target identification, and tracking functions. It can aggregate data from diverse information sources such as satellites, ships, aircraft, and ground stations, and perform in-depth analysis and processing. This not only significantly improves the speed at which commanders acquire information but also provides data support through intelligent analysis systems, making decision-making faster, more efficient, and more accurate.

    Third, it provides crucial support for unmanned combat systems. Unmanned combat systems are a new type of weapon system capable of independently completing military missions without direct human control. They primarily consist of intelligent unmanned combat platforms, intelligent munitions, and intelligent combat command and control systems, possessing significant autonomy and intelligence. As a technological equipment leading the transformation of future warfare, unmanned combat systems have become a crucial bargaining chip in inter-state military competition. This system achieves adaptability to different battlefield environments and operational spaces by utilizing key technologies such as autonomous navigation, target recognition, and path planning. With the help of advanced algorithms such as deep learning and reinforcement learning, unmanned combat systems can independently complete navigation tasks and achieve precise target strikes. The design philosophy of this system is “unmanned platform, manned system,” essentially an intelligent extension of manned combat systems. For example, the MQM-57 Falconer unmanned aerial vehicle developed by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) employs advanced artificial intelligence technology and possesses highly autonomous target recognition and tracking capabilities.

    Fourth, it provides technical support for military logistics and equipment support. In the context of information warfare, the pace of war has accelerated, mobility has increased, and combat consumption has significantly risen. The traditional “overstocking” support model is no longer adequate to meet the rapidly changing needs of the modern battlefield. Therefore, higher demands are placed on combat troops to provide timely, location-appropriate, demand-based, and precise rapid and precise logistical support. Artificial intelligence, as a technology with spillover and cross-integration characteristics, is merging with cutting-edge technologies such as the Internet of Things, big data, and cloud computing. This has enabled AI knowledge, technology, and industry clusters to fully penetrate the military logistics field, significantly enhancing logistical equipment support capabilities.

    Major countries are actively developing military applications of artificial intelligence.

    To enhance their global competitiveness in the field of artificial intelligence, major powers such as the United States, Russia, and Japan are accelerating their strategic deployments for the military applications of AI. First, they are updating and adjusting their top-level strategic plans in the field of AI to provide clear guidance for future development. Second, in response to the needs of future warfare, they are accelerating the deep integration of AI technology with the military field, promoting the intelligent, autonomous, and unmanned development of equipment systems. Furthermore, they are actively innovating operational concepts to drive innovation in combat forces, thereby enhancing combat effectiveness and competitive advantage.

    First, strategic planning is being developed. Driven by a strategic obsession with pursuing military, political, and economic hegemony through technological dominance, the United States is accelerating its military intelligence process. In November 2023, the U.S. Department of Defense released the “Data, Analytics, and Artificial Intelligence Adoption Strategy,” aiming to expand the advanced capabilities of the entire Department of Defense system to gain a lasting military decision-making advantage. The Russian military issued what is known as “Version 3.0,” the “Russian Armaments Development Program for 2024-2033,” designed to guide weapons development over the next decade. The program emphasizes continued advancement in nuclear and conventional weapons development, with a focus on research into artificial intelligence and robotics, hypersonic weapons, and other strike weapons based on new physical principles.

    Second, the development of advanced equipment systems. Since 2005, the U.S. military has released a “Roadmap for Unmanned Systems” every few years to envision and design unmanned system platforms in various fields, including air, ground, and surface/underwater, connecting the development chain of unmanned weapons and equipment from research and development to production, testing, training, combat, and support. Currently, more than 70 countries worldwide are capable of developing unmanned system platforms, and various types of drones, unmanned vehicles, unmanned boats (vessels), and unmanned underwater vehicles are emerging rapidly. On July 15, 2024, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley stated in an interview with *Defense News* that by 2039, one-third of the U.S. military force will be composed of robots. The Russian military’s Platform-M combat robot, the “Lancet” suicide drone, and the S-70 “Hunter” heavy drone have already been deployed in combat.

    Third, innovate future operational concepts. Operational concepts are forward-looking studies of future warfare styles and methods, often guiding new force organization and leapfrog development of weaponry. In recent years, the US military has proposed operational concepts such as “distributed lethality,” “multi-domain warfare,” and “mosaic warfare,” attempting to guide the direction of military transformation. Taking “mosaic warfare” as an example, this concept treats various sensors, communication networks, command and control systems, and weapon platforms as “mosaic fragments.” These “fragment” units, empowered by artificial intelligence technology, can be dynamically linked, autonomously planned, and collaboratively combined through network information systems, forming an on-demand integrated, highly flexible, and mobile lethality network. In March 2022, the US Department of Defense released the “Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) Strategic Implementation Plan,” which aims to expand multi-domain operations to an all-domain operations concept, connecting sensors from various services to a unified “Internet of Things” and using artificial intelligence algorithms to help improve operational command decisions. ③

    War and conflict have spurred the weaponization of artificial intelligence.

    In recent years, local conflicts such as the Libyan conflict, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the Ukraine crisis, and the Kazakh-Israeli conflict have continued, further stimulating the development of the weaponization of artificial intelligence.

    In the Libyan conflict, both sides employed various types of drones for reconnaissance and combat missions. A report by the UN Group of Experts on Libya noted that the Turkish-made Kargu-2 drone conducted a “pursuit and long-range engagement” operation in Libya in 2020, autonomously attacking retreating enemy soldiers. This event marked the first use of a lethal autonomous weapon system in actual combat. As American scholar Zachary Callenburn stated, if anyone were to die in such an autonomous attack, it would likely be the first known instance of an AI-powered autonomous weapon being used for killing. In the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Azerbaijan successfully penetrated Armenian air defenses using a formation of Turkish-made TB2 “Standard” drones and Israeli-made Harop drones, gaining air superiority and the initiative. The significant success of Azerbaijani drone warfare largely stemmed from the Armenian army’s underestimation of the enemy’s capabilities and insufficient understanding of the importance and threat posed by drones in modern warfare. Secondly, from the perspective of offensive strategy, the Azerbaijani army has made bold innovations in drone warfare. They have flexibly utilized advanced equipment such as reconnaissance and strike drones and loitering munitions, which has not only improved combat efficiency but also greatly enhanced the surprise and lethality of the battles. ⑤

    During the 2022 Ukraine crisis, both Russia and Ukraine extensively used military-grade and commercial drones for reconnaissance, surveillance, artillery targeting, and strike missions. The Ukrainian army, through the use of the TB2 “Standard” drone and the US-supplied “Switchblade” series of suicide drones, conducted precision strikes and achieved high kill rates, becoming a notorious “battlefield killer.” In the Israeli-Kazakhstan conflict, the Israeli military was accused of using an artificial intelligence system called “Lavender” to identify and lock onto bombing targets in Gaza, marking as many as 37,000 Palestinians in Gaza as suspected “militants” and identifying them as targets for direct assassination. This Israeli military action drew widespread international attention and condemnation.

    Security risks arising from the weaponization of artificial intelligence

    From automated command systems to intelligent unmanned combat platforms, and then to intelligent decision-making systems in cyber defense, the application of artificial intelligence (AI) technology in the military field is becoming increasingly widespread and has become an indispensable part of modern warfare. However, with the trend of weaponizing AI, its misuse, abuse, and even malicious use will also bring significant risks and challenges to international security.

    It intensifies the arms race and disrupts the strategic balance.

    In the information and intelligent era, the disruptive potential of artificial intelligence is irresistible to major military powers, who are all focusing on the development and application of AI military capabilities, fearing that falling behind in this field will result in missing strategic opportunities. Deepening the military application of artificial intelligence can achieve “asymmetric advantages” in a lower cost and with higher efficiency.

    First, countries are vying for “first-mover advantage.” When a country achieves a technological lead in the development of intelligent weapon systems, it signifies that the country possesses more advanced artificial intelligence and related application capabilities, giving it a first-mover advantage in weapon system development, control, and contingency response. This advantage includes higher autonomy, intelligence, and adaptability, thereby increasing the country’s military strength and strategic competitive advantage. At the same time, the military advantage of a first-mover can become a security threat to competitors, leading to a competitive race among countries to advance the military application of advanced technologies. ⑦ In August 2023, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks announced the “Replicator initiative,” which aims to deploy thousands of “autonomous weapon systems” in the Indo-Pacific region in less than two years. ⑧

    Secondly, the lack of transparency in the development of AI-based military equipment by various countries may exacerbate the arms race. This is mainly due to two reasons: First, AI technology is an “enabling technology” that can be used to design a variety of applications. This means that verifying the specific military applications of AI is extremely difficult, unlike nuclear weapons, where monitoring uranium, centrifuges, and weapon and delivery systems can help determine whether a country is developing or deploying nuclear weapons. The differences between semi-autonomous and fully autonomous weapon systems are primarily due to differences in computer software algorithms, making it difficult to verify treaty compliance through physical means. Second, to maintain their strategic advantage, countries often keep details of the military applications of advanced technologies secret, preventing adversaries from discerning their strategic intentions. In the current international environment, this lack of transparency not only intensifies the arms race but also sows the seeds for future escalation of conflict.

    Third, the uncertainty of national strategic intentions also exacerbates the arms race. The impact of artificial intelligence on strategic stability, nuclear deterrence, and the escalation of war largely depends on other countries’ perception of its capabilities, rather than its actual capabilities. As American scholar Thomas Schelling pointed out, international relations often feature risk competition, testing courage more than force. The relationship between major adversaries is determined by which side is ultimately willing to invest more power, or to make it appear as if it is about to invest more power.⁹ An actor’s perception of the capabilities of others, whether true or false, significantly influences the progress of the arms race. If a country vigorously develops intelligent weapon systems, competitors, uncertain of the other’s intentions, will become suspicious of the competitor’s military capabilities and the intentions behind their military development, often taking reciprocal measures, namely, developing their own military to meet their own security needs. It is this ambiguity of intention that stimulates technological accumulation, exacerbates the instability of weapons deployment, and ultimately leads to a vicious cycle.

    Empowering operational processes increases the risk of conflict.

    Empowered by big data and artificial intelligence technologies, traditional combat processes will undergo intelligent restructuring, shifting from “situational awareness—command and decision-making—offensive and defensive coordination—comprehensive support” to “intelligent situational awareness across the entire domain—human-machine integrated hybrid decision-making—manned/unmanned autonomous coordination—proactive and on-demand precise support.” However, while this intelligent restructuring of combat processes improves operational efficiency and accuracy, it also increases the risk of conflict and miscalculation.

    First, wars that break out at “machine speed” will increase the risk of hasty action. Artificial intelligence weapon systems demonstrate formidable capabilities in precision and reaction speed, making future wars likely to erupt at “machine speed.”⑩ However, excessively rapid warfare will also increase the risk of conflict. In areas that emphasize autonomy and reaction speed, such as missile defense, autonomous weapon systems, and cyberspace, faster reaction times will bring significant strategic advantages. At the same time, they will drastically reduce the time window for the defending side to react to military actions, placing commanders and decision-makers under immense “time pressure,” exacerbating the risk of “hasty action,” and increasing the possibility of unexpected escalation of the crisis.

    Second, relying on system autonomy may increase the probability of misjudgment under pressure. The U.S. Department of Defense believes that “highly autonomous artificial intelligence systems can autonomously select and execute corresponding operations based on dynamic changes in mission parameters, efficiently achieving human-preset goals. Increased autonomy not only significantly reduces reliance on human labor and improves overall operational efficiency, but is also regarded by defense planners as a key element in maintaining tactical leadership and ensuring battlefield advantage.” ⑪ However, because human commanders cannot react quickly enough, they may gradually delegate control to autonomous systems, increasing the probability of misjudgment. In March 2003, the U.S. Patriot missile system mistakenly identified a friendly Tornado fighter jet as an anti-radiation missile. Under pressure with only a few seconds to react, the commanders chose to launch the missile, resulting in the deaths of two pilots.⑫

    Third, it weakens the effectiveness of crisis termination mechanisms. During the Cold War, the US and the Soviet Union spearheaded a series of restrictive measures to curb the escalation of crises and prevent them from evolving into large-scale nuclear war. In these measures, humans played a crucial “monitoring” role, able to initiate termination measures within sufficient time to avert large-scale humanitarian catastrophes should a risk of spiraling out of control. However, with the increasing computing power of artificial intelligence systems and their deep integration with machine learning, combat responses have become more rapid, precise, and destructive, potentially weakening human intervention mechanisms for crisis termination.

    Accountability for war is difficult, and collateral damage is increased.

    Artificial intelligence weapon systems make it more difficult to define responsibility in war. In traditional warfare, weapon systems are controlled by humans, and if errors or crises occur, the human operator or the developer of the operating system bears the corresponding responsibility. Artificial intelligence technology itself weakens human agency and control, making the attribution of responsibility for technical actions unclear.

    First, there’s the “black box” problem of artificial intelligence. While AI has significant advantages in processing and analyzing data, its internal operating principles and causal logic are often difficult for humans to understand and explain. This makes it challenging for programmers to correct erroneous algorithms, a problem often referred to as the “black box” of algorithmic models. If an AI-powered weapon system poses a security threat, the “algorithm black box” could become a convenient excuse for those responsible to shirk accountability. Those seeking accountability would face generalized blame-shifting and deflection, ultimately pointing the finger at the AI ​​weapon system. In practice, the inability to understand and explain the decision-making process of AI can lead to a series of problems, such as decision-making errors, trust crises, and information misuse.

    Secondly, there is the issue of delineating human-machine responsibility in military operations. When an AI system malfunctions or makes a decision-making error, should it be treated as an independent entity and held responsible? Or should it be considered a tool, with human operators bearing all or part of the responsibility? The complexity of this responsibility delineation lies not only in the technical aspects but also in the ethical and legal ones. On the one hand, although AI systems can make autonomous decisions, their decision-making process is still limited by human-preset programs and algorithms, therefore their responsibility cannot be completely independent of humans. On the other hand, in certain situations, AI systems may exceed the pre-set limits of humans and make independent decisions; how to define their responsibility in such cases also becomes a difficult problem in the field of arms control.

    Thirdly, there is the issue of the allocation of decision-making power between humans and AI weapon systems. Depending on the level of machine autonomy, AI systems can execute tasks in three decision-making and control modes: semi-autonomous, supervised autonomy, and fully autonomous. In semi-autonomous systems, human decision-making power rests with the user; in supervised autonomy, humans supervise and intervene when necessary; in fully autonomous operations, humans do not participate in the process. As the military application of AI deepens, the role of humans in combat systems is gradually shifting from the traditional “human-in-the-loop” model to “human-on-the-loop,” evolving from direct controllers within the system to external supervisors. However, this shift also raises new questions. How to ensure that AI weapon systems adhere to human ethics and values ​​while operating independently is a major challenge currently facing the field of AI weapon development.

    Lowering the threshold for dissemination leads to misuse and abuse.

    Traditional strategic competition typically involves large-scale weapons system development and procurement, requiring substantial financial and technological support. With the maturation and diffusion of artificial intelligence (AI) technology, its accessibility and low cost make it possible for even small and medium-sized countries to develop advanced intelligent weapons systems. Currently, strategic competition in the field of military AI is primarily concentrated among major military powers such as the US and Russia. However, in the long run, the proliferation of AI technology will broaden the scope of strategic competition, posing a disruptive threat to the existing strategic balance. Once smaller countries possessing AI technology achieve relatively strong competitiveness, their willingness to confront threats from major powers may increase.

    First, artificial intelligence (AI) facilitates the development of lightweight and agile combat methods, encouraging smaller states and non-state actors to engage in small-scale, opportunistic military adventures to achieve their strategic objectives at a lower cost and with more diverse means. Second, the rapid development of AI has led to the increasing prominence of new forms of warfare such as cyber warfare and electronic warfare. In a highly competitive battlefield environment, malicious third-party actors can manipulate information to influence military planning and strategic deterrence, leading to escalation. The 2022 Ukraine crisis saw numerous instances of online disinformation used to confuse the public. Third, the widespread application of AI technology has also reduced strategic transparency. Traditional military strategies often rely on extensive intelligence gathering, analysis, and prediction; however, with the assistance of AI, operational planning and decision-making processes become more complex and unpredictable. This lack of transparency can lead to misunderstandings and misjudgments, thereby increasing the risk of conflict escalation.

    Governance Path of Artificial Intelligence Weaponization Security Risks

    To ensure the safe development of artificial intelligence and avoid the potential harm caused by its weaponization, we should strengthen international communication on governance strategies, seek consensus and cooperation among countries on the military applications of artificial intelligence, promote dialogue and coordination on laws and regulations to form a unified and standardized legal framework, strengthen ethical constraints on artificial intelligence to ensure that technological development conforms to ethical standards, and actively participate in global security governance cooperation to jointly safeguard the peace and stability of the international community.

    We attach great importance to strategic communication at the international level.

    Artificial intelligence governance is a global issue that requires concerted efforts from all countries to resolve. On the international stage, the interests of nations are intertwined yet conflicting; therefore, addressing global issues through effective communication channels is crucial for maintaining world peace and development.

    On the one hand, it is essential to accurately grasp the challenges of international governance of artificial intelligence. This involves understanding the consensus among nations on the weaponization of AI, while also closely monitoring policy differences among countries regarding the security governance of AI weaponized applications. Through consultation and cooperation, relevant initiatives should be aligned with the UN agenda to effectively prevent the misuse of AI for military purposes and promote its peaceful application.

    On the other hand, it is crucial to encourage governments to reach relevant agreements and build strategic mutual trust through official or semi-official dialogues. Compared to the “Track 1 dialogue” at the government level, “Track 1.5 dialogue” refers to dialogues involving both government officials and civilians, while “Track 2 dialogue” is a non-official dialogue conducted by academics, retired officials, and others. These two forms of dialogue offer greater flexibility and serve as important supplements and auxiliary means to official intergovernmental dialogues. Through diverse dialogue methods, officials and civilians can broadly discuss possible paths to arms control, share experiences and expertise, and avoid escalating the arms race and worsening tensions. These dialogue mechanisms will provide countries with a continuous platform for communication and cooperation, helping to enhance mutual understanding, strengthen strategic mutual trust, and jointly address the challenges posed by the militarization of artificial intelligence.

    Scientifically formulate laws and ethical guidelines for artificial intelligence.

    Artificial intelligence (AI) technology itself is neither right nor wrong, good nor evil. However, there are certainly distinctions of good and evil intentions in the design, research and development, manufacturing, use, operation, and maintenance of AI. The weaponization of AI has sparked widespread ethical concerns. Under the framework of international law, can autonomous weapon systems accurately distinguish between combatants and civilians on complex battlefields? Furthermore, if AI weapon systems cause unintended harm, how should liability be determined? Is entrusting life-or-death decision-making power to machines in accordance with ethical standards? These concerns highlight the necessity of strengthening ethical constraints on AI.

    On the one hand, it is essential to prioritize ethics and integrate the concept of “intelligent for good” from the very source of technology. In the design of AI military systems, values ​​such as human-centeredness and intelligent for good should be embedded within the system. The aim is to prevent potential indiscriminate killing and harm caused by AI at the source, control its excessive destructive power, and prevent accidental damage, thereby limiting the extent of damage caused by AI weapon systems to the smallest possible range. Currently, nearly a hundred institutions and government departments both domestically and internationally have published various AI ethics principles documents, and the academic and industrial communities have reached a consensus on basic AI ethical principles. In 2022, China’s “Position Paper on Strengthening Ethical Governance of Artificial Intelligence,” submitted to the United Nations, provided an important reference for the development of global AI ethics regulation. The document explicitly emphasizes that AI ethics regulation should be promoted through measures such as institutional construction, risk management, and collaborative governance.

    On the other hand, it is necessary to improve relevant laws and regulations and clarify the boundaries of rights and responsibilities of artificial intelligence entities. Strict technical review standards should be established to ensure the safety and reliability of AI systems. Comprehensive testing should be conducted before AI systems are deployed to ensure they do not negatively impact human life and social order. The legal responsibilities of developers, users, maintainers, and other parties throughout the entire lifecycle of AI systems should be clearly defined, and corresponding accountability mechanisms should be established.

    We will pragmatically participate in international cooperation on artificial intelligence security governance.

    The strategic risks posed by the military applications of artificial intelligence further highlight the importance of pragmatic international security cooperation. It is recommended to focus on three key areas:

    First, we should promote the formulation of guidelines for the application of artificial intelligence in the military field. Developing codes of conduct for the military application of artificial intelligence is an important responsibility of all countries in regulating its military use, and a necessary measure to promote international consensus and comply with international regulations. In 2021, the Chinese government submitted its “Position Paper on Regulating the Military Application of Artificial Intelligence” to the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Conference, and in 2023, it released the “Global Artificial Intelligence Governance Initiative,” both of which provide constructive references for improving the codes of conduct for regulating the military application of artificial intelligence.

    Second, it is essential to establish a suitable regulatory framework. The dual-use nature of artificial intelligence (AI) involves numerous stakeholders, making the role of non-state actors such as NGOs, technical communities, and technology companies increasingly prominent in the global governance of AI, thus becoming a crucial force in building a regulatory framework for the military application of AI. Technical regulatory measures that countries can adopt include: clarifying the scope of AI technology use, responsible parties, and penalties for violations; strengthening technological research and development to improve the security and controllability of the technology; and establishing regulatory mechanisms to monitor the entire process of technology research and development and application, promptly identifying and resolving problems.

    Third, we will jointly develop technologies and solutions for AI security. We encourage the inclusion of bilateral or multilateral negotiations between governments and militaries in the dialogue options for military AI applications, and promote extensive exchanges on military AI security technologies, operating procedures, and practical experience. We will also promote the sharing and reference of relevant risk management technical standards and usage norms, and continuously inject new stabilizing factors into the international security and mutual trust mechanism in the context of the militarization of AI.

    (The author is the director and researcher of the National Defense Science and Technology Strategy Research Think Tank at the National University of Defense Technology, and a doctoral supervisor; Liu Hujun, a master’s student at the School of Foreign Languages ​​of the National University of Defense Technology, also contributed to this article.)

現代國語：

朱啟超
《人民論壇》（2025年02月05日 第 02版）

【摘要】人工智能武器化是新一輪軍事變革的必然趨勢，近年來的局部戰爭衝突進一步刺激相關國家推進人工智能武器化戰略部署，搶占未來戰爭制高點。人工智能武器化的潛在風險不容忽視，將可能加劇軍備競賽，打破戰略平衡；賦能作戰流程，加大衝突風險；提升問責難度，增加附帶傷亡；降低擴散門檻，導致誤用濫用。對此，應加強國際間戰略溝通，確保各國在人工智能軍事應用上的共識與協作；推進法律法規建設的對話與協調，以形成統一規範的法律框架；加強人工智能倫理約束，確保技術發展符合道德標準；積極參與全球安全治理合作，共同維護國際社會的和平與穩定。

【關鍵詞】人工智能 軍事應用 安全風險 安全治理 【中圖分類號】F113 【文獻標識碼】A

人工智能武器化，是將人工智能相關技術、平台與服務應用到軍事領域，使其成為賦能軍事行動的重要驅動力量，進而提升軍事行動的效率、精準度和自主性。隨著人工智能技術在軍事領域的廣泛應用，各主要大國和軍事強國紛紛加大戰略與資源投入，加快研發應用步伐。近年來頻發的地區戰爭衝突也進一步刺激了人工智能的戰場運用，並深刻形塑戰爭形態以及軍事變革的未來走向。

不容忽視的是，人工智能作為一類快速發展中的技術，其本身由於內在技術的不成熟、場景匹配的不准確、支持條件的不完備，可能存在潛在風險，而由於人為的誤用、濫用甚至惡意使用，也容易給軍事領域乃至國際安全領域帶來多種風險挑戰。認真貫徹落實習近平總書記提出的全球安全倡議，必須直面世界範圍內人工智能武器化的發展趨勢，深入分析人工智能武器化應用可能帶來的安全風險，並思考科學可行的治理思路與舉措。

當前人工智能武器化的發展趨勢

近年來，人工智能在軍事領域的應用，正在從根本上重塑未來戰爭形態、改變未來作戰體系，影響軍事變革的未來走向。主要軍事大國已將人工智能視為改變未來戰爭規則的顛覆性關鍵技術，紛紛挹注大量資源，推進人工智能武器的研發與應用。

人工智能武器化是軍事變革的必然趨勢。

隨著科學技術的飛速發展，軍事變革的必要性與緊迫性愈發凸顯。人工智能通過模擬人類的思維過程，延展人類的腦力與體力，可實現信息快速處理、分析和決策，可研發日益複雜的無人化武器系統平台，從而為軍事行動提供前所未有的智能化支持。

一是為軍事情報偵察與分析提供智能支持。傳統的情報偵察方式受到人力和時間等多重因素制約，難以有效應對大規模、高速度和高複雜度的情報處理需求。人工智能技術的引入，為情報偵察領域帶來革新和突破。在軍事基礎設施中，應用人工智能技術，可構建智能監測系統，提供高精度實時的情報感知服務。在情報偵察領域，人工智能技術具備對多個“信息流”進行實時處理的能力，從而極大地提高分析效率。 ①通過使用深度學習等技術工具，還可以“透過現像看本質”，挖掘出各類碎片化情報信息中的深層脈絡與因果聯繫，將海量碎片化數據快速轉變為可以利用的情報，從而提升情報分析的質效。

二是為作戰指揮與決策提供數據支持。人工智能在戰場態勢感知方面為作戰指揮和軍事決策提供有力支持。 ②其優勢在於能夠進行數據挖掘、數據融合以及預測分析等關鍵任務。在信息化智能化戰爭中，戰場環境瞬息萬變，情報信息量龐大，要求決策響應迅速且準確。因此，先進的計算機系統就成為協助指揮人員管理情報數據、進行敵情判斷、提出作戰方案建議以及擬制計劃與命令的重要工具。以美軍為例，美國雷神技術公司（Raytheon Technologies Corporation）研製的ISTAR（情報、監視、目標識別和跟踪）系統，涵蓋了情報採集、監視、目標識別及跟踪功能，可匯聚來自衛星、艦船、飛機及地面站等多元信息源的數據，並對其進行深度分析與處理。這不僅顯著提高了指揮官獲取信息的速度，而且可藉助智能分析系統提供數據支持，使決策更加快速、高效和精準。

三是為無人作戰系統提供重要支撐。無人作戰系統是一種無需人類直接操縱，便可獨立完成軍事任務的新型武器裝備系統，主要包括智能化無人作戰平台、智能化彈藥和智能化作戰指揮控制系統等組成部分，具備顯著的自主性和智能化特徵。無人作戰系統，作為引領未來戰爭形態變革的技術裝備，已成為國家間軍事競爭的重要籌碼。該系統通過運用自主導航、目標識別、路徑規劃等關鍵技術，實現了不同戰場環境及作戰空間的適應能力。借助深度學習、強化學習等先進算法，無人作戰系統能夠獨立完成導航任務，並實現精準打擊目標。這種系統的設計理念是“平台無人，系統有人”，其本質是對有人作戰系統的智能化延伸。例如，美國國防部高級研究計劃局（DARPA）研發的“MQM-57獵鷹者”無人機，就採用了先進的人工智能技術，具備高度自主的目標識別和追踪功能。

四是為軍事後勤與裝備保障提供技術支持。在信息化戰爭的背景下，戰爭進程加快、機動性提升、作戰消耗顯著增加。傳統的“超量預儲”保障模式已無法適應現代戰場快速變化的需求，因此，對作戰部隊進行適時、適地、適需、適量的快速精確後裝保障提出了更高的要求。人工智能作為一種具有溢出帶動和交叉融合特性的技術，與物聯網、大數據、雲計算等前沿技術相互融合，使得人工智能知識群、技術群和產業群全面滲透到軍事後裝領域，顯著提升了後勤裝備保障能力。

主要國家紛紛佈局人工智能軍事應用。

為增強在人工智能領域的全球競爭力，美國、俄羅斯、日本等主要大國加緊對人工智能軍事應用的戰略佈局。首先，通過更新和調整人工智能領域的頂層戰略規劃，為未來的發展提供明確指導；其次，針對未來戰爭需求，加快人工智能技術與軍事領域的深度融合，推動裝備系統的智能化、自主化和無人化發展；此外，積極創新作戰概念，以驅動作戰力量創新，進而提升作戰效能和競爭優勢。

一是製定戰略規劃。基於技術霸權追求軍事霸權、政治霸權、經濟霸權的戰略偏執，美國正加快自身軍事智能化進程。 2023年11月，美國國防部發布《數據、分析與人工智能採用戰略》，旨在擴展整個國防部體系的先進能力，以獲得持久的軍事決策優勢。俄軍頒布被稱為“3.0版本”的《2024年至2033年俄羅斯武器裝備發展綱要》，旨在為未來10年武器裝備發展提供指導，綱要強調繼續推進核武器和常規武器建設，並重點研究人工智能和機器人技術、高超音速武器和其他基於新物理原理的打擊兵器。

二是研發先進裝備系統。美軍自2005年開始每隔幾年都會發布一版“無人系統路線圖”，以展望並設計空中、地面、水面/水下等各領域無人系統平台，貫通研發—生產—測試—訓練—作戰—保障等無人化武器裝備發展鏈路。目前，世界上已有70多個國家可以研發無人化系統平台，各種類型的無人機、無人車、無人船（艇）、無人潛航器如雨後春筍般不斷出現。 2024年7月15日，美軍參聯會前主席馬克·米利接受《美國防務新聞》採訪時稱，到2039年，三分之一的美軍部隊將由機器人組成。俄軍研發的平台-M作戰機器人、“柳葉刀”自殺式無人機和S70“獵人”重型無人機等，已投入實戰檢驗。

三是創新未來作戰概念。作戰概念是對未來戰爭樣式與作戰方式進行的前瞻性研究，往往可牽引新的作戰力量編組及武器裝備跨越發展。美軍近年來先後提出“分佈式殺傷”“多域戰”“馬賽克戰”等作戰概念，試圖引領軍事變革的發展方向。以“馬賽克戰”為例，該作戰概念將各種傳感器、通信網絡、指揮控制系統、武器平台等視為“馬賽克碎片”，這些“碎片”單元在人工智能技術賦能支持下，通過網絡信息系統可動態鏈接、自主規劃、協同組合，從而形成一個按需集成、極具彈性、靈活機動的殺傷網。 2022年3月，美國國防部發布《聯合全域指揮控制（JADC2）戰略實施計劃》，該計劃旨在將多域作戰向全域作戰概念拓展，將各軍種傳感器連接到一個統一“物聯網”中，利用人工智能算法幫助改善作戰指揮決策。 ③

戰爭衝突刺激人工智能武器化進程。

近年來，利比亞衝突、納卡衝突、烏克蘭危機、哈以沖突等局部衝突不斷，進一步刺激了人工智能武器化的發展進程。

在利比亞衝突中，交戰雙方採用多種型號無人機執行偵察和作戰任務。據聯合國利比亞問題專家小組發布的報告指出，土耳其製造的“卡古-2”（Kargu-2）無人機2020年在利比亞執行了“追捕並遠程交戰”行動，可自主攻擊撤退中的敵方士兵。這一事件標誌著致命性自主武器系統在實戰中的首次運用。如美國學者扎卡里·卡倫伯恩所述，若有人在此類自主攻擊中不幸喪生，這極有可能是歷史上首個已知的人工智能自主武器被用於殺戮的例子。在2020年納卡衝突中，阿塞拜疆運用土耳其生產的“旗手”TB2無人機編隊和以色列生產的“哈洛普”無人機成功突破了亞美尼亞防空系統，掌握了戰場製空權和主動權。 ④ 阿塞拜疆軍隊無人機作戰的顯著成效，在很大程度上源於亞美尼亞軍隊的“輕敵”心態，對無人機在現代戰爭中的重要性和威脅性認識不足。其次，從進攻策略的角度來看，阿塞拜疆軍隊在無人機戰法上進行了大膽的創新。他們靈活運用察打一體無人機和巡飛彈等先進裝備，不僅提升了作戰效率，也大大增強了戰鬥的突然性和致命性。 ⑤

在2022年爆發的烏克蘭危機中，俄羅斯和烏克蘭都廣泛使用軍用級和商用無人機執行偵察監視、火砲瞄準和打擊任務。烏克蘭軍隊通過使用“旗手”TB2無人機以及美國援助的“彈簧刀”系列自殺式無人機，實施精確打擊和高效殺傷，成為令世界矚目的“戰場殺手”。在哈以沖突中，以色列軍方被指控使用名為“薰衣草”（Lavender）的人工智能係統來識別並鎖定加沙境內的轟炸目標，曾將多達3.7萬名加沙巴勒斯坦人標記為“武裝分子”嫌疑對象，並將其認定為可直接“暗殺”的目標，以軍行動引發了國際社會廣泛關注和譴責。 ⑥

人工智能武器化帶來的​​安全風險

從自動化指揮系統到智能無人作戰平台，再到網絡防禦中的智能決策系統，人工智能技術在軍事領域的應用正變得愈發普遍，已成為現代戰爭不可或缺的一部分。然而，人工智能武器化的趨勢下，其誤用、濫用甚至惡意使用，也將給國際安全帶來不可忽視的風險挑戰。

加劇軍備競賽，打破戰略平衡。

在信息化智能化時代，人工智能所具有的顛覆性潛力讓軍事大國都難以抗拒，紛紛聚焦人工智能軍事能力的開發和運用，唯恐在這一領域落後而喪失戰略機遇。深化人工智能軍事應用，則能夠以更低成本、更高效率的方式獲得“非對稱優勢”。

一是各國紛紛搶抓“先行者優勢”。當一個國家在智能武器系統開發領域取得技術領先地位時，意味著該國具備更高級的人工智能和相關應用能力，使其在武器系統開發、控制和應急響應等方面具有先發優勢。這種優勢包括更高的自主性、智能化程度和自適應能力，從而增加了該國的軍事實力和戰略競爭優勢。與此同時，先行者的軍事優勢可能會成為競爭對手的安全威脅，導致各國在先進技術的軍事應用上呈現出你爭我趕的態勢。 ⑦ 2023年8月，美國國防部副部長凱瑟琳·希克斯宣布了“複製者計劃”（Replicator initiative），該倡議力求在不到兩年的時間內在印太地區部署數千個“自主武器系統”。 ⑧

二是各國人工智能軍備建設的不透明性可能加劇軍備競賽。這主要有兩個方面的原因：一是人工智能技術是一種可用於設計多種應用的“使能技術”，這意味著人工智能軍事應用具體情況核查難度較高，難以像核武器可以通過對鈾、離心機以及武器和運載系統的監測來判斷一個國家是否在進行核武器的開發或部署。半自主、完全自主武器系統之間的差別主要是由於計算機軟件算法不同導致的，很難通過物理核查手段來對各國的條約執行情況進行核查。二是各國為了保持己方的戰略優勢，往往對先進技術的軍事應用相關細節採取保密措施，從而使對手無法探知其戰略意圖。在當前國際環境中，這種不透明性不僅僅加劇了軍備競賽，更為未來衝突升級埋下了伏筆。

三是各國戰略意圖的不確定性也會加劇軍備競賽。人工智能對於戰略穩定、核威懾和戰爭升級的影響，很大程度上取決於他國對於其能力的感知，而非其實質能力。正如美國學者托馬斯·謝林指出，國際關係常常具有風險競爭的特徵，更多的是對勇氣而不是武力的考驗，主要對手之間的關係是由哪一方最終願意投入更大的力量，或者使之看起來即將投入更大的力量來決定的。 ⑨ 一個行為體對於他者能力的感知，無論真假，都會在很大程度上影響軍備競賽進程。如果一個國家大力發展智能武器系統，競爭對手在不確定對方意圖的情況下，會對競爭對手的軍備能力及發展軍備的意圖產生猜忌，往往採取對等措施，即通過發展軍備來滿足自身安全需求。正是這種意圖的模糊性刺激了技術積累，加劇武器部署的不穩定性，最終導致惡性循環。

賦能作戰流程，加大衝突風險。

在大數據和人工智能技術賦能下，傳統作戰流程將實現智能化再造，即由“態勢感知—指揮決策—攻防協同—綜合保障”向“全域態勢智能認知—人機一體混合決策—有人/無人自主協同—主動按需精准保障”轉變。然而，作戰流程的智能化再造雖然提高了作戰的效率和精確性，但也提升了衝突和誤判的風險。

一是以“機器速度”爆發的戰爭將增加倉促行動的風險。人工智能武器系統在精確度和反應速度上表現出強大的能力，使得未來戰爭將以“機器速度”爆發。 ⑩ 但戰爭速度過快也將升高衝突風險。在導彈防禦、自主武器系統和網絡空間等重視自主性以及反應速度的領域，更快的反應速度將帶來巨大的戰略優勢，同時也極大地壓縮了防禦方對軍事行動作出反應的時間窗口，導致作戰指揮員和決策者置身於巨大的“時間壓力”之下，加劇了“倉促行動”的風險，並增加了危機意外升級的可能性。

二是依賴系統自主性可能增加壓力下的誤判機率。美國國防部認為，“高度自主化的人工智能係統，能夠根據任務參數的動態變化，自主選擇並執行相應操作，高效實現人類預設的目標。自主性的增加不僅大幅減少了對人力的依賴，提高了整體操作效率，更被國防規劃者視為保持戰術領先、確保戰場優勢的關鍵要素。”⑪然而，由於人類指揮官無法作出足夠快的反應，可能逐漸將控制權下放給自主系統，增加誤判機率。 2003年3月，美國“愛國者”導彈系統曾錯誤地將友軍的“龍捲風”戰鬥機標記為反輻射導彈，指揮人員在只有幾秒鐘反應時間的壓力狀態下，選擇發射導彈，造成了兩名飛行員的死亡。 ⑫

三是削弱了危機終止機制的有效性。冷戰時期，美蘇主導構建了一系列限制性措施來遏制危機的升級，避免其演化為大規模的核戰爭。在這些措施中，人類扮演著至關重要的“監督者”角色，在可能出現風險失控時，能夠在充足的時間內啟動終止措施，避免大規模人道主義災難發生。但是，隨著人工智能係統運算能力的提升及其與機器學習的深度融合，作戰響應變得更為迅捷、精確和具有破壞性，人類對於危機的終止干預機制將可能被削弱。

戰爭問責困難，增加附帶傷亡。

人工智能武器系統使得戰爭責任更難界定。在傳統作戰模式下，由人類控制武器系統，一旦造成失誤或危機，人類操作員或者操作系統的研發者將承擔相應的責任。人工智能技術本身弱化了人類的能動性和控制能力，致使技術性行為的責任歸屬變得模糊不清。

一是人工智能“黑箱”問題。儘管人工智能在處理和分析數據方面有著顯著優勢，但是其內部運行規律和因果邏輯卻常常難以被人類理解和解釋，這使得程序員難以對錯誤算法進行糾偏除誤，這一問題常常被稱為算法模型的“黑箱”。一旦人工智能武器系統產生安全危害，“算法黑箱”可能成為相關責任方推卸責任的合理化藉口，追責者只能面臨泛化的卸責與推諉，並將責任矛頭指向人工智能武器系統。在實踐中，如果無法理解並解釋人工智能的決策過程，可能會引發一系列的問題，如決策失誤、信任危機、信息濫用等。

二是軍事行動中人機責任劃分問題。當人工智能係統出現故障或者決策失誤時，是否應將其視為一種獨立的實體來承擔責任？或者，是否應該將其視為一種工具，由人類操作者承擔全部或部分責任？這種責任劃分的複雜性不僅在於技術層面，更在於倫理和法律層面。一方面，人工智能係統雖然能夠自主決策，但其決策過程仍然受到人類預設的程序和算法限制，因此其責任不能完全獨立於人類。另一方面，人工智能係統在某些情況下可能會超越人類的預設範圍，作出獨立的決策，此時其責任又該如何界定，也成為軍控領域的難題。

三是人與人工智能武器系統的決策權分配問題。按照機器自主權限的不同，人工智能係統能夠以半自主、有監督式自主以及完全自主三種決策與控制方式執行任務。在半自主系統中，行動的決策權由人類掌控；在有監督式自主行動中，人類實施監督並在必要時干預；在完全自主行動中，人類不參與行動過程。隨著人工智能軍事應用程度的逐漸加深，人在作戰系統中的角色正經歷由傳統的“人在迴路內”模式逐步向“人在迴路上”轉變，人類從系統內部的直接操控者演化為系統外部的監督者。然而，這一轉變也引發了新的問題。如何確保人工智能武器系統在獨立運作時仍能遵循人類倫理和價值觀，這是當前人工智能武器研發領域面臨的重大挑戰。

降低擴散門檻，導致誤用濫用。

傳統的戰略競爭通常涉及大規模的武器系統研發和採購，需要大量資金和技術支持。人工智能技術成熟擴散後，具有易獲取且價格低廉等優勢，即便是中小國家也可能具備開發先進智能武器系統的能力。當前，軍用人工智能領域的戰略競爭主要集中在美俄等軍事大國之間。但長遠來看，人工智能技術的擴散將擴大戰略競爭的範圍，對現有的戰略平衡構成破壞性威脅。一旦掌握人工智能技術的較小規模國家擁有相對較強的競爭力，這些國家在面臨大國威脅時發起對抗的意願可能就會增強。

一是人工智能有助於發展一些輕便靈巧的作戰手段，從而鼓勵一些中小國家或者非國家行為體利用其開展小型的、機會主義的軍事冒險，以更低廉的成本和更豐富的途徑來達到其戰略目地。二是人工智能的快速發展使得網絡戰、電子戰等新型戰爭形態日益凸顯。在競爭激烈的戰場環境中，惡意的第三方行為體可以通過操縱信息來影響軍事規劃和戰略威懾，導致局勢升級。在2022年爆發的烏克蘭危機中，就有眾多網絡虛假信息傳播混淆視聽。三是人工智能技術的廣泛應用還降低了戰略透明度。傳統的軍事戰略往往依賴於大量的情報收集、分析和預測，而在人工智能技術的輔助下，作戰計劃和決策過程變得更加複雜和難以預測。這種不透明性可能導致誤解和誤判，從而增加了衝突升級的風險。

人工智能武器化安全風險的治理路徑

為確保人工智能安全發展，避免其武器化帶來的​​潛在危害，應加強國際間的治理戰略溝通，尋求各國在人工智能軍事應用方面的共識與協作；推進法律法規對話協調，以形成統一規範的法律框架；加強人工智能倫理的約束，確保技術發展符合道德標準；積極參與全球安全治理合作，共同維護國際社會的和平與穩定。

高度重視國際層面戰略溝通。

人工智能治理是一個全球性問題，需要各國通力合作，共同解決。在國際舞台上，各國利益交融與利益衝突並存，因此，通過有效的溝通渠道來處理全球性問題成為維護世界和平與發展的關鍵。

一方面，要準確把握人工智能國際治理挑戰。既要把握各國對人工智能武器化發展的共識，也要密切關注各國在人工智能武器化應用安全治理方面的政策差異，通過協商合作，使相關倡議與聯合國議程相協調，從而有效防止人工智能在軍事上的濫用，推動人工智能用於和平目的。

另一方面，推動各國政府通過官方或半官方對話，達成相關協議，建立戰略互信。相較於政府層面的“1軌對話”，“1.5軌對話”指的是政府官員與民間人士共同參與的對話，而“2軌對話”則是由學者、退休官員等進行的民間非官方形式的對話。這兩種對話形式具有更高的靈活性，是政府間官方對話的重要補充和輔助手段。通過多樣化的對話交流方式，官方和民間人士可以廣泛磋商軍備控制的可能實現路徑，分享經驗和專業知識，以避免軍備競賽的升級和緊張局勢的惡化。這些對話機制將為各國提供持續的溝通與合作平台，有助於增進相互理解、加強戰略互信，共同應對人工智能軍事化應用帶來的挑戰。

科學制定人工智能法律和倫理規約。

人工智能技術本身並無對錯善惡之分，但對於人工智能的設計、研發、製造、使用、運行以及維護確有善惡意圖之別。人工智能武器化引發了廣泛的倫理關注。國際法框架下，自主武器系統是否能夠在復雜戰場上精準區分戰鬥人員與平民？此外，若人工智能武器系統導致非預期的傷害，其責任歸屬如何界定？將關乎生死的決策權交付於機器，這一做法是否符合道德倫理標準？這些擔憂凸顯了加強人工智能倫理約束的必要性。

一方面，要堅持倫理先行，從技術源頭上融入“智能向善”的理念。在人工智能軍事系統的設計過程中，將以人為本、智能向善等價值觀內嵌於系統中。其目的是從源頭上杜絕人工智能可能引發的濫殺濫傷行為，控制其過度殺傷力，防範意外毀傷的發生，從而將人工智能武器系統所帶來的毀傷程度限制在盡可能小的範圍內。目前，國內外已有近百家機構或政府部門發佈各類人工智能倫理原則文件，學術界和產業界亦就人工智能基本倫理原則達成共識。 2022年，中國向聯合國遞交的《關於加強人工智能倫理治理的立場文件》為全球人工智能倫理監管的發展提供了重要參考。文件明確強調，應通過制度建設、風險管控、協同共治等多方面的措施來推進人工智能倫理監管。

另一方面，要完善相關法律法規，明確人工智能主體的權責邊界。制定嚴格的技術審核標準，確保人工智能係統的安全性和可靠性。在人工智能係統上線前進行全面的測試，確保其不會對人類生活和社會秩序造成負面影響。明確開發者、使用者、維護者等各方在人工智能係統全生命週期中的法律責任，以及建立相應的追責機制。

務實參與人工智能安全治理國際合作。

人工智能軍事應用所帶來的戰略風險，更加凸顯出國際安全務實合作的重要性。建議重點從三個方面著手：

一是推動制定人工智能在軍事領域的運用準則。制定人工智能軍事應用的行為準則，是各國規範人工智能軍事應用的重要責任，也是推動國際共識和遵守國際法規的必要舉措。中國政府2021年向聯合國《特定常規武器公約》大會提交了《中國關於規範人工智能軍事應用的立場文件》，2023年發布《全球人工智能治理倡議》，這些都為完善規範人工智能軍事應用的行為準則提供了建設性參考。

二是建立適用的監管框架。人工智能軍民兩用性使其涉及眾多利益攸關方，一些非國家行為體如非政府組織、技術社群、科技企業在人工智能全球治理進程中的作用將更加突出，成為人工智能軍事應用監管框架建設的重要力量。各國可採取的技術監管措施包括：明確人工智能技術的使用範圍、責任主體和違規處罰措施；加強技術研發，提高技術的安全性和可控性；建立監管機制，對技術的研發和應用進行全程監管，及時發現和解決問題。

三是共同研發人工智能安全防範技術和解決方案。鼓勵將政府間和軍隊間的雙邊或多邊談判納入軍用人工智能應用的對話選項，就軍用人工智能安全防範技術、操作規程及實踐經驗廣泛交流，推動相關風險管理技術標準和使用規範的分享借鑒，為人工智能軍事化背景下的國際安全互信機制不斷注入新的穩定因素。

（作者為國防科技大學國防科技戰略研究智庫主任、研究員，博導；國防科技大學外國語學院碩士研究生劉胡君對本文亦有貢獻）

【註釋】

①Katz B. Analytic edge: Leveraging emerging technologies to

transform intelligence analysis [R]. Washington D.C.: Center for

Strategic and International Studies, 2020.

②Paul McLeary. Pentagon’s Big AI Program, Maven, Already

Hunts Data in Middle East, Africa[N]. Breaking Defense, May 1, 2018.

③唐新華：《美國綜合威懾戰略中的技術互操作性》，《太平洋學報》， 2022年第12期，第15-25頁。

aijan’s Drones Owned the Battlefield in

Nagorno-Karabakh—and Showed Future of Warfare[N]. The

Washington Post, November 11, 2020.

⑤朱啟超、陳曦、龍坤：《無人機作戰與納卡衝突》，《中國國際戰略評論》，2020年第2期，第167-183頁。

⑥The Verge Report: Israel used AI to identify bombing targets in

Gaza [EB/OL].[2024-04-05].

artificial-intelligence-gaza-ai#:~:text.

⑦羅易煊、李彬：《軍用人工智能競爭中的先行者優勢》，《國際政治科學》， 2022第3期，第1-33頁。

⑧U.S. Department of Defense. Deputy Secretary of Defense

Kathleen Hicks Keynote Address: The Urgency to Innovate (As

Delivered) [EB/OL]. [2023-08-28]. https://www.defense.gov/News/Speeches/Speech/Article/3507156/deputy-

secretary-of-defense-kathleen-hicks-keynote-address-the-urgency-

to-innov/.

⑨[美]托馬斯·謝林著，毛瑞鵬譯：《軍備及其影響》，上海：上海人民出版社，2017年，第81頁。

⑩Rautenbach P. Keeping Humans in the Loop is Not Enough to

Make AI Safe for Nuclear Weapons[EB/OL],

enough-to-make-ai-safe-for-nuclear-weapons/,2023-02-16/2024-01-

09.

⑪Mayer M. The new killer drones: understanding the strategic

implications of next-generation unmanned combat aerial vehicles[J],

International Affairs, 2015,91(04):771.

⑫[美]保羅·沙瑞爾著，朱啟超、王姝、龍坤譯：《無人軍隊：自主武器與未來戰爭》，北京：世界知識出版社，2019年，第153-156頁。

中國原創軍事資源：https://paper.people.com.cn/rmlt/pc/content/202502/05/content_30058889349.html

#Artificial #Intelligence, #Chinese #Quantum #technology, #cross-domain collaborative operations, #Information Support Force, #informatization, #intellligentization, China's Informatization - 中國信息化, Chinese Military Characteristics & Development Trends of Cognitive Domain Operations and Warfare, Chinese Military Cognitive Domain Operations, Chinese military cognitive warfare, Chinese Military Future Wars, Chinese Military Informatization, Chinese Military Intelligentization, Chinese Military Use of Cognitive Confrontation within the Combat Domain, Chinese Military Views - 中國軍事觀, Cognitive Confrontation, Cognitive Domain Warfare, Information Support Force, Intelligent Warfare, Multi-Domain Operations

Military Intelligence Drives Accelerated Development of Chinese Army Cyberspace Operations

Leave a comment

軍事情報推動中國軍隊網路空間作戰加速發展

現代英語：

The report of the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China pointed out that it is necessary to “accelerate the development of military intelligence and improve joint combat capabilities and all-region combat capabilities based on network information systems”. Today’s “Liberation Army Daily” published an article pointing out that military intelligence is a new trend and new direction in the development of the military field after mechanization and informatization. We must develop intelligence on the basis of existing mechanization and informatization, and at the same time use intelligence to Traction mechanization and informatization to develop to a higher level and at a higher level. As a new combat field, cyberspace is a new field with high technological content and the most innovative vitality. Driven by military intelligence, it is ushering in a period of rapid development opportunities.

Military intelligence leads to accelerated development of cyberspace operations

■Respect the soldiers Zhou Dewang and Huang Anwei

Three major technologies support the intelligence of cyberspace weapons

Intelligence is a kind of wisdom and ability. It is the induction, cognition and application of laws by all systems with a life cycle. Intelligence is to solidify this wisdom and ability and become a state. A cyberspace weapon is a weapon used in cyberspace to carry out combat missions. Its form is dominated by software and code, and it is essentially a piece of data. The intelligence of cyberspace weapons is mainly reflected in the following three aspects:

First, intelligent vulnerability mining. Vulnerabilities are the basis for the design of cyber weapons. The ransomware that spread around the world in May this year took advantage of vulnerabilities in Microsoft’s operating system and caused a huge shock to the cybersecurity community. Vulnerabilities are expensive, ranging from tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars for a zero-day. The discovery of previous vulnerabilities mainly relied on experienced hackers, who used software tools to check and analyze the code. In the finals of the International Cybersecurity Technology Competition League held during this year’s China Internet Security Conference, participants demonstrated that intelligent robots conduct vulnerability mining on site, and then write network code through vulnerabilities to form cyber weapons, break through target systems, and seize flags. This change means that vulnerability mining has entered an era of intelligence.

Second, intelligent signal analysis and password deciphering. Signals are the carrier of network data transmission, and passwords are the last barrier to network data security. Signal analysis and password deciphering are core technologies for cyberspace operations. Breaking through signals and passwords is the basic path into cyberspace and the primary target of cyber weapon attacks. Intelligent signal analysis solves problems such as protocol analysis, modulation recognition, and individual recognition of signals through big data, cloud computing, deep learning and other technologies. Code-breaking is computational science “the crown jewel”. Through the accumulation of password data samples, intelligent code-breaking can continuously learn and find patterns, and can find the key to deciphering, thereby opening the last door of network data “safe” and solving network problems. Key links of intrusion and access.

Third, the design of an intelligent weapons platform. The U.S. military proposed the “Cyber Aircraft” project in 2009 to provide platforms such as tanks, ships, and aircraft for cyberspace operations. It can realize automatic reconnaissance, loading of cyber weapons, autonomous coordination, and autonomous attacks in cyberspace. When threatened, Self-destruction and removal of traces have certain intelligent characteristics. The weapons loaded by future “cyber aircraft” are not code compiled by software personnel, but directly based on the reconnaissance results to design intelligent cyber weapons on site in real time and achieve “ordered” development, thus greatly improving cyberspace operations. Targeted.

The intelligent trend of network-controlled weapons has become increasingly prominent

Weapons controlled by cyberspace are referred to as cyber-controlled weapons. They are weapons that connect through the network, accept cyberspace instructions, perform cross-domain tasks, and achieve combat effects in physical space. Most of the various combat weapons platforms in the future will be networked weapons platforms. In this way, the military information network is essentially the Internet of Things. Network entities such as uplink satellites, radars, and drones can detect, track, locate, and strike through the Internet. Space control, the intelligence of network-controlled weapons has flourished in battlefields such as land, sea, air, space and electricity.

In 2015, Syria used the Russian Robot Corps to defeat militants. The operation used 6 tracked robots, 4 wheeled robots, 1 automated artillery group, several drones and 1 command system. The commander dispatches drone reconnaissance through the chain of command to spot the militants, and the robots charge the militants, while accompanied by artillery and drone attack force support, delivering a fatal blow to the militants. It was only a small-scale battle, but it set the precedent for robot “group” operations.

Network-controlled intelligent weapons for sea and air battlefields are being developed and verified in large quantities. In 2014, the U.S. Navy used 13 unmanned surface boats to demonstrate and verify that unmanned boat groups intercepted enemy ships and achieved good results mainly by exchanging sensor data. When it was tested again in 2016, functions such as collaborative task allocation and tactical coordination were added, and “swarm awareness” became a distinctive feature of its intelligence.

Swarms of small and micro UAVs for aerial combat are also growing rapidly. In recent years, the U.S. Department of Defense has repeatedly tested the “Quail” micro-drone, which can drop dozens or even hundreds at a time. By improving its coordination capabilities when performing reconnaissance missions, it has made great progress in drone formation, command, control, and intelligence. Progress has been made in management and other aspects.

Space-based cyber-controlled weapons are becoming more and more “smart”. The air and space field mainly contains two types of network-controlled weapons: reconnaissance and strike. Satellites with various functions mainly perform reconnaissance missions and are typical reconnaissance sensors. With the emergence of various small and microsatellite groups, satellites have been made to exhibit new characteristics: small size, fast launch, large number, and greater intelligence. Small and microsatellite groups have greater flexibility and reliability when performing reconnaissance and communication missions, and currently the world’s satellite powers are actively developing plans for small and microsatellite groups with wider coverage.

Hypersonic strike weapons of all kinds cruised in the air and space, as if sharp swords were hanging over people’s heads. The U.S. Air Force Research Office stated that “high-speed strike weapons” will launch flight tests around 2018, and other countries are also actively developing similar weapons. The biggest features of this type of weapon are their high speed, long range, and high intelligence.

Intelligent command information system changes traditional combat command methods

Cyberspace weapons and weapons controlled by cyberspace are the “fist” of intelligent warfare, and the command information system that directs the use of these weapons is the “brain” of intelligent warfare. Cyberspace combat command information systems must keep up with intelligence simultaneously. process. At present, almost all command information systems in the world are facing the difficult problem of “intelligent lag”. In future wars, rapid decision-making and autonomous decision-making are required, which places higher requirements on intelligent auxiliary systems.

In 2007, the U.S. Department of Defense’s Advanced Research Projects Agency launched a research and development program on command and control systems ——“Project Dark Green” in order to enable computer-aided commanders to make rapid decisions and win opportunities. This is a campaign tactical-level command information system. Its research and development purpose is to embed the system into the U.S. Army brigade-level C4ISR wartime command information system to achieve intelligent command of commanders. To this day, the U.S. military has not relaxed its development of intelligent command information systems.

In cyberspace operations, the network target appears as an IP address connected to the network. The large number makes it difficult for manual operations to operate efficiently, and operations require the auxiliary support of intelligent command information systems. Currently, intelligent command information systems need to realize functions such as intelligent intelligence analysis, intelligent perception, intelligent navigation and positioning, intelligent assisted decision-making, intelligent collaboration, intelligent evaluation, and intelligent unmanned combat, especially to realize cluster combat control of unmanned network control systems, which has put forward urgent needs for intelligent command information systems and requires accelerating the research and development and application of corresponding key technologies.

To sum up, intelligent cyber weapons and cyber-controlled weapons, through intelligent information system scheduling, will form huge combat capabilities and can basically carry out all actions in the current combat style. In future wars, from the formation of command forces, to target selection, mode of action, use of tactics, etc., will all be carried out in an intelligent context. The characteristics of war “gamification” will be more significant, and the combat command method will also undergo major changes.

In the future battlefield, fighting courage requires more fighting “wisdom”

■Yang Jian and Zhao Lu

At present, the development of artificial intelligence has entered a new stage, and its penetration into various fields has begun to accelerate. As a result of this process, military competition among nations around intelligence has begun. Our army has always been a heroic and tenacious people’s army that dares to fight and win. In the future, we should continue to carry forward the glorious tradition on the battlefield. At the same time, we must more extensively master and utilize the latest scientific and technological achievements, develop more intelligent weapons and equipment, and develop more intelligent weapons and equipment. Take advantage of the opportunity to win on the battlefield.

Intelligence is a trend in the development of human society, and the war on intelligence is accelerating. It is thanks to successful innovations that go beyond the original architectural computing models, the gradual popularization of nanofabrication technologies, and breakthrough advances in the study of human brain mechanisms that the development of military intelligence has acquired a solid foundation. As a result, intelligent weapons and equipment have become increasingly prominent and are beginning to surpass and replace humans in intelligence analysis, combat response, and more. In addition, in terms of manpower requirements, comprehensive support and operating costs, intelligent weapons and equipment also have obvious advantages and are increasingly becoming the dominant force in warfare.

It has been proven that the development and application of intelligent weapons and equipment has expanded the scope of capabilities for military operations and greatly improved the combat effectiveness of the troops. On the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, UAVs have taken on most of the operational support tasks of reconnaissance, intelligence, surveillance, and about one-third of the air strike tasks. In the past two years, Russia has also repeatedly used unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, combat robots and other equipment with a high degree of intelligence on the Syrian battlefield. Intelligent weapons and equipment are increasingly demonstrating important values that go beyond traditional weapons.

In future wars, the competition for intelligent combat systems will be the key to victory in master battles and peak duels. With the increasing imbalance in the development of military means supported by science and technology, whoever has the ability to implement intelligent operations first will be better able to take the initiative on the battlefield. The strong with the advantage of technological generation will try their best to The cost of war is minimized, while the weak will inevitably suffer huge losses and pay heavy prices. We must not only step up core technological innovation and weapons and equipment development, but also study and explore organizational structures, command methods and application models that adapt to the intelligent development of the military. We must also cultivate a team that can take on the responsibility of promoting the intelligent development of the military and forging intelligent combat capabilities. Talent team, give full play to the overall effectiveness of our military’s combat system, and compete with our opponents Win wars in a more “intelligent” way.

現代國語：

資料來源：中國軍網綜合作者：敬兵 周德旺 皇安偉 等責任編輯：胡雪珂

黨的十九大報告指出，要「加速軍事智慧化發展，提升基於網路資訊體系的聯合作戰能力、全域作戰能力」。今天的《解放軍報》刊發文章指出，軍事智能化是機械化、資訊化之後軍事領域發展的新趨勢和新方向，我們要在現有機械化和資訊化基礎上發展智能化，同時用智能化牽引機械化和信息化向更高水平、更高層次發展。網路空間作為新型作戰領域，是科技含量高、最具創新活力的新領域，在軍事智慧化的牽引下，正迎來快速發展的機會期。

軍事智慧化牽引網路空間作戰加速發展

■敬兵 週德旺 皇安偉

三大技術支撐網路空間武器智慧化

智能是一種智慧和能力，是一切有生命週期的系統對規律的感應、認知與運用，智能化就是把這種智慧和能力固化下來，成為一種狀態。網路空間武器是網路空間遂行作戰任務的武器，其形態以軟體和程式碼為主，本質上是一段資料。網路空間武器的智慧化主要體現在以下三個方面：

一是智慧化漏洞挖掘。漏洞是網路武器設計的基礎，今年5月在全球傳播的勒索病毒軟體，就是利用了微軟作業系統漏洞，為網路安全界帶來了巨大震動。漏洞價格昂貴，零日漏洞價值幾萬到幾十萬美元不等。過去漏洞的發現，主要依靠有經驗的駭客，利用軟體工具對程式碼進行檢查和分析。今年中國網路安全大會期間舉辦的國際網路安全技術對抗聯賽總決賽中，參賽人員示範由智慧機器人現場進行漏洞挖掘，然後透過漏洞編寫網路程式碼，形成網路武器，攻破目標系統，奪取旗幟。這項變化，意味著漏洞挖掘進入了智慧化時代。

二是智能化訊號分析和密碼破譯。訊號是網路資料傳輸的載體，密碼是網路資料安全的最後屏障，訊號分析和密碼破解是網路空間作戰的核心技術，突破訊號和密碼是進入網路空間的基本路徑，也是網路武器攻擊的首要目標。智慧化訊號分析將訊號的協定分析、調變辨識、個體辨識等問題，透過大數據、雲端運算、深度學習等技術來解決。密碼破解是計算科學“皇冠上的明珠”，智能化密碼破譯通過對密碼數據樣本的積累，不斷學習、尋找規律，能找到破譯的鑰匙，從而打開網絡數據“保險櫃”的最後一扇門，解決網絡入侵和接入的關鍵環節。

三是智慧化武器平台設計。美軍在2009年提出「網路飛行器」項目，為網路空間作戰提供像戰車、艦艇、飛機這樣的平台，可以實現在網路空間裡自動偵察、載入網路武器、自主協同、自主攻擊，受到威脅時自我銷毀、清除痕跡，具備了一定的智慧化特徵。未來「網路飛行器」載入的武器，不是軟體人員編好的程式碼，而是根據偵察結果直接對發現的漏洞，現場即時進行智慧化網路武器設計，實現「訂購式」開發，從而大大提高網路空間作戰的針對性。

網控武器的智慧化趨勢愈加凸顯

受網路空間控制的武器簡稱網路武器，是透過網路連接，接受網路空間指令，執行跨域任務，在實體空間達成作戰效果的武器。未來的各種作戰武器平台，大多是聯網的武器平台，這樣軍事資訊網本質上就是物聯網，上聯衛星、雷達、無人機等網路實體，從感知到發現、追蹤、定位、打擊都可透過網路空間控制，網控武器的智慧化已在陸海空天電等戰場蓬勃發展。

2015年，敘利亞利用俄羅斯機器人軍團擊潰武裝分子，行動採用了包括6個履帶式機器人、4個輪式機器人、1個自動化火砲群、數架無人機和1套指揮系統。指揮官透過指揮系統調度無人機偵察發現武裝分子，機器人向武裝分子發動衝鋒，同時伴隨火砲和無人機攻擊力量支援，對武裝分子進行了致命打擊。這只是一場小規模的戰鬥，卻開啟了機器人「組團」作戰的先河。

海空戰場網控智慧武器正在大量研發驗證。 2014年，美國海軍使用13艘無人水面艇，示範驗證無人艇集群攔截敵方艦艇，主要透過交換感測器數據，取得了不錯的效果。 2016年再次試驗時，新增了協同任務分配、戰術配合等功能，「蜂群意識」成為其智慧化的顯著特徵。

用於空中作戰的小微型無人機蜂群也正在快速發展。近年來，美國國防部多次試驗「山銻」微型無人機，可一次投放數十架乃至上百架，透過提升其執行偵察任務時的協同能力，在無人機編隊、指揮、控制、智慧化管理等方面都取得了進展。

空天網控武器越來越「聰明」。空天領域主要包含偵察和打擊兩類網控武器，各種功能的衛星主要執行偵察任務，是典型的偵察感測器。隨著各種小微衛星群的出現，使衛星表現出新的特徵：體積小、發射快、數量多、更聰明。小微衛星群在執行偵察和通訊任務時，有了更大的彈性和可靠性，目前世界衛星強國都在積極制定覆蓋範圍更廣的小微衛星群計畫。

各種高超音速打擊武器在空天巡航，彷彿懸在人們頭頂的利劍。美國空軍研究室稱「高速打擊武器」將在2018年前後啟動飛行試驗，其它各國也正積極研發類似武器。這類武器最大的特色是速度快、航程遠、智能化程度高。

智慧化指揮資訊系統改變傳統作戰指揮方式

網路空間武器和受網路空間控制的武器，是智慧化戰爭的“拳頭”，而指揮這些武器運用的指揮資訊系統是智慧化戰爭的“大腦”，網路空間作戰指揮資訊系統要同步跟上智慧化的進程。目前，幾乎全球的指揮資訊系統都面臨著「智慧滯後」的難題，未來戰爭需要快速決策、自主決策，這對智慧輔助系統提出了更高要求。

2007年，美國國防部高級研究計劃局啟動關於指揮控制系統的研發計劃——“深綠色計劃”，以期能實現計算機輔助指揮官快速決策贏得制勝先機。這是一個戰役戰術級的指揮資訊系統，其研發目的是將該系統嵌入美國陸軍旅級C4ISR戰時指揮資訊系統中去，實現指揮官的智慧化指揮。直到今天，美軍也沒有放鬆對智慧化指揮資訊系統的發展。

在網路空間作戰中，網路目標表現為一個接取網路的IP位址，數量眾多導致人工難以有效率操作，作戰更需要智慧化指揮資訊系統的輔助支撐。目前，智慧化指揮資訊系統需要實現智慧情報分析、智慧感知、智慧導航定位、智慧輔助決策、智慧協同、智慧評估、智慧化無人作戰等功能，尤其是實現對無人網控系統的集群作戰操控，這都對智慧化指揮資訊系統提出了迫切需求，需要加快相應關鍵技術的研發和運用。

綜上所述，智慧化的網路武器和網路控制武器，透過智慧化的資訊系統調度，將形成巨大的作戰能力，基本能遂行現行作戰樣式中的所有行動。未來戰爭，從指揮力量編組、到目標選擇、行動方式、戰法運用等，都將在智能化的背景下展開，戰爭「遊戲化」的特徵將更顯著，作戰指揮方式也將發生重大變化。

未來戰場 鬥勇更需鬥“智”

■楊建　趙璐

目前，人工智慧發展進入嶄新階段，並開始向各個領域加速滲透。受此一進程的影響，各國圍繞智慧化的軍事競爭已揭開序幕。我軍歷來是一支英勇頑強、敢打必勝的人民軍隊，未來戰場上應繼續發揚光榮傳統，同時要更加廣泛地掌握和利用最新的科技成果，研製出更多智能化的武器裝備，在未來戰場上掌握制勝先機。

智慧化是人類社會發展的趨勢，智慧化戰爭正加速到來。正是由於超越原有體系結構計算模型的成功創新、奈米製造技術的逐步普及，以及對人腦機制研究的突破性進展，軍事智慧化發展才擁有了堅實的基礎。因此，智慧化武器裝備的表現日益突出，並在情報分析、戰鬥反應等方面開始超越並取代人類。此外，在人力需求、綜合保障、運作成本等方面，智慧化武器裝備也具有明顯的優勢，日益成為戰爭的主導力量。

事實證明，智慧化武器裝備的發展應用，拓展了軍事行動的能力範圍，大幅提升了部隊的作戰效能。在阿富汗和伊拉克戰場上，無人機已承擔了大部分偵察、情報、監視等作戰保障任務，並承擔了約三分之一的空中打擊任務。近兩年，俄羅斯在敘利亞戰場上也曾多次使用較高智慧化程度的無人偵察機、戰鬥機器人等裝備。智慧化武器裝備正愈來愈地展現出超越傳統武器的重要價值。

未來戰爭中，作戰體系智能化的較量將是高手過招、巔峰對決的勝利關鍵。隨著以科技為支撐的軍事手段發展的不平衡性越來越大，誰先具備實施智能化作戰的能力，誰就更能掌握戰場的主動權，擁有技術代差優勢的強者會盡可能將戰爭成本降到最低，而弱者必然遭受巨大損失，付出慘重代價。我們不僅要加緊核心技術創新、武器裝備研製，還要研究探索適應軍事智能化發展的組織結構、指揮方式和運用模式，更要培養一支能夠擔起推進軍事智能化發展、鍛造智能化作戰能力的人才隊伍，充分發揮我軍作戰體系的整體效能，在與對手的較量中，以更加“智慧”的方式贏得戰爭。

中國原創軍事資源：http://www.81.cn/jwzl/2017-11/24/content_7841895888.htm

#Artificial #Intelligence, #Chinese Military Joint Oprations, Chinese Military Characteristics & Development Trends of Cognitive Domain Operations and Warfare, Chinese Military Cognitive Domain Operations, Chinese military cognitive warfare, Chinese Military Use of Cognitive Confrontation within the Combat Domain, Cognitive Confrontation, Cognitive Domain Warfare

Chinese Military Deciphering Cognitive Warfare Codes Capability Based on Operational Decision Chains

Leave a comment

中國軍隊基於作戰決策鏈破解認知戰密碼的能力

現代英語：

Cognition is the basis for operational decisions and operations. Cognitive warfare is a confrontation activity carried out in the cognitive domain. The purpose is to attack the enemy’s knowledge system, social consciousness, people’s morale, etc., disrupt its judgment and decision-making, and cause it to lose its decision-making advantage and action advantage. To deepen the research on cognitive warfare and decipher the cognitive warfare code, the key is to embed the combat decision-making chain and explore how to influence and interfere with the cognitive activities of the enemy’s decision-making chain, causing the enemy to form false observations, wrong judgments and poor decisions, so as to fully control Cognitive initiative.

Seeing is false, changing the facts

Observation is the starting point of cognition. No matter what kind of war, when facing any opponent, the first step is observation. The observation here is a broad concept and is about all activities to obtain all relevant information about the hostile party. Just as people perceive external things through sensory organs, observation relies on the battlefield perception system to obtain relevant data and information from the battlefield environment according to the needs of the subject, providing “ source material ” for judgment and decision-making. Observation uses intelligence, reconnaissance, surveillance and other activities to obtain as much factual information and materials from all aspects of the enemy as possible and convert them into text, images, audio, video and sensor signals.

The history of war at home and abroad in ancient and modern times shows that the essence of command is the endless pursuit of certainty, including the status and intentions of enemy troops, various factors affecting the combat environment such as weather and terrain, as well as the status and actions of one’s own troops. Therefore, efficient command consists in clarifying each element and then coordinating it as a whole to achieve the best combat effect. Human judgment and decision-making are easily disturbed by information uncertainty. In the observation stage, the key to cognitive warfare is to make the enemy unable to clearly observe, incompletely observe, and distort the information of their own combat elements, and lack real information or accurate understanding, thereby weakening the enemy’s decision-making on combat at the source. The pursuit of certainty.

Measures for observing cognitive warfare, in addition to common information warfare methods, such as disguise, interference, deception, silence, etc., should also pay attention to the following aspects: First, create complex situations. War is inherently full of complexity. By creating complexity, it increases the fog and resistance on the battlefield, making it impossible for the enemy to observe the real specific situation. For example, by creating various events and operations in multi-dimensional combat areas such as land, sea, air, sky, and network, and making irregular changes, it can effectively increase the difficulty of enemy observation. The second is to interfere with observation and cognition. Observation is not aimless. It is carried out based on a certain cognition. Cognition determines what information needs to be observed, what kind of reconnaissance activities need to be carried out, etc. For example, during observation activities, by interfering with operations, the enemy’s attention in observation activities is affected, causing it to lose the ability to focus on essential issues and key issues, thereby making it unable to obtain key information. The third is to shape the factual narrative. Shaping factual narratives is to reformulate, combine, arrange, and reconstruct facts according to the needs of cognitive warfare. These facts are either created out of nothing, highlight certain details in the facts, or are difficult to verify and test, making their observation materials Mixed with fictional facts, the observed facts are far from objective facts. The fourth is to protect specific knowledge. Knowledge protection is an important aspect of cognitive warfare. The main contents include: commander’s decision-making style, combat theory reasoning process, premises and assumptions, key tactical ideas and combat principles, key decision-making procedures, mechanisms and methods, information analysis methods, especially some algorithms, passwords, etc.

Targeting the judgment, misleading the judgment

On the battlefield, simple observation and data collection do not make much sense. Only by analyzing these data “ by looking at the essence of the phenomenon, and then drawing various judgments, will we promote the formation of operational decisions. For example, during the Battle of Moscow in World War II, the Soviet Union had a lot of and messy information about the Japanese Kwantung Army. Finally, after careful analysis, it was concluded that “ the Soviet Union could be considered safe in the Far East, and the threat from Japan had been ruled out ” After the judgment, it was decided to transfer troops from the Far East to Moscow to participate in the Battle of Moscow. Judgment is the corresponding conclusion reached by analyzing and reasoning the observation results, which mainly includes: first, factual judgment, usually expressed in descriptive language, such as the current situation, enemy battlefield deployment, battlefield posture, etc.; second, value and relationship judgment, usually Expressed in evaluative language, such as threat assessment, correlation analysis, trend prediction, etc.

Judgment cognitive warfare is actually a game surrounding judgment. Normally, judgments arise on the basis of a judgment, without which there would be no conclusion of judgment. Whether a person has high blood pressure or diabetes is often based on some medical indicators, and these indicators are the criteria. The premises and assumptions of reasoning are actually based on judgments. “ Persian cat story ” circulated in World War I. Judging from the location of the command post from a Persian cat, it contains a series of judgments: there is no village around, and it cannot be a cat raised by ordinary civilians; the sound of artillery on the battlefield is rumbling, and it cannot be It is a wild cat that is cautious and avoids people; Persian cats are a valuable breed, and the position of cat owners is not low; cats appear at fixed times every day, and the command post should be near cats. Therefore, interfering with judgment is to target the judgment to design and produce information products so that the facts obtained do not match the judgment, or to minimize the leakage of information related to the judgment, so that the enemy cannot judge or make wrong judgments.

The main contents of the interference criterion are: First, the interference is based on experience. Based on enemy experience, create “ virtual facts ” to make errors in judgment. For example, in the Battle of Maling, Sun Bin halved the stove to lure Pang Juan, which is a typical example. Because according to experience, the number of stoves is directly proportional to the number of troops. Halving the number of stoves every day means that the number of people is decreasing. The possibility of reduction is that the soldiers have suffered greater casualties, which leads to the judgment of weakening combat power. The second is to interfere with the judgment based on the knowledge system. Such knowledge includes the enemy’s common sense, concepts, principles and some assumptions. For example, in the Fourth Middle East War that broke out in October 1973, Israel’s initial defeat was a misjudgment of the war situation. It believed that as long as its air force was still in an advantageous position, the other side would never dare to attack. However, Egypt began to adopt new military technology and used mobile surface-to-air missiles to support an air defense network, partially offsetting Israel’s air superiority. The third is to interfere with judgments based on universal culture. That is, design corresponding information and actions based on the enemy’s cultural characteristics so that they can be misjudged due to cultural differences. According to foreign information, during the Cold War, the United States studied the root causes of “ Soviet behavior, so it started from culture and behavior to induce the Soviet Union to make strategic misjudgments. The fourth is to interfere with methodological-based judgments. Generalizations, analogies, etc. are the basic methods of judgment. Cognitive interference based on methodology makes it difficult for the other party to understand facts and cannot be compared with known facts; complicating the causal relationship and confusing factual cause and effect, psychological cause and effect, conditional cause and effect, social cause and effect, etc., making it impossible to implement causal judgment; reducing possible signs and phenomena, making it impossible to see through the essence and make accurate judgments.

Focus on the process and influence decision-making

Operational decision-making is based on combat purposes and intentions. After observation and judgment, various factors are combined to derive the optimal solution to the problem. War or conflict behavior has game, competition and confrontation attributes, so decision-making is a game. Decisions address key issues such as whether to do it, how to do it, what purpose to achieve, or the state of termination. In information-based local wars, action-centeredness gradually replaces planning-centeredness, requiring an increase from data center warfare, information center warfare, and knowledge center warfare to decision-making center warfare. Combat decision-making has become one of the main areas of competition between the enemy and ourselves.

Decision-making cognitive warfare is to target enemy cognition and interfere with the decision-making process to affect the quality and efficiency of decision-making. Decision-making is affected by the knowledge structure of the decision-maker himself. If cognition is paranoid or the knowledge reserve is outdated, even if the judgment is correct, good decisions will still not be made. The decision-making process includes the application and change process of knowledge structure, which mainly involves procedural knowledge and conceptual principled knowledge. The former includes decision-making procedures and methods, decision-making mechanisms and evaluation methods, etc., while the latter includes understanding of battlefield posture, winning mechanism, combat concepts, combat rules, and weapons and equipment performance. Therefore, cognitive attacks on the decision-making process will greatly affect its decision-making speed and quality.

The main ways to influence cognitive warfare in decision-making are: First, squeezing the cognitive decision-making space. When watching tennis matches, commentary on non-forced errors and forced mistakes are often heard, with forced mistakes being those caused by putting pressure on the opponent. Interfering with the cognitive decision-making environment is to put pressure on the enemy’s cognitive decisions, thereby squeezing the cognitive space and weakening cognition to force the enemy to make mistakes in decision-making. For example, through virtual and real decision-making activities and actions, the opponent is trapped in decision-making difficulties, which increases the probability of low-level decision-making. The second is to attack rational cognition. Including: First, interfering with the understanding of threats and opportunities. Many examples of failures in military history are caused by misjudgment of threats and opportunities on the battlefield. Whether you despise the enemy or overestimate the enemy, you will form decision-making expectations that are different from objective reality, leading to adverse action results. Second, attack combat theory and doctrine. For example, by proposing the theory of mutual restraint, deliberately exaggerating the loopholes in the enemy’s doctrine, and amplifying the adverse effects of the enemy’s combat operations, the enemy can arouse doubts about its own theory and doctrine. Third, for procedural knowledge. Including decision-making mechanisms, procedures and methods, plan evaluation and combat evaluation methods, auxiliary decision-making systems, algorithms, thinking, etc. Attacking the weaknesses present will also cause decision-making errors. The third is to interfere with irrational factors. The use of irrational factors often creates decision-making traps, such as groupthink traps, conceit traps, etc., which have a significant impact on decision-making. The strategic deception successfully implemented by the Allied forces many times during World War II was to use the enemy’s ambiguous and misleading analysis to increase the probability that the wrong decision would win.

現代國語：

來源：中國軍網-解放軍報 作者：吳中和 朱小寧 責任編輯：王韻
2022-09-13 06:48:xx
吳中和 朱小寧

引言

認知是作戰決策與行動的基礎。認知戰是在認知域進行的對抗活動，目的是攻擊敵知識體系、社會意識、民心士氣等，打亂其判斷與決策，使其失去決策優勢與行動優勢。深化認知戰研究，破譯認知戰密碼，關鍵是嵌入作戰決策鏈，探究如何影響和乾擾敵決策鏈的認知活動，致敵形成不真實的觀察、錯誤的判斷和糟糕的決策，從而充分掌控認知主動權。

眼見為虛，改變事實

觀察是認知的起點。無論何種戰爭，面對任何對手，首先要做的第一步就是為觀察。這裡的觀察是一個廣義概念，是關於獲得敵對方所有相關資訊的一切活動。正如人類透過感覺器官感知外界事物一樣，觀察依托戰場感知系統，根據主體需要從戰場環境中獲得相關數據與訊息，為判斷和決策提供「原始材料」。觀察通過情報、偵察、監視等活動，盡可能多地獲取敵對方各方面的事實信息與材料，並將其轉化為文本、圖像、音頻、視頻和傳感器信號等。

古今中外的戰爭史表明，指揮的本質是對確定性的無盡追求，包括敵軍部隊狀態和意圖，天候、地形等影響作戰環境的種種因素，以及己方部隊的狀態和行動。因而，高效率的指揮在於廓清每個要素，然後將其整體協調起來行動，以達成最佳作戰效果。而人的判斷決策，很容易受資訊的不確定性幹擾。在觀察階段，認知戰的關鍵就在於，使敵人對己方各種作戰要素觀察不清、觀察不全、觀察的信息失真混亂，缺乏真實信息或準確理解，從而從源頭上削弱敵方對作戰決策確定性的追求。

觀察認知戰的措施，除了通常的資訊戰方法，如偽裝、幹擾、欺騙、靜默等，還應注意以下方面：一是製造復雜局面。戰爭本來就充滿複雜性，通過製造複雜性，增加戰場的迷霧和阻力，使敵人無法觀察到真實具體情況。如，透過在陸、海、空、天、網絡等多維作戰域製造各種事件與行動，並作無規則變動，可有效增加敵方觀察的難度。二是乾擾觀察認知。觀察不是毫無目的的，是基於某種認知進行的，認知決定需要觀察哪些資訊、採取何種偵察活動等。如，在觀察活動中，透過幹擾行動，影響敵方觀察活動的注意力，使其失去聚焦本質問題、關鍵問題的觀察能力，進而使其始終無法獲得關鍵資訊。三是塑造事實敘事。塑造事實敘事，就是根據認知戰需要，重新表述、組合、編排、再建構事實，這些事實要麼是無中生有，要麼是突出事實中的某些細節、要麼是難以查實和檢驗等，使其觀察材料中混雜於虛構事實，觀察的事實與客觀事實相距甚遠。四是保護特定知識。知識保護是認知戰的重要面向。主要內容有：指揮員決策風格，作戰理論推理過程、前提與假設，關鍵戰術思想與作戰原則，關鍵決策程序、機制與方法，資訊分析方法特別是一些演算法、密碼等。

瞄準判據，誤導判斷

戰場上，簡單的觀察和資料收集並沒有太多意義，只有對這些數據進行「透過現像看本質」地分析，進而得出各種判斷，才會推動形成作戰決策。如第二次世界大戰莫斯科保衛戰中，蘇聯有關日本關東軍的資訊多而雜亂，最後經過縝密分析，得出「蘇聯在遠東地區可以認為是安全的，來自日本方面的威脅已排除」的判斷後，才決定將遠東方面的部隊調往莫斯科，參加莫斯科保衛戰。判斷是對觀察結果進行分析推理而得出的相應結論，主要包括：一是事實判斷，通常用描述性語言表達，如當前形勢、敵方的戰場部署、戰場態勢等；二是價值和關系判斷，通常用評價性語言表達，如威脅評估、關聯分析、趨勢預測等。

判斷認知戰，實際上是圍繞判據展開的一種博弈。通常情況下，判斷是基於判據產生的，沒有判據，就不會有判斷結論。一個人是否患有高血壓、糖尿病，往往基於一些醫學指標，這些指標就是判據。推理的前提與假設，實際上也是基於判據。一戰中流傳的“波斯貓的故事”，從一隻波斯貓判斷出指揮所位置，就包含著一系列判據：周圍沒有村莊，不可能是普通平民養的貓；戰場上炮聲隆隆，不可能是謹慎避人的野貓；波斯貓是名貴品種，養貓的人職位不低；貓每天固定時間出現，指揮家應該就在貓出沒在貓出沒。因此，幹擾判斷就是瞄準判據進行資訊產品設計與生產，使其獲得的事實與判據不匹配，或盡量減少自己與判據相關資訊的洩漏，從而使敵方無法判斷或做出錯誤的判斷。

幹擾判據的主要內容有：一是乾擾以經驗為基礎的判據。根據敵方經驗，製造“虛擬事實”，使其判斷失誤。如馬陵之戰中孫臏日減半灶以誘龐涓，就是典型的例子。因為根據經驗，灶與軍隊人數成正比，日減半灶說明人數在減少，減少的可能性是士兵傷亡較大，從而得出戰力減弱的判斷。二是乾擾以知識體係為基礎的判據。此類知識，包括敵方的常識、概念、原則及一些假設等。如1973年10月爆發的第四次中東戰爭，以色列最初的失利在於對戰局的誤判，認為只要自己的空軍仍處於優勢地位，對方就絕對不敢進攻。但是，埃及開始採用新的軍事技術，運用移動式地空飛彈撐起一張空中防禦網，部分抵銷了以色列的空中優勢。三是乾擾以普遍文化為基礎的判據。即根據敵方文化特徵，設計相應資訊與行動，使其因文化差異而產生誤判。據國外資料介紹，冷戰時期美國曾研究了“蘇聯行為的根源”，因此從文化與行為上入手做文章，誘使蘇聯產生戰略誤判。四是乾擾以方法論為基礎的判據。概括、類比等是判斷的基本方法。針對方法論的認知幹擾，就是使對方難以了解事實，無法與已知事實類比；將因果關系復雜化，把事實因果、心理因果、條件因果、社會因果等混淆起來，無法實施因果判斷；減少可能的徵兆和現象，使其無法看透本質，無從進行準確判斷。

著眼過程，影響決策

作戰決策，是針對作戰目的和企圖，經過觀察和判斷，將各種因素綜合起來，推導出解決問題的最優方案。戰爭或沖突行為，具有博弈、競爭和對抗屬性，因而決策即是​​博弈。決策解決的是乾不干、怎麼幹，達到什麼目的或終止狀態等關鍵問題。在資訊化局部戰爭中，以行動為中心逐步取代以計畫為中心，要求從資料中心戰、資訊中心戰、知識中心戰上升為決策中心戰，作戰決策更成為敵我雙方競逐的主要領域之一。

決策認知戰，就是瞄準決策過程中敵方認知進行攻擊幹擾，以影響決策品質與效率。決策受到決策者本身知識結構的影響，如果認知發生偏執或知識儲備過時，即使判斷正確了，仍然得不出好的決策。決策過程包含了知識結構的運用與變化過程，主要涉及程序性知識和概念原理性知識，前者包括決策程序與方法、決策機制與評估方法等，後者包括對戰場態勢、制勝機理、作戰概念、作戰法則、武器裝備表現的認識等。因而，對決策過程中的認知攻擊，將大大影響其決策速度與品質。

影響決策認知戰的主要途徑有：一是擠壓認知決策空間。觀看網球比賽時，經常聽到非逼迫性失誤和逼迫性失誤的解說，逼迫性失誤是指由於給對手造成壓力引起的失誤。幹擾認知決策環境，就是給敵方認知決策壓力，從而擠壓認知空間，削弱認知力，以逼迫敵人決策出現失誤。如，透過虛實相間的決策活動與行動，讓對手陷入決策困境，致其增加出現低水準決策的機率。二是攻擊理性認知。包括：其一，幹擾對威脅與機會的認知。軍事史上許多失敗的戰例，都是誤判戰場上的威脅與機會所引起的。無論輕視敵人，或高估敵人，都會形成與客觀實際不一樣的決策預期，導致不利的行動結果。其二，攻擊作戰理論與條令。如透過提出相剋的理論、刻意渲染敵條令的漏洞、放大敵方作戰行動的不利效果等，引起敵方對自身理論與條令的懷疑。其三，針對程序性知識。包括決策的機制、程序與方法，方案評估與作戰評估方法，輔助決策系統、演算法、思維等，攻擊其中的弱點，也會造成決策失誤。第三是乾擾非理性因素。對非理性因素加以利用，往往會造成決策陷阱，如群思陷阱、自負陷阱等，對決策有重大影響。二戰中盟軍曾多次成功實施的戰略欺騙，就是利用了敵方模稜兩可和誤導性迷惑分析，讓錯誤的決策勝出的機率增大。

中國原創軍事資源：http://www.81.cn/xxqj_207719/xxjt/pl_207751/10184370888.html?big=fan