中國軍隊的勝利邏輯：消耗戰與消耗戰呈現截然不同的現代衝突特徵
現代英語：
From war of attrition to war of dissipation
The Changing Winning Logic Under Intelligent Conditions
■ Chen Yan
Technological advancements are changing the nature of warfare, and different forms of warfare have their corresponding winning logics. In the era of cold weapons, firearms, and mechanized warfare, limited reconnaissance capabilities, insufficient precision in strikes, and inadequate communication, attrition warfare, based on the linear depletion of materials and energy, became the primary method of victory in traditional warfare. The winning logic was that whoever could more sustainably convert material resources into battlefield lethality, and whoever could withstand greater material and energy depletion, would have a greater “weight” on the scales of victory. With the advent of the information and intelligent warfare era, this winning logic has undergone significant changes.
In the latter half of the 20th century, with the widespread application of information technology in the military field, information warfare began to emerge on the historical stage. In information warfare, the specific structure of operational systems, key nodes, and power transmission chains underwent concrete changes, and the winning logic of war changed accordingly: striking nodes was more effective than striking the entire battlefield, and a broken link was more fatal than insufficient firepower. Under these circumstances, the importance of eliminating enemy personnel and destroying enemy equipment in combat operations gradually decreased, while the importance of accurately striking enemy command centers, communication nodes, and information chains became increasingly prominent. Prigogine’s “dissipative structure theory” posits that an open system, once its order is disrupted, will descend into chaos, or “entropy increase.” The emergence of dissipative warfare is precisely the concrete application of “dissipative structure theory” in the military field, supported by information technology.
The difference between attrition warfare and dissipation warfare, though only one word, reveals drastically different winning logics. In terms of objectives, attrition warfare aims to eliminate the enemy’s manpower and deplete their resources; dissipation warfare, on the other hand, aims to disrupt systemic structures and accelerate “entropy increase.” Its goal is no longer simply to eliminate every enemy, but to precisely and efficiently destroy the “orderly structure” of the enemy’s operational system, like removing the fuel supply, rapidly transforming a highly coordinated “living system” into a disorganized “dead system.” In terms of methods, attrition warfare relies on firepower coverage, positional warfare, and large-scale troop assaults; dissipation warfare relies heavily on precision strikes, information attacks, cognitive interference, and unmanned platform harassment. A precision-strike drone can destroy an enemy’s expensive combat equipment, leading to an increasing frequency of new strike tactics such as “skillful strikes” and “precision strikes” appearing in local wars. In terms of the criteria for determining victory or defeat, attrition warfare focuses on annihilating combat personnel and occupying geographical space; while dissipation warfare pays more attention to the recovery time of the system and the integrity of the command and combat chain. In terms of cost, attrition warfare means high casualties, high resource consumption, and a protracted war; dissipation warfare pursues stealth, low cost, and high effectiveness, striving to induce chaos and incapacitation of the enemy’s system at minimal cost.
The ability of dissipation warfare to achieve victory through ingenuity hinges on the continuous development of technology. As Engels pointed out, “Once technological advancements can be used for military purposes and have been used for military purposes, they immediately, almost forcibly, and often against the will of the commander, cause changes or even revolutions in the methods of warfare.” Breakthroughs in reconnaissance and sensing technologies have made the battlefield transparent. Satellites, radar, and drones weave an omnipresent “sky net,” making “detection equals destruction” a reality. The development of precision strike technologies has made “pressure point” destruction possible. Upgrades in network and communication technologies have made system interconnection a combat multiplier, but also a fatal weakness: once communication links are severed, the entire system is paralyzed. The penetration of artificial intelligence and cognitive technologies has enabled decision-making speeds measured in milliseconds. The widespread adoption of unmanned and low-cost combat platforms has fundamentally altered the cost of competition. The superposition of advanced technologies has spurred a fundamental shift in the nature of warfare: from competing on existing resources to competing on structure, from competing on firepower to competing on information, and from competing on hard destruction to competing on soft kill.
The key elements for winning attrition warfare are mainly reflected in the following aspects. First, disrupting command. The command center is the “brain” of the combat system; cutting it off renders the entire system soulless. Precisely striking command posts, paralyzing command networks, and destroying communication relay stations are more efficient than eliminating frontline soldiers. In the informationized and intelligent battlefield, both sides target command nodes as high-value targets, considering long-range firepower for “decapitation” strikes. Second, creating information chaos. Making it difficult for the enemy to see and judge is more lethal than direct destruction. False information, deepfakes, and cognitive interference leave enemy commanders making decisions in a fog, leading to a predicament of “doubting everything.” The other side of battlefield transparency is the superposition of information overload and information pollution. Thirdly, it disrupts coordination. Modern warfare relies heavily on system coordination. If the links between combat units are severed, through electronic suppression, destruction of relay stations, and interference with data links, elite units can be turned into “information islands.” Combat units without coordination are like strong men without limbs—powerful but unable to function. Fourthly, it depletes effectiveness. By employing attrition warfare, the enemy is trapped in an inefficient cycle. Continuous harassment and exhaustion are used to deplete high-value resources at low cost, forcing the enemy to invest heavily in defense, ultimately exhausting their energy in this “inefficient cycle.” These four aspects are intertwined and mutually supportive. Disruption of command leaves the enemy leaderless; information chaos leaves them disoriented; broken cooperation forces them to fight independently; and depleting their energy exhausts their resources, making continued operations unsustainable.
The shift from attrition warfare to dissipation warfare is not about replacement, but rather superposition. In intelligent warfare, whoever can simultaneously create “entropy increase” in both the physical and information domains will gain the initiative on the battlefield. Precise destruction in the physical domain and disruption of information domain chains, combined, can cause the opponent’s system to collapse in a relatively short time. Achieving dissipation warfare requires not only technological support but also a revolution in operational concepts. How to form a closed loop of reconnaissance, strike, and assessment; how to simultaneously create “entropy increase” in multiple battlefields; how to accurately identify the fatal weaknesses of the enemy’s system… these questions ultimately come down to the human factor. Only by deeply integrating human initiative with technological advantages can we truly seize the initiative in informationized and intelligent warfare. In the foreseeable future, through human-machine symbiotic intelligent decision-making systems, the efficiency of algorithms will be further combined with human creativity. This will not only achieve millisecond-level responses in data processing and logical deduction, but also drive a qualitative leap in decision quality and innovation potential through collaborative optimization mechanisms that dynamically adapt to changing environments. Simultaneously, this deep integration will reshape military training and talent development models, propelling combat personnel from traditional skill-based to intelligent collaborative types. Ultimately, the victory in dissipative warfare will belong to those combat forces that can both ride the wave of technological advancements and transcend technological limitations, achieving a dialectical unity of “intelligence” and “strategic advantage” in the interwoven battlefield of virtual and real warfare.
現代國語：
從消耗戰到耗散戰——
智能化條件下制勝邏輯的改變
■陳 豔
技術條件改變著戰爭形態，不同的戰爭形態有其相應制勝邏輯。在冷兵器、熱兵器和機械化戰爭時代，受制於偵察手段有限、打擊精度不足、通信聯絡等技術條件的局限性，基於物質與能量線性損耗比拼的消耗戰成為傳統戰爭形態的主要制勝方式，其制勝邏輯是，誰能更加持久地將物質資源轉化為戰場殺傷力，誰能承受更大物質與能量損耗，誰就能在勝利的天平上具備更有分量的“砝碼”。進入信息化智能化戰爭時代，這一制勝邏輯發生了顯著改變。
20世紀下半葉，隨著信息技術在軍事領域廣泛運用，信息化戰爭開始登上歷史舞台。在信息化戰爭中，作戰體系的具體結構、重要節點、力量傳導鏈路等發生了具體變化，戰爭的制勝邏輯隨之發生了相應改變：打擊節點比打擊全局更有效，鏈路斷開比火力不足更致命。在這種情況下，消滅敵方人員、摧毀對手裝備在作戰行動中的重要性不斷降低，而精確打擊敵方指揮中樞、通信節點、信息鏈路等的重要性愈加凸顯。普裡戈金的“耗散結構理論”認為，一個開放系統一旦有序性被破壞，便會走向混亂，即“熵增”。耗散戰的出現，正是在信息技術加持下，“耗散結構理論”在軍事領域的具體應用。
消耗戰和耗散戰，一字之差，制勝邏輯呈現出截然不同的特點。從目標看，消耗戰追求消滅敵方有生力量，耗盡對手資源；耗散戰則追求破壞體系結構、加速“熵增”，它的目標不再是單純消滅每一個敵人，而是精確、高效地破壞敵方作戰體系的“有序結構”，如釜底抽薪一般，讓高度協同的“活系統”迅速退化為一盤散沙的“死系統”。從手段看，消耗戰依賴火力覆蓋、陣地戰、大規模兵力突擊；耗散戰則倚重精確打擊、信息攻擊、認知干擾、無人平台襲擾。一架實施精准打擊的無人機，可以摧毀敵方造價高昂的作戰裝備，這使得“巧打”“精打”等新打擊手段“亮相”局部戰爭的頻率越來越高。從勝負判斷依據看，消耗戰注重殲滅作戰人員、佔領地理空間；耗散戰則更加關注體系的恢復時間、指揮與作戰鏈路的完整程度等。從代價看，消耗戰意味著高傷亡、高物資消耗、漫長的戰爭進程；耗散戰則追求隱蔽、低成本、高效果，力求以最小代價引發敵方體系的混亂與失能。
耗散戰之所以能以巧取勝，前提是技術條件的不斷發展。正如恩格斯所指出的，“一旦技術上的進步可以用於軍事目的並且已經用於軍事目的，它們便立刻幾乎強制地，而且往往是違反指揮官的意志而引起作戰方式上的改變甚至變革”。偵察與感知技術的突破，讓戰場變得透明。衛星、雷達、無人機編織成無處不在的“天網”，讓“發現即摧毀”變為現實。精確打擊技術的發展，讓“點穴式”摧毀成為可能。網絡與通信技術的升級，讓體系互聯成為作戰倍增器，同時也成為致命弱點：一旦通信鏈路被切斷，整個體系便陷入癱瘓。人工智能與認知技術的滲透，讓決策速度以毫秒計算。無人化與低成本作戰平台的普及，徹底改變了博弈成本。高新技術的疊加，催生了戰爭形態的根本轉變：從拼存量到拼結構，從拼火力到拼信息，從拼硬摧毀到拼軟殺傷。
耗散戰的制勝要素，主要體現在以下幾個方面。一是斷指揮。指揮中樞是作戰體系的“大腦”，切斷它，整個體系便失去靈魂。精確打擊指揮所、癱瘓指揮網絡、摧毀通信中繼站，這些手段比消滅前線士兵更高效。信息化智能化戰場上，作戰雙方都將指揮節點鎖定為高價值目標，考慮采用遠程火力實施“斬首”打擊。二是亂信息。讓對手看不清、判不准，比直接摧毀更具殺傷力。虛假信息、深度偽造、認知干擾，使敵方指揮員在“迷霧”中決策，陷入“懷疑一切”的困境。戰場透明化的另一面，是信息過載與信息污染的疊加。三是破協同。現代作戰高度依賴體系協同。如果切斷作戰單元之間的鏈路，通過電子壓制、摧毀中繼站、干擾數據鏈等，能夠讓精銳部隊變成“信息孤島”。沒有協同的作戰單元，如同失去手腳的壯漢，空有力氣卻無法施展。四是耗效能。通過耗散戰使對手陷入低效循環，持續襲擾、疲敝對手，用低成本消耗高價值資源，迫使對方投入大量資源進行防御，最終在“低效循環”中耗盡能量。這四個方面相互交織、互為支撐。斷指揮讓對手群龍無首，亂信息讓對手無所適從，破協同讓對手各自為戰，耗效能讓對手資源窮盡、難以為繼。
從消耗戰到耗散戰，不是取代，而是疊加。在智能化戰爭中，誰能在物理域、信息域同時制造“熵增”，誰就能贏得戰場主動。物理域的精確摧毀，信息域的鏈路阻斷，二者形成合力，能在較短時間內使對手體系崩潰。實現耗散戰，不僅需要技術的支撐，更需要作戰理念的革新。如何將偵察、打擊、評估形成閉環，如何在多域戰場同步制造“熵增”，如何精准識別敵方體系的致命弱點……這些問題最終都要回歸到人的因素。只有將人的能動性與技術優勢深度融合，才能真正掌握信息化智能化戰爭的主動權。在可以預見的將來，通過人機共生的智能決策系統，算法的高效性將與人的創造性進一步結合，這不僅能實現數據處理與邏輯推演的毫秒級響應，更通過動態適應多變環境的協同優化機制，推動決策質量與創新潛力實現質的飛躍。同時，這種深度融合還將重塑軍事訓練與人才培養模式，推動作戰人員從傳統技能型向智能協同型轉變。最終，耗散戰的制勝權將屬於那些既能駕馭技術浪潮，又能超越技術局限，在虛實交織的戰場中實現“智”與“勢”辯證統一的作戰力量。
來源：中國軍網-解放軍報 作者：陳豔 責任編輯：於雅倩 發布：2026-03-31
中國原創軍事資源：http://www.81.cn/