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