中國軍事對現代戰爭制勝機制與新興作戰概念的分析
現代英語翻譯：
he winning mechanism of war refers to the winning rules, paths, methods and means of war. Driven by scientific and technological progress, changes in weapons and equipment, changes in the purpose of war and other factors, the winning mechanism of modern war has also changed accordingly. President Xi Jinping pointed out profoundly: “Modern warfare has indeed undergone profound changes. These changes may seem dazzling, but there are rules behind them. The fundamental thing is that the winning mechanism of war has changed.” Today, the world’s military powers, led by the United States, are stepping up research on operational concept design. In-depth analysis of the connotation and characteristics of emerging operational concepts, excavation of their internal logic, and identification of the winning mechanism of modern warfare are of great significance for seizing the opportunities of new military changes in the world and winning future wars.
Using cognitive warfare to create cognitive leadership advantages
Cognitive warfare focuses on confrontation at the level of consciousness and thinking. By transmitting selectively processed information, it influences decision-making, changes values, and competes for people’s support, thereby guiding the war situation to develop in a direction that is beneficial to oneself and not to the enemy. Cognitive warfare is an offensive and defensive operation launched by both sides in the cognitive field. The core of the confrontation is the struggle for dominance in the ideological field. The focus is on strengthening cognitive attacks while taking into account cognitive defense.
Dominance in the ideological field is the core of cognitive warfare. First, it is to guide political cognition. Ideology determines the rational foundation of cognition. The struggle for dominance in the ideological field has become the core of the cognitive confrontation between the enemy and us, with the focus on shaping political beliefs, war attitudes and values that are beneficial to oneself. Political cognitive guidance aims to portray the legitimacy of political parties, the rationality of governing ideas, and the health of the political ecology, to consolidate or destroy political consensus, to strengthen or shake political beliefs, to expand or disintegrate political camps, to cultivate recognition or negation of political positions, beliefs, and ideas, and to lay a political cognitive layout that is beneficial to oneself and unfavorable to the enemy.
The second is to guide value cognition. The guidance of war cognition aims to shape the nature, character, and legal basis of war, guide all parties to make value judgments on the justice and legitimacy of war, influence the direction of public opinion on supporting or opposing war, and regulate the strength of people’s willingness to assume war obligations. The guidance of value cognition aims to launch a fierce competition around the judgment and orientation of value concepts, and seek general emotional recognition in society by spreading ethics, morality, right and wrong, good and evil, and the beauty and ugliness of human nature.
War cognitive guidance aims to shape
The nature, character, and legal basis of war
The focus of cognitive warfare is to force cognition and win the hearts and minds of the people. Cognitive attack is the focus of cognitive warfare. Focusing on the content and methods of the attack, taking targeted attacks is of great significance for shaping the enemy’s wrong cognition and forming a situation that is beneficial to us. From the perspective of content, coercive cognition should focus on the psychological activities of social groups. By shaping cognitive differences, we seek to create antagonistic psychology between different nationalities, races, regions, classes, and groups, accumulate dissatisfaction with the regime from all walks of life, undermine the unity and stability within the country, and induce social unrest and division. From the perspective of methods, we should focus on “wartime” psychological attacks on the basis of “peacetime” cognitive coercion.
The targets of cognitive attacks during wartime include not only the forces participating in the war, but also the forces supporting the war. For the forces participating in the war, we should target the commanders at all levels of the enemy, and weaken their will to resist and interfere with their command decisions through cognitive manipulation, information deception, inducements and persuasion to surrender, so as to achieve the goal of disintegrating the enemy army; for the forces supporting the war, we should widely use radio, broadcasting, new media and other media to publicize major battle results, the enemy’s defeat and escape, tragic battlefield scenes and other content, so as to induce panic and war-weariness among the people and weaken the enemy’s war potential.
Building a strong defense line, gathering hearts and controlling the situation are the foundations of cognitive warfare. The focus of cognitive warfare is attack, while the foundation is defense. While strengthening cognitive attacks on the enemy, we should also focus on cognitive defense. The focus of cognitive defense is to build a strong defense line and stabilize the overall situation. For the participating forces, we should focus on giving full play to the advantages of political work, carry out extensive political mobilization, inspire the spirit of bravery and fearlessness, bravely killing the enemy, and the will to defend the country and sacrifice their lives, actively carry out meritorious service and set up typical examples to boost military morale; for social support forces, we should widely publicize the justice and legitimacy of the war, continuously strengthen patriotism education, inspire the sense of responsibility and sense of crisis of the whole people, and gather hearts and souls.
In addition, we should take positive and effective actions to maximize the support of the international community. Although the support of the international community is mainly obtained through political and diplomatic activities, actively carrying out humanitarian assistance and widely disseminating our own positions, attitudes and values can often promote the change of the attitude of the international community and create favorable conditions for winning the broadest support from the international community.
Establishing strategic initiative advantage through hybrid warfare
Hybrid warfare is a war that uses a variety of means such as politics, economy, diplomacy, science and technology, culture, and military, and combines cyber warfare, public opinion warfare, economic warfare, scientific and technological warfare, and covert conventional military operations to disrupt the situation, destroy the opponent’s war potential, and ultimately achieve strategic goals. In the competition between the strong and the weak, the effective use of hybrid warfare can not only shape a favorable strategic situation and hedge against the strategic competition of major powers, but also achieve the excellent effect of defeating the enemy without fighting and establish a strategic initiative advantage.
Hybrid warfare is the comprehensive use of diverse means
Defeat the weak with the strong, and win without fighting . War is a large-scale and fierce military struggle between countries or political groups using armed forces to achieve certain political goals. This traditional war style uses military hard power competition as the main means of struggle. Although it can quickly and intuitively achieve strategic goals, it is very likely to lead to a passive situation of “hurting the enemy by 1,000 and losing 800 of our own”, and it is easy to attract international condemnation and comprehensive sanctions. Especially in the competition between the strong and the weak, the strong side has an absolute advantage, which is not only reflected in the military field, but also in many fields such as politics, economy, diplomacy, science and technology, and culture. Therefore, unconventional hybrid warfare supported by military strength shows more and more flexible and diverse possibilities of use. Making good use of hybrid warfare means that on the basis of mastering our own advantages and the enemy’s disadvantages, we give priority to non-military means such as politics, diplomacy, economy, and public opinion that can play to our strengths and avoid weaknesses, and use our own strengths to attack the enemy’s weaknesses, pursuing “less fighting” or “no fighting” to win.
Use the strong to counter the strong, and hedge against the competition among major powers. The world today is in a period of great development and great change, and the relations between major powers have entered a new stage of all-round struggle. In order to maintain its unilateral hegemonic status, some military powers have stepped up efforts to win over and divide, deliberately provoked disputes, and continuously used hybrid warfare to contain and suppress competitors, exacerbating the tension of competition among major powers. In the confrontation between the strong and the strong, if you want to avoid being at a disadvantage, you must pick up the weapon of hybrid warfare and give the enemy a taste of its own medicine. We must actively establish the concept of hybrid warfare thinking, understand the characteristics and laws of the enemy’s hybrid warfare, and flexibly use hybrid warfare strategies on the basis of comparing and mastering the advantages and disadvantages of the enemy and ourselves, and properly strengthen strategic prevention and response on the basis of ensuring equal countermeasures, so as to change the passive and unfavorable situation, seek strategic balance, and strive for strategic victory.
Use the weak to defeat the strong and create a favorable situation. The strong wins and the weak loses is a basic rule. If the weak side wants to take the initiative or reverse the decline, it must not fight the strong with the weak or fight against the stone with the egg. Actively adopting a hybrid warfare strategy is an excellent choice. Especially in the context of the accelerated evolution of the global integration process, the links between countries are closer, involving political, economic, social, cultural, military and many other fields. The exchanges are becoming closer, which also provides important practical support for the use of hybrid warfare. Although the weak side is in a disadvantaged position in overall strength, it can rely on its strengths in certain areas and insist on “you fight yours, I fight mine”, and plan and layout with flexible and proactive struggle strategies to trap and disturb the enemy, so that the enemy cannot play all its advantages, so as to change the situation of the comparison of strong and weak forces, strive for strategic balance, or strive for a strategic opportunity window for national security development and create favorable conditions.
Gaining system advantage through joint all-domain warfare
Since the US Army proposed multi-domain warfare (MDB) in 2016, the US military has successively proposed a number of joint combat concepts, from multi-domain operations (MDO), to all-domain operations (ADO), and then to joint all-domain operations (JADO). The essence of the concept of joint all-domain operations is the deep joint operations of multiple services, with the aim of achieving multi-domain coordination and cross-domain integration in all fields such as land, sea, air, space, network, and electricity, and winning modern wars with system advantages.
Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) is
An important supporting concept of the Joint Global Domain Operations concept
Cross-domain coordination is the cornerstone of victory in joint all-domain warfare. Unlike traditional joint operations that pursue the coordination between various services, joint all-domain operations pursue the coordination between various combat domains. Through multi-domain coordination and cross-domain coordination, we seek overall advantages over the enemy and achieve system victory. It is mainly manifested in the following two points: On the one hand, it is asymmetric checks and balances. Emphasis on asymmetric operations, avoid “tit-for-tat” head-on confrontation with opponents of equal strength in traditional combat fields, emphasize strengths and avoid weaknesses, give play to advantages in key fields such as network, electromagnetic and space, make good use of advantages in new fields such as artificial intelligence and biosecurity, and use advantages in key and critical fields to support joint operations to win. On the other hand, it is system checks and balances. The key to achieving cross-domain coordinated operations is to deeply integrate the space, network, and electromagnetic fields with traditional land, sea and air battlefields through joint all-domain command and control, ensure that joint task forces can efficiently use various combat capabilities in the six major combat domains of land, sea, air, space, network and electricity, replace “capability superposition” with “capability integration”, target the enemy’s shortcomings, and integrate the system to produce an overall effect that is better than the sum of its parts.
Prioritized decision-making is the magic weapon for defeating the enemy in joint all-domain warfare. The key to defeating the enemy in joint all-domain warfare is to ensure the advantage of one’s own decision-making and prioritize decision-making. The first is to gain information advantage. Joint all-domain command and control can integrate intelligence information from various domains, form a comprehensive and detailed battlefield situation map through correlation analysis and fusion integration, support commanders’ comprehensive situation awareness, and achieve information advantage.
The second is to establish decision-making advantages. Based on comprehensive and detailed battlefield situation information, with the support of intelligent decision-making assistance, commanders can make scientific and rapid decisions, form plans, and give priority to implementing efficient actions. Different from the traditional OODA theory of “achieving combat advantages by accelerating the OODA cycle”, the joint global command and control is committed to establishing a more efficient “DA cycle”, that is, by establishing an adaptive feedback process between decision-making (D link) and action (A link), determining actions based on decisions, and in turn adjusting decisions in a timely manner based on feedback from action results, and constantly accelerating this cycle, ensuring that while improving their own decision-making efficiency, the enemy is put into a “decision-making dilemma” to achieve the purpose of disturbing and defeating the enemy, thereby establishing decision-making advantages.
Finally, the use of advanced intelligent algorithms strengthens this advantage. Data processing algorithms make situational awareness and intelligence analysis more insightful, intelligent game algorithms make combat planning and auxiliary decision-making more creative, and autonomous control algorithms make force organization and task implementation more executable. It can be said that advanced intelligent algorithms are deeply integrated into all links of the kill chain of observation, judgment, decision-making, attack and evaluation, making the decision-making advantage of joint global operations further highlighted.
Agile command and control is an important support for joint global warfare. Joint global command and control is an important support for joint global operations to achieve agile and efficient command and control. Traditional command and control methods are difficult to achieve cross-domain integration of battlefield perception data, difficult to meet the requirements of cross-service integrated command and control, and difficult to cope with the complexity and timeliness of future operations. Joint global command and control aims to connect all sensors and shooters in real time, ensure seamless communication within the land, sea, air, space, electricity, and network combat domains, within each service, between services, and between allies, coordinate military operations, and strive to build a “network of networks” that supports unmanned intelligent operations.
On the one hand, cross-domain integrated command and control is realized. Joint global command and control focuses on realizing end-to-end information conversion and communication across services, evolving from a linear, static, chimney-style kill chain to a global interconnected kill network. Each service can flexibly call on sensors and strike platforms that are not built by itself, greatly enriching the reconnaissance means and strike options of a single service, while reducing target selection errors and significantly accelerating the OODA loop.
On the other hand, it can make decisions and take actions faster than the opponent. Joint global command and control greatly improves the perception and judgment capabilities in the OODA link through global multi-dimensional intelligence collection and efficient autonomous situation fusion. At the same time, it adopts a mesh communication structure with multi-path synchronous transmission to replace the traditional highly centralized communication nodes, optimize information distribution and sharing, speed up the effective information flow rate, make decisions and take actions before the enemy, and achieve the goal of defeating the enemy with speed.
原創現代國語：
战争制胜机理，是指战争的制胜规律、路径以及方式方法。受到科技进步的推动、武器装备的变革、战争目的的变化等因素的制约，现代战争制胜机理也随之发生变化。习主席深刻指出：“现代战争确实发生了深刻变化。这些变化看上去眼花缭乱，但背后是有规律可循的，根本的是战争的制胜机理变了。”今天，以美国为首的世界军事强国都在加紧作战概念设计研究。深入分析新兴作战概念内涵特点，挖掘其内在逻辑，找准现代战争制胜机理，对于把握世界新军事变革机遇，打赢未来战争，意义重大。
以认知战塑造认知先导优势
认知战聚焦意识思维层面的对抗，通过传递选择性加工后的信息，影响决策判断、改变价值观念、争夺人心向背，进而引导战争态势向利于己而不利于敌的方向发展。认知战是敌我双方在认知领域展开的攻防作战，对抗的核心是意识形态领域主导权的争夺，重点是加强认知攻击，同时兼顾认知防御。
主导意识形态领域是认知战的核心。一是引导政治认知。意识形态决定了认知的理性根基。围绕意识形态领域主导权的争夺成为敌我认知对抗的核心，重点是塑造有利于已的政治信念、战争态度和价值观念。政治认知引导旨在对政党合法性、执政理念合理性、政治生态健康性等内容的刻画，凝聚或破坏政治共识、坚定或动摇政治信念、拓展或瓦解政治阵营，培植对政治立场、信仰、理念等的认同或否定情感，铺设利己、不利于敌的政治认知布局。
二是引导价值认知。战争认知引导旨在塑造战争本质、性质、法理依据等内容，引导各方对战争正义性、合法性的价值评判，影响助战或反战舆论走向，调控民众承担战争义务意愿的强弱。价值认知引导旨在围绕价值观念评判与取向展开激烈争夺，通过传播伦理道德、是非善恶、人性美丑等内容，谋求社会普遍情感认同。
战争认知引导旨在塑造
战争本质、性质、法理依据等
迫诱认知攻心夺志是认知战的重点。认知攻击是认知战的重点，围绕攻击内容和方法，采取有重点的进攻，对于塑造敌方错误认知，形成有利于我之态势，意义重大。从内容上看，迫诱认知应重点围绕社会群类心理开展造势活动。通过塑造认知差异谋求不同民族、不同种族、不同地域、不同阶层、不同群体之间的对立心理，积累社会各界对政权当局的不满情绪，破坏国家内部的团结稳定，诱发社会动荡分裂。从方法上看，应在“平时”认知迫诱的基础上，聚焦“战时”攻心夺志。
战时认知攻击的对象不仅包括参战力量，还包括战争支持力量。针对参战力量，应靶向瞄准敌各级指挥员，通过认知操控、信息欺骗、利诱劝降等方式，削弱其抵抗意志，干扰其指挥决策，达成瓦解敌军目的；针对战争支持力量，应广泛运用电台、广播、新媒体等媒介，宣传重大战果、敌方溃败逃散、惨烈战场画面等内容，诱发民众恐慌厌战情绪，削弱敌战争潜力。
筑牢防线凝心控局是认知战的根基。认知战的重点是攻，而基础是守。在加强对敌方认知攻击的同时，还应重点做好认知防御。认知防御的重点是筑牢防线、稳控大局。针对参战力量，应注重发挥政治工作优势，广泛开展政治动员，激发官兵英勇无畏、奋勇杀敌的精神传承和保家卫国、舍身忘死的意志品质，积极开展立功受奖树立典型榜样，鼓舞军心士气；针对社会支撑力量，应广泛宣传战争正义性、合法性，不断强化爱国主义教育，激发全民责任意识和忧患意识，凝心聚魂。
此外，还应采取积极有效的行动，最大限度争取国际社会的支持。国际社会的支持，虽然主要依靠政治、外交活动争取，但积极开展人道主义救援，广泛传播己方立场态度与价值理念，往往能够推动国际社会态度的转变，为争取最广泛的国际社会支持创造有利条件。
以混合战确立战略主动优势
混合战争是综合运用政治、经济、外交、科技、文化、军事等多样化手段，将网络战、舆论战、经济战、科技战以及隐蔽的常规军事行动结合起来，搅局乱局，破坏对手战争潜力，以最终达成战略目的的战争。在强弱对抗竞争中，有效运用混合战争，不仅可以塑造有利战略态势，对冲大国战略竞争，而且能够达成不战而屈人之兵的绝佳效果，确立战略主动优势。
混合战争是多样化手段的综合运用
以强胜弱，不战屈人之兵。战争，是国家或者政治集团之间为了达成一定的政治目的，使用武装力量进行的大规模激烈交战的军事斗争。这种传统战争样式以军事硬实力比拼作为主要斗争手段，虽然能够快捷直观地达成战略目的，但极有可能出现“伤敌一千自损八百”的被动局面，且容易招致国际舆论谴责和全面制裁。特别是在强弱对抗竞争中，强者一方本就占据绝对优势，这不仅体现在军事领域，而且体现在政治、经济、外交、科技、文化等诸多领域。因此，以军事实力为支撑的非常规混合战争展现出愈发灵活多样的运用可能性。善用混合战争，就是在掌握我之优势、敌之劣势的基础上，优先选用政治、外交、经济、舆论等能够扬长避短的非军事手段，以已之长攻敌之短，追求“少战”或“不战”而屈人之兵。
以强对强，对冲大国竞争。当今世界正处于大发展大变革时期，大国关系进入全方位角力新阶段，有的军事强国为维护其单级霸权地位，加紧拉拢分化，蓄意挑起争端，并不断运用混合战争手段遏制打压竞争对手，加剧大国竞争紧张局势。在强与强的力量对抗中，要想不落下风，就必须拿起混合战争这个利器，以彼之道还施彼身。要积极确立混合战争思维理念，摸清搞透敌混合战争特点规律，在对比掌握敌我底数优长的基础上，灵活运用混合战争策略，以我之优势对敌之劣势，在确保对等反制的基础上，妥善加强战略防范与应对，以此改变被动不利局面，谋求战略均势，争取战略胜势。
以弱胜强，塑造有利态势。强胜弱败是基本法则。弱势一方要想占据主动或是扭转颓势，断然不能以弱碰硬、以卵击石，积极采取混合战争策略不失为一种绝佳选择。尤其是在全球一体化进程加速演进背景下，各国之间的联系更加紧密，涉及政治、经济、社会、文化、军事等诸多领域间的往来愈发密切，这也为混合战争运用提供了重要现实支撑。弱势一方虽然总体实力处于劣势地位，但可凭借某些领域的优长，坚持“你打你的，我打我的”，以灵活主动的斗争策略谋篇布局，困敌、扰敌，使敌无法发挥全部优势，以此改变强弱力量对比态势，努力争取战略均势，或是为国家安全发展争取战略机遇窗口期，创造有利条件。
以联合全域战赢得体系优势
自2016年美陆军提出多域战（MDB）以来，美军先后提出多个联合作战概念，从多域作战（MDO），到全域作战（ADO），再到联合全域作战（JADO），美军作战概念如雨后春笋般相继涌现。联合全域作战概念的本质是多军种深度联合作战，目的是实现陆、海、空、天、网、电等全领域的多域协同与跨域融合，以体系优势制胜现代战争。
联合全域指挥控制（JADC2）是
联合全域作战概念的重要支撑概念
跨域协同是联合全域战的制胜基石。与传统联合作战追求各军种之间的联合不同，联合全域作战追求的是各作战域之间的联合，通过多域联合、跨域协同，谋求整体对敌优势，实现体系制胜。主要表现为以下两点：一方面是非对称制衡。强调非对称作战，避免与实力相当的对手在传统作战领域展开“针尖对麦芒”的以硬碰硬，强调扬长避短，发挥网络、电磁和太空等关键领域优势，善用人工智能、生物安全等新型领域优势，以关键要害领域优势，支撑联合作战获得胜利。另一方面是体系制衡。实现跨域协同作战的关键是通过联合全域指挥控制将太空、网络、电磁领域与传统陆海空战场进行深度融合，确保联合任务部队在陆、海、空、天、网、电六大作战域内高效运用各种作战能力，以“能力集成”取代“能力叠加”，瞄准敌方短板弱项，体系融合发力，产生优于各部分总和的整体效果。
优先决策是联合全域战的克敌法宝。联合全域作战克敌的关键是确保己方决策优势，优先决策。首先是赢得信息优势。联合全域指挥控制能够融合来自各域的情报信息，通过关联分析、融合集成形成全面详实的战场态势图，支撑指挥员全面态势感知，实现信息优势。
其次是确立决策优势。指挥员基于全面详实的战场态势信息，在智能化辅助决策支持下，科学快速定下决心，形成方案计划，并优先落实高效行动。不同于“通过加快OODA循环以达成作战优势”的传统OODA理论，联合全域指挥控制致力于建立更为高效的“DA循环”，即通过在决策（D环节）和行动（A环节）之间建立自适应的反馈过程，依据决策确定行动，反过来根据行动结果反馈及时调整决策，并不断加速这一循环，确保在提高自身决策效率的同时，使敌陷入“决策困境”，达到扰敌、制敌目的，以此确立决策优势。
最后，先进智能算法的运用强化了这一优势。数据处理算法让态势感知和情报分析更有洞察力，智能博弈算法让作战筹划和辅助决策更有创造力，自主控制算法让兵力编组和任务实施更有执行力。可以说，先进智能算法深度融入观察、判断、决策、打击和评估杀伤链的各个环节，使得联合全域作战决策优势进一步凸显。
敏捷指控是联合全域战的重要支撑。联合全域指挥控制是联合全域作战实现敏捷高效指挥控制的重要支撑。传统的指控手段难以实现战场感知数据的跨域集成，难以满足跨军种一体化指挥控制要求，也难以应对未来作战的复杂性和时效性。而联合全域指挥控制旨在将所有传感器与射手实时地连接起来，确保在陆、海、空、天、电、网各作战域内，各军种内部、各军种间以及盟友之间，实现无缝通信，协调一致开展军事行动，努力构建支撑无人化智能化作战的“网络之网络”。
一方面，实现跨域一体化指挥控制。联合全域指挥控制聚焦实现跨军种的端到端信息转换与通信，从线性、静态、烟囱式的杀伤链向全域互联的杀伤网演进，各军种能够灵活调用非自身建制的传感器和打击平台，极大丰富了单一军种的侦察手段和打击选项，在降低目标选取失误的同时，显著加快OODA环。
另一方面，比对手更快完成决策和行动。联合全域指挥控制通过全域多维情报收集、高效自主态势融合，极大提升OODA链路中的感知和判断能力。同时，采用多路径同步传输的网状通信结构取代传统高度集中的通信节点，优化信息分发共享，加快有效信息流转速率，先敌决策，先敌行动，实现以快制敌。
版权声明：本文刊于2024年 4 期《军事文摘》杂志，作者：陈志华，如需转载请务必注明“转自《军事文摘》”。