Tag Archives: Chinese Military Analsysis of US Military Cyber Warfare Capability

Chinese Military Analysis on the Strategic Application of Intelligent Warfare


中國軍事對智慧戰爭戰略應用的分析

現代英語:

An analysis of the use of strategies in intelligent warfare

■Chen Dongheng, Zhong Ya

Reading Tips: “Warfare is the art of deception”. War is a competition of comprehensive strength. Ancient Chinese military strategists have always attached great importance to “strategizing in the tent and winning thousands of miles away”, and all of them regard strategy as the way to victory. War practice shows that as long as war is a confrontation between humans, smart strategies will not withdraw from the battlefield. Today’s battlefield competition is about intelligent skills, and what is fought is smart strategies.

“The best military is to attack the enemy’s strategy, the next best is to attack the enemy’s alliance, the next best is to attack the enemy’s soldiers, and the worst is to attack the city.” Strategy, as a component of combat power and a weapon to win the war, runs through ancient and modern times and transcends national boundaries, and has an important function of influencing and determining the outcome of the war. Although the role of science and technology is more prominent in intelligent warfare, it does not exclude the use of strategy. With the support and guidance of strategy, the combat system is more efficient. In-depth research and mastery of the use of strategy in intelligent warfare will be more conducive to winning the initiative in intelligent warfare.

The status and role of the use of strategy in intelligent warfare

The essence of strategy lies in the intelligent release of power. Scientific strategy application can often defeat the majority with the minority, the big with the small, and the strong with the weak. The battlefield of intelligent warfare presents more transparency, more extended combat space, more diverse means of confrontation, and more complex winning mechanism. This provides a solid material foundation and technical support for the implementation of strategy, and the status and role of strategy are becoming more and more important.

The internal driving force of the army construction and development planning. Demand is the order of the army, and use is the commander of the weapon. How science and technology are innovated, how weapons and equipment are developed, and how the national defense forces are built are often driven by demand and forward-looking planning. For example, in order to make up for the gap between Russia and the United States in terms of overall air defense and anti-missile strength, Russia used “asymmetric” strategies to focus on penetration technology and developed the “Zircon” and “Dagger” hypersonic missiles before the United States. Facts show that the application of strategies mainly focuses on “Tao” and “Fa”. The more reasonable the design and the more scientific the application, the more it can stimulate the motivation, vitality and potential of innovation and creation, and trigger a revolution in science and technology, weapons and equipment, and military construction and combat methods. Only when intelligent warfare, scientific and technological innovation and weapons and equipment development are closely connected with the needs of scientific war strategies can they adhere to the correct direction and be better transformed into actual combat power.

A multiplier of the actual combat effectiveness of the combat system. In the combat power spectrum, strategy, as an important soft power, has the value and significance of providing scientific methodological guidance, appropriate time and opportunity selection and correct path support for the use of military hard power. For example, Iran once used the “dislocation” tactics to launch a large-scale retaliatory air strike against Israel, first using hundreds of cheap drones to attract the consumption of Israel’s expensive air defense system, and then using more advanced high-value ballistic missiles to penetrate, which improved the hit rate to a certain extent. Facts show that when facing an opponent with superior hard power, if the strategy is used properly, it can also achieve miraculous results; and the same hard power may have very different combat effectiveness when using different strategies and tactics. In intelligent warfare, although the “blade” of military hard power is faster, in order to make it more effective, it still needs to rely on more sophisticated strategic “sword skills”.

Dependent variables of hybrid warfare operations. Strategy can not only empower military hard power, but also has a strong direct combat function, and can even defeat the enemy without fighting by “soft killing”. For example, the United States once spent a lot of money to capture the leader of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, but he seemed to have disappeared from the world, and technical means could not determine his exact hiding place. He was finally tracked down by targeting his messenger through strategic use. The United States’ “live broadcast” “Spear of Poseidon” operation attempted to show the strength of the US military by killing Bin Laden to shock the international community. Intelligent warfare is a hybrid warfare, which has entered a new era of global live broadcast, universal participation, and full coverage. More and more countries are adopting strategic methods to enhance their own confidence and strike the opponent’s will to resist, and the strategic “soft kill” combat function is becoming more and more apparent.

Basic mechanism of intelligent warfare strategy application

Intelligent warfare, high-level development of artificial intelligence, rapid iteration, full spectrum penetration, and high-efficiency release, make the application of strategy have more dimensional support and stronger drive, showing a unique operation mechanism.

Cluster operation of strategy application. The application of strategy is based on the underlying logic of war operation and follows the law of evolution of the subject from individual to team and then to system. From a historical perspective, the application of strategy warfare in the cold weapon era relied more on the wisdom and experience accumulation of generals. Natural factors such as geography and weather are the main grasps of strategy operation. The burning of Red Cliff and borrowing arrows from straw boats are vivid footnotes. In the mechanized era, in order to adapt to the increasingly complex composition of military branches and the needs of fast-paced operations, the “General Staff” of senior military institutions dedicated to war planning services came into being. The “General Staff” in the two world wars is a typical representative. In the information age, the use of war strategies mainly relies on the control of information, and information power has become the main support behind strategic planning. In intelligent warfare, the comprehensiveness of technology application, the systematic nature of force planning, and the platform characteristics of game confrontation are more prominent, and the internal requirements are that the subject of strategy implementation should shift to a more powerful systematic platform.

Algorithm-driven strategy application. Strategy is based on strategy. The essence of planning is calculation, calculation of the world situation, calculation of military situation, calculation of development trend, calculation of strength and weakness, calculation of winning advantage… Whether it is calculation by human brain or machine, calculation by generals or calculation by teams, calculation is always the most critical supporting factor. Generally speaking, whoever has stronger computing power, more precise algorithms, and faster calculations can grab the “calculation” machine and win the victory. In the era of intelligent calculation, artificial intelligence participates in strategic decision-making with human-machine hybrid algorithms or machine algorithms, which greatly enhances the efficiency of calculation. It is based on this that major countries have focused on breakthroughs in artificial intelligence to win the future competition. These artificial intelligences, characterized by strong computing power, have great application potential in simulating battlefield situations, simulating war processes, and assisting decision-making and command. Only by guarding against the opponent’s technical aggression, vigorously improving our computing power, and adding the wings of algorithms to traditional strategies can we be invincible in the strategic game confrontation.

Intelligent support for the use of strategies. In intelligent warfare, strategies are based on the rapid development of artificial intelligence and its extensive military applications. It is a two-way “rush” of human strategic wisdom and “technical” wisdom. Now, the generals’ ingenuity and traditional staff work have become increasingly difficult to adapt to the needs of intelligent warfare. Comprehensive intelligent command and decision-making platforms have become an important support for the implementation of strategies. The command and decision-making system of the US military has developed into a large platform that integrates four-layer structural functions, including “intelligence support, information fusion, mission coordination, autonomous decision-making, action deployment, force allocation, situation adjustment, and real-time tracking”, and has become the brain of its “decision-making center warfare”. The Russian Federation Armed Forces Combat Command Center can dispatch and monitor the training and exercises of the entire army in real time, and undertake combat command tasks in low-intensity small-scale conflicts. It can be seen that intelligent support for strategic planning and strategy implementation has gradually taken shape. Intelligent strategic confrontation has put forward higher requirements for the professional integration of strategic subjects, and promoted the deep integration of human biological intelligence and artificial intelligence, which is “human-like intelligence”.

Main ways to use strategies in intelligent warfare

In intelligent warfare, the era background, supporting conditions, and action mechanisms of strategy application have undergone profound changes. The way of implementing strategies must keep pace with the times, strive to combine traditional strategic advantages with new technologies and new forms of warfare, innovate and expand scientific paths to effectively release strategic energy, and strive to plan quickly, plan carefully, and integrate strategy and attack.

Intelligent technology integration releases energy. That is, make full use of intelligent technology to empower and release energy for strategies. Generally speaking, the effective implementation of strategies is inseparable from accurate information perception, rapid personnel mobilization, and efficient force strikes. The innovative application of artificial intelligence enables people to see farther, hear more closely, know more, and calculate faster, making the army gather and disperse more quickly, move more covertly, and release power more rapidly, which is more conducive to the generation of strategies and the achievement of effectiveness. On the one hand, with the help of the rapidity and autonomy of artificial intelligence, the enemy situation can be quickly grasped through intelligent reconnaissance, the decision-making time can be greatly shortened by using machine algorithms, and the optimal strategy can be selected with the help of simulation deduction; on the other hand, relying on artificial intelligence to release and enhance the efficiency of strategies, modern brain control technology, deep fake technology, information confusion technology, public opinion guidance technology, etc., have greatly expanded the space and means of implementing strategies.

Human-machine complementation releases energy. That is, the strengths and weaknesses of human intelligence and machine intelligence complement each other and enhance efficiency and release energy. The biggest advantage of machine intelligence over human intelligence is that it can fight continuously without being affected by biological factors such as will, emotion, psychology, and physical strength. However, the “meta-intelligence” of human intelligence and its ability to adapt to changes are not possessed by machine intelligence. The two intelligence advantages complement each other and aggregate to form a powerful hybrid intelligence, which strongly supports the use of strategies in war. On the one hand, the “machine brain” safely and efficiently makes up for the shortcomings of the human brain; on the other hand, the human brain responds to special situations on the spot. Facts show that the biggest advantage of human intelligence over machine intelligence is that it can make decisions and deal with different situations on the spot, which just makes up for the shortcomings of machine intelligence. Only by combining the two can we form the optimal solution for intelligent calculation and gather the strongest strategic application.

The platform releases energy as a whole. It is to create a modular intelligent system, an integrated intelligent decision-making command action platform that integrates strategy generation and release. Intelligent warfare, every second counts, improves the time sensitivity of target strikes. The intelligent platform comprehensively uses intelligent computing and command automation technology to efficiently process massive data and complex battlefield situations, creating a “super brain” for commanders. It has significant advantages of good functional connection, high stability, fast operation speed, and high combat efficiency. It is a new quality combat force for strategic planning. Relying on the intelligent command and control system, it can make real-time decisions, form a list of time-sensitive targets, and independently solve the combat units and strike platforms that can be summoned and struck the fastest and best. The hardware and software can accurately strike the targets, and accurate strikes on time-sensitive targets can be achieved in real-time decisions, providing more options for assisting war decision-making and command.

(Author unit: Academy of Military Science)

現代國語:

試析智慧化戰爭的謀略運用

■陳東恆 鐘 婭

閱讀提示 「兵者,詭道也」。戰爭是綜合實力的比拼和競賽。我國古代兵家歷來重視“運籌帷幄之中,決勝千里之外”,無不把謀略視為取勝之道。戰爭實踐表明,只要戰爭是人類的對抗,智慧謀略就不會退出戰場。今天的戰場比拼,打的是智能技能,拼的更是智慧謀略。

「上兵伐謀,其次伐交,其次伐兵,其下攻城。」謀略作為戰鬥力的構件和製勝戰爭的利器,貫穿古今、超越國界,具有影響和決定戰爭勝負的重要功能。智能化戰爭中雖然科技的角色更突顯,但並不排斥謀略的運用,在謀略的支撐和引領推動下,作戰體系反而效率更高。深入研究掌握智慧化戰爭的謀略運用,更有利於贏得智慧化戰爭的主動權。

智慧化戰爭謀略運用的地位作用

謀略的本質在於力量的智慧化釋放。科學的謀略運用常能以少勝多、以小博大、以弱勝強。智慧化戰爭戰場呈現更透明、作戰空間更延展、對抗手段更多樣化、制勝機理更複雜等特點,這為施謀用計提供了堅實物質基礎和技術支撐,謀略的地位作用愈發重要。

軍隊建設發展規劃的內動力。需為軍之令,用為器之帥。科學技術如何創新、武器裝備怎樣發展、國防軍隊怎麼建設,常常由需求牽引、前瞻謀劃。例如,俄羅斯為彌補防空反導整體力量方面與美國的差距,運用「非對稱」謀略在突防技術上發力,先於美國研發出「鋯石」「匕首」高超聲速導彈。事實表明,謀略運用主要著力於“道”和“法”,其設計越合理、運用越科學,越能激發創新創造的動力、活力和潛力,引發科學技術、武器裝備和軍隊建設作戰方式的革命。智慧化戰爭,科技創新和武器裝備開發只有緊密對接科學的戰爭謀略需求,才能堅持正確的方向,更好地轉化為現實的戰鬥力。

作戰體系實戰效能的倍增器。在戰鬥力譜系中,謀略作為重要的軟力量,其存在的價值和意義在於為軍事硬實力運用提供科學的方法論指引、合適的時機場合選擇和正確的路徑支撐。例如,伊朗曾利用「錯置」戰法對以色列發動大規模報復性空襲,先是以數百架廉價無人機吸引消耗以軍昂貴的防空系統,繼而用更先進的高價值彈道導彈突防,一定程度上提高了命中率。事實顯示,面對硬實力佔優的對手,如果謀略運用得當也能收到奇效;而同樣的硬實力運用不同的策略戰法,作戰效能可能大相徑庭。智慧化戰爭,雖然軍事硬實力的「刀鋒」更快,但要使其發揮更大戰鬥效能,還需藉助更高明的謀略「刀法」。

混合戰爭作戰運籌的因變數。謀略不僅能為軍事硬實力賦能,本身還有強大的直接作戰功能,甚至能以「軟殺傷」不戰而屈人之兵。例如,美國曾重金緝拿基地組織頭目本·拉登,但他好像人間蒸發一樣,技術手段無法確定其確切藏身處,最終通過謀略運用盯上其信使才追踪到。而美國「直播」「海神之矛」作戰行動,則企圖透過擊殺賓拉登來展現美軍的強大,以震撼國際社會。智慧化戰爭是混合戰爭,已經進入全球直播、全民參與、全域覆蓋的全新時代,越來越多的國家採取謀略方式增強己方信心、打擊對手抵抗意志,謀略「軟殺傷」的作戰功能越加顯現。

智慧化戰爭謀略運用的基本機理

智慧化戰爭,人工智慧的高階位元發展、快速度迭代、全頻譜滲透、高效能釋放,使謀略運用有了更多維的支撐、更強大的驅動,展現出獨特的運行機理。

謀略運用的集群作業。謀略的運用,既基於戰爭運行的底層邏輯,也遵循施動主體從個體到團隊再到體系的流轉演進規律。從歷史上看,冷兵器時代的謀略戰爭運用,更多靠將帥的智謀和經驗積累,地理、天候等自然因素是謀略運籌的主要抓手,火燒赤壁、草船借箭就是其生動註腳。機械化時代,適應日益復雜的軍兵種構成和快節奏作戰需要,專司戰爭謀劃服務的高級軍事機構“參謀部”便應運而生,兩次世界大戰中“總參謀部”就是其中的典型代表。資訊化時代謀略的戰爭運用,依靠的主要是對資訊的掌控,資訊力成為謀略運籌背後的主要支撐力。智慧化戰爭,技術應用的綜合性、力量運籌的體系性、博弈對抗的平台化特徵更加突出,內在要求謀略的施動主體向功能更強大的體系化平台轉進。

謀略運用的演算法驅動。謀略以謀為關鍵。謀的本質是算,算天下大勢、算軍事態勢、算發展趨勢、算強弱勝勢、算制勝優勢……無論是人腦算還是機器算、將帥算還是團隊算,算始終是最關鍵的支撐要素。一般情況下,誰的算力更強、演算法更精、算計更快,誰就能搶得「算」機、贏得勝算。智能化時代的算,人工智慧以人機混合演算法或機器演算法參與謀略決算,極大增強了算的效率。正是基於此,各主要國家紛紛把贏得未來競爭的成長點聚焦到人工智慧突破上。這些以強算力為特徵的人工智慧,在模擬戰場態勢、模擬戰爭進程、輔助決策指揮上有極大應用潛力。謹防對手技術突襲,大力提高我們的算力,為傳統謀略插上演算法的翅膀,才能在謀略博弈對抗中立於不敗之地。

謀略運用的智慧支撐。智慧化戰爭,謀略基於的是人工智慧迅猛發展及其廣泛軍事應用,是人的謀略之智與「技術」之智的雙向「奔赴」。現在,將帥的神機妙算、傳統的參謀作業,已經越來越難以適應智能化戰爭需要,綜合性的智能化指揮決策平台,成為施謀用計的重要支撐。美軍的指揮決策體系,已經發展成為融「情報保障、資訊融合,任務協調、自主決策,行動展開、力量配屬,態勢調整、實時跟踪」等四層結構功能於一體的大平台,成為其「決策中心戰”的大腦。俄羅斯聯邦武裝力量作戰指揮中心,可即時調度監控全軍訓練演習,並在低強度小規模沖突中擔負作戰指揮任務。可見,智慧支撐謀略運籌、策略實施逐步形成。智慧化謀略對抗,對謀略主體的專業化整合性提出了更高要求,推動人的生物智慧與人工智慧這一「類人智慧」深度融合結合。

智慧化戰爭謀略運用的主要方式

智慧化戰爭,謀略運用的時代背景、支撐條件、作用機理等發生了深刻變化。施謀用計的方式必須與時俱進,努力把傳統謀略優勢與新的技術、新的戰爭形態結合起來,創新拓展有效釋放謀略能量的科學路徑,致力先知快謀、精謀巧打、謀打融合。

智技融合釋能。就是充分利用智慧科技為謀略賦能釋能。通常而言,謀略的有效實施離不開準確的資訊感知、迅捷的人員調動、高效的力量打擊。人工智慧的創新應用,使人看得更遠、聽得更切、知得更多、算得更快,使軍隊集散更迅速、行動更隱蔽、力量釋放更迅猛,更加有利於謀略生成和謀效達成。一方面,借助人工智慧的快速性、自主性,透過智慧偵察迅速掌握敵情,運用機器演算法極大縮短決策時間,借助模擬推演優選謀略方案;另一方面,依靠人工智慧為謀略釋放增效,現代控腦技術、深度偽造技術、資訊迷茫技術、輿論引導技術等,極大拓展了施謀用計的空間與手段。

人機互補釋能。就是人體智能與機器智能長短互補、增效釋能。機器智能與人體智能相比的最大優勢在於,能不受意志、情緒、心理、體力等生物因素的影響連續作戰。而人體智能的「元智能」及其隨機應變的能力則為機器智能所不具備。兩種智能優勢互補聚合形成強大的混合智能,強力支撐謀略的戰爭運用。一方面,「機腦」安全高效補人腦不足;另一方面,人腦臨機應對處置特殊情況。事實表明,人體智慧相比機器智慧的最大優勢在於面對不同情況能臨機決策處置,這恰好彌補了機器智慧的不足。只有把兩者結合起來,才能形成智慧運算最優解,聚成謀略運用最強能。

平台一體釋能。就是打造模塊化的智慧系統,整合謀略生成、釋放的一體化智慧決策指揮行動平台。智慧化戰爭,分秒必爭,提高了目標打擊時敏感性。智慧化平台綜合運用智慧化計算和指揮自動化技術,高效處理海量數據及復雜戰場態勢,為指揮員打造“超強大腦”,具有功能銜接好、穩定程度高、運行速度快、作戰效率高的顯著優勢,是謀略運籌的新質作戰力量。依托智能化指揮控制系統能夠實時決斷,形成時敏目標清單,自主解算能夠最快召喚、最優打擊的作戰單元、打擊平台,軟硬一體對目標進行精確打擊,在實時決斷中實現對時敏目標的精確打擊,為輔助戰爭決策指揮提供了更多選項。

(作者單位:軍事科學院)

中國原創軍事資源:https://www.81.cn/ll_208543/16345416888.html

Chinese Military Strategy for Identifying Key Targets During Cognitive Confrontation Campaign Planning

中國在認知對抗戰役規劃中確定關鍵目標的軍事戰略

現代英語音譯:

Cognitive domain combat targets refer to the specific role of cognitive domain combat. In cognitive domain combat, compared with combat targets, combat targets solve the problem of precise aiming, that is, to let commanders understand and grasp the precise coordinates of what to hit, where to hit, and to what extent. Only by deeply understanding the connotation and characteristics of cognitive domain combat targets can we accurately find key targets through appearances and thus seize the initiative in future combat.

Cognitive focus that influences behavioral choices

The cognitive focus is the “convergence point” of the cognitive subject’s multi-dimensional thinking cognition in war activities. As a dynamic factor, it affects the cognitive process and behavioral results. Generally speaking, the cognitive factors that affect individual behavioral choices in war activities mainly include political attribute cognition, interest-related cognition, group belonging cognition, risk loss cognition, emotional orientation cognition, war morality cognition, etc. For war activities and groups or individuals who pay attention to war activities, the cognitive focus that affects their attitudes, tendencies and behaviors is not the same. Judging from the local wars and regional conflicts in the world in recent years, there are obvious differences in the cognitive focus of different groups or individuals. Politicians pay more attention to political attribute cognition and interest-related cognition, those who may intervene in the war pay more attention to risk loss cognition and interest-related cognition, ordinary people pay more attention to interest-related cognition and emotional orientation cognition, and people in other countries outside the region generally pay more attention to war morality cognition and group belonging cognition because their own interests will not be directly lost. In combat practice, foreign militaries are good at targeting the cognitive focus of different objects, accurately planning topics, and pushing related information to induce specific behavioral choices. For example, before the Gulf War, the Hill Norton public relations company fabricated the non-existent “incubator incident” by using Naira, the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States, as a “witness” to show the “inhumanity” of the Iraqi army, induce the American people’s ethical and moral cognition, and then support the US government to send troops to participate in the Gulf War.

Style preferences that constrain command decisions

Cognitive style directly affects decision-making behavior preferences. Cognitive style refers to the typical way of individual cognition, memory, thinking, and problem solving. According to the preference of command decision-making style, commanders can be divided into calm cognitive style and impulsive cognitive style. Commanders with calm cognitive style pay attention to accuracy but not speed in the decision-making process. The quality of the decisions they make is high, but they are prone to fall into the comparison and analysis of various intelligence information sources and overemphasize the accuracy and objectivity of information analysis. Commanders with calm cognitive style are often easily disturbed by the diverse and diverse information stimulation in battlefield cognitive offensive and defensive operations, and their mental energy is easily disturbed and dissipated, which may lead to missed opportunities. Commanders with impulsive cognitive style pay attention to speed but not accuracy. The decision-making reaction speed is fast, but the quality is not high. They are easily emotional and prone to conflict with team members. Commanders with impulsive cognitive style are also prone to over-interpret the ambiguous external security environment, and constantly look for “evidence” to strengthen and verify individual erroneous thinking, narrowing individual attention and leading to command decision-making deviations. In combat practice, foreign armies pay more attention to analyzing the decision-making style of commanders of combat opponents, and then select specific information to influence them psychologically. For example, during the U.S. invasion of Panama, when besieging the hiding place of Panamanian President Noriega, the U.S. military repeatedly played rock and heavy metal music, and used language that stimulated and humiliated Noriega to carry out cognitive and psychological attacks on him, causing Noriega to gradually collapse physically and mentally.

Backdoor channel to control thinking and cognition

Once a computer is infected with a “Trojan” virus, it will send a connection request to the hacker control terminal at a specific time. Once the connection is successful, a backdoor channel will be formed, allowing the hacker to control the computer at will. Similarly, the human brain also has a cognitive “backdoor” and may be controlled by others. Cognitive psychologists have found that by sending information to the target object’s audio-visual perception channel, carefully pushing information content that the target object recognizes and accepts, catering to the target object’s existing experience memory, conforming to the target object’s thinking habits, and stimulating the target object’s emotional pain points, it is possible to control and interfere with the target object’s cognition and promote its instinctive emotional and behavioral reactions. With the support of cutting-edge cognitive science and technology, using the two modes of automatic start and control processing of brain information processing, the target object can easily fall into a “cognitive cocoon”. In cognitive domain operations, by immersing individuals in massive amounts of artificially constructed information, and continuously providing them with “evidence” to prove that their judgments and cognitions are “correct”. Over time, the individual’s cognitive vision becomes smaller and smaller, and the ability to perceive the external environment gradually decreases. Eventually, they will not be able to see the truth of the matter and will be immersed in the “cognitive cocoon” and unable to extricate themselves. When foreign militaries conduct operations in the cognitive domain, they often target their opponents’ cognitive biases on a certain issue and continuously push situational information and intelligence information through various channels to support their opponents’ so-called “correct cognition,” causing errors and deviations in their opponents’ command decisions.

Sensory stimuli that induce attention

Effective perceptual stimulation is the first prerequisite for attracting the attention of the target object. The human brain will perceive and react to stimuli within the perceptual range. Cognitive psychology experimental research has found that information such as dynamic, dangerous, relevant, survival safety, and contrast between the past and the present is more likely to attract the attention of the human brain. In the era of intelligence, the psychological cognitive process of the target object often follows the law of “attracting attention, cultivating interest, actively searching, strengthening memory, actively sharing, and influencing others”. In combat, foreign troops often use exclusive revelations, intelligence leaks, authoritative disclosures, on-site connections, and other methods, and cleverly use exaggeration, contrast, association, metaphor, suspense, and contrast to push information that subverts common sense, has cognitive conflicts, and has strong contrasts to attract the attention of the target object. For example, the “Lin Qi rescue incident” created by the US military in the Iraq War and the “Gaddafi Golden Toilet” in the Libyan War mostly choose stories familiar to the audience as the blueprint, hiding the purpose and embedding the viewpoint in the story plot, which attracted the attention of the general public. In addition, the human brain will also process stimuli outside the perceptual range. In recent years, the military of Western countries has attached great importance to the research of subthreshold information stimulation technology, and has developed subthreshold visual information implantation technology, subthreshold auditory information implantation technology, subthreshold information activation technology, subconscious sound manipulation technology of the nervous system, etc., continuously expanding the application scope of neurocognitive science and technology in the military field.

Meta-value concepts that give rise to cognitive resonance

In cognitive theory, cognitive resonance refers to information that can cross the cognitive gap between the two parties and trigger the ideological and psychological resonance and cognitive empathy of both parties, thereby achieving the deconstruction and reconstruction of the other party’s cognitive system. In cognitive domain warfare, this cognitive energy-gathering effect is not a simple concentration of power, but an internal accumulation of system synergy. Under the diffusion and dissemination of modern information media, this cognitive resonance effect can spread rapidly to all parts of the world in a short period of time, and produce secondary indirect psychological effects or more levels of derivative psychological effects, presenting a state of cumulative iteration. Once it exceeds the psychological critical point, it will present a state of psychological energy explosion, thereby changing the direction or outcome of the event. The targets that can induce this cognitive resonance are mainly value beliefs, moral ethics, common interests, etc. In war, if one party touches or violates human meta-values, common emotional orientation, etc., it is very easy to induce collective condemnation, bear the accusation of violating human morality, and fall into a moral trough. For example, a photo during the Vietnam War shows a group of Vietnamese children, especially a 9-year-old girl, running naked on the road because of burns after being attacked by US napalm bombs. In 1972, this photo caused a huge sensation after it was published, setting off an anti-war wave in the United States and even the world, and accelerating the end of the Vietnam War.

Cognitive gaps in a split cognitive system

In daily life, seemingly hard steel is very easy to break due to the brittleness of the material due to factors such as low temperature environment, material defects, and stress concentration. The same is true for the cognitive system. Cognitive gaps refer to the cracks, pain points, weaknesses, and sensitive points in the cognitive thinking of the target object, which are mainly manifested as the individual’s worry that he is unable to cope with or adapt to the environment, and under the influence of anxiety, cognitive vulnerability is formed. The experience of security threats, the looseness of group structure, the confusion of beliefs and ideals, and the loss of voice of authoritative media will all cause cognitive conflicts and tearing of the target object. In cognitive domain operations, sometimes seemingly powerful combat opponents hide a large number of thinking cracks and psychological weaknesses behind them. Often a news event can shake the cognitive framework of the combat opponent and puncture the cognitive bubble. In addition, this cognitive psychological conflict will also cause moral damage and psychological trauma to individuals. In recent years, the U.S. and Western countries’ troops carrying out overseas missions have faced “enemies disguised as civilians” that appear anytime and anywhere, and their uncertainty about the battlefield environment has continued to increase. They generally lack the perception of the significance of combat, and are filled with guilt and sin. A large number of soldiers developed post-traumatic stress disorder, and the number of self-harm, post-war suicides and crimes on the battlefield increased sharply. The number of veterans who committed suicide even exceeded the number of deaths on the battlefield. (Author’s unit: Political College of National Defense University)

Source: PLA Daily, National Defense University

繁體中文:

認知域作戰標靶是指認知域作戰的具體作用指向。在認知域作戰中,相較於作戰對象,作戰標靶解決的問題是精確瞄準,也就是讓指揮官了解掌握具體打什麼、往哪裡打、打到什麼程度的精準座標問題。只有深刻理解認知域作戰標靶的內涵特點,才能透過表象準確找到關鍵標靶,以便在未來作戰中掌握先機。

影響行為選擇的認知重心

認知重心是戰爭活動中認知主體多元思維認知的“匯聚點”,作為一種能動因素影響認知進程和行為結果。一般而言,影響戰爭活動中個人行為選擇的認知因素,主要包含政治屬性認知、利益關聯認知、群體歸屬認知、風險損失認知、情緒定向認知、戰爭道德認知等。對於戰爭活動以及關注戰爭活動的群體或個體而言,影響其態度、傾向和行為的認知重心並不相同。從近年來的世界局部戰爭和地區衝突來看,不同群體或個體關注的認知重心有著明顯差異,政治人物更加關注政治屬性認知和利益關聯認知,戰爭可能介入者更關注風險損耗認知和利益關聯認知,一般民眾更關注利益關聯認知和情感定向認知,而域外他國民眾由於自身利益不會受到直接損失,普遍更關注戰爭道德認知和群體歸屬認知。外軍在作戰實踐中,善於針對不同對象的認知重心,精準策劃主題,推送關聯訊息,誘發特定的行為選擇。如同在海灣戰爭前,希爾·諾頓公關公司炮製了根本不存在的“育嬰箱事件”,就是利用科威特駐美大使的女兒娜伊拉“做證”,展現伊拉克軍隊的“慘無人道”,誘發美國民眾的倫理道德認知,進而支持美國政府派兵參加海灣戰爭。

制约指挥决策的风格偏好

认知风格直接影响决策行为偏好。认知风格是指个体认知、记忆、思维、解决问题的典型方式。根据指挥决策风格偏好,可以将指挥员分为冷静型认知风格和冲动型认知风格。冷静型认知风格的指挥员在决策过程中重视准确但不重视速度,作出的决策质量较高,但容易陷入对各类情报信息源的比对分析,过分强调信息分析的准确客观。冷静型认知风格的指挥员在战场认知攻防行动中,常常容易受到纷繁多元的信息刺激干扰,心智精力容易被扰乱和耗散,进而可能贻误战机。冲动型认知风格的指挥员重视速度但不重视准确度,作出的决策反应速度较快,但质量不高,且容易情绪激动,易与团队成员发生冲突。冲动型认知风格的指挥员还容易将模棱两可的外部安全环境进行过度曲解,并不断寻找“证据”强化和验证个体错误思维,使个体注意力变窄,导致出现指挥决策偏差。外军在作战实践中,比较注重分析作战对手指挥员决策风格,进而选择特定信息对其进行心理影响。如美军入侵巴拿马战争中,在围攻巴拿马总统诺列加躲藏处时,美军反复播放摇滚和重金属音乐,运用刺激和羞辱诺列加的语言对其进行认知打击和心理进攻,使诺列加身心逐渐崩溃。

控制思维认知的后门通道

电脑一旦中了“木马”病毒,会在特定时间向黑客控制端发送连接请求,一旦连接成功就会形成后门通道,使得黑客可以随心所欲地控制电脑。与之相似,人类大脑也存在认知“后门”,也可能被他人控制。认知心理学家研究发现,通过给目标对象视听感知通道发送信息,精心推送目标对象认可的、接受的信息内容,迎合目标对象已有的经验记忆,顺应目标对象思维习惯,刺激目标对象的情感痛点,就可以控制干扰目标对象认知,促其产生本能情绪行为反应。在尖端认知科学技术的支撑下,运用大脑信息加工的自动启动和控制加工两种模式,目标对象很容易陷入“认知茧房”之中。认知域作战中,通过让个体沉浸在人为构设的海量信息之中,并源源不断地为其提供“证据”用来佐证其判断和认知是“正确”的。长此以往,个体的认知视野就变得越来越小,对外部环境的感知能力逐渐降低,最终会看不到事情的真相,沉湎于“认知茧房”中无法自拔。外军在认知域作战中,常常针对作战对手对某一问题的认知偏差,持续通过多种渠道推送佐证作战对手自以为“正确认知”的态势信息和情报信息,使作战对手指挥决策出现失误和偏差。

诱发关注的感知觉刺激

有效的感知觉刺激是引发目标对象关注的首要前提。人类大脑对感知觉范围内的刺激会有所察觉,并做出各种反应。认知心理学实验研究发现,动态、危险、利益相关、生存安全、前后反差等类别信息更容易引起人类大脑的关注。智能化时代,目标对象的心理认知过程往往遵循“引起注意、培养兴趣、主动搜索、强化记忆、主动分享、影响他人”的规律。外军在作战中,往往运用独家爆料、情报泄露、权威披露、现场连线等方式,巧用夸张、对比、联想、比喻、悬念、衬托等手法,推送颠覆常识、认知冲突、对比强烈等信息,来引发目标对象关注。比如伊拉克战争中美军塑造的“营救女兵林奇事件”,利比亚战争中的“卡扎菲黄金马桶”,大多选择受众对象熟知的故事为蓝本,藏目的、寓观点于故事情节,吸引了广大民众的注意力。此外,人类大脑也会对感知觉范围外的刺激进行加工。近年来,西方国家军队非常重视感知觉阈下信息刺激技术的研究,开发研制了阈下视觉信息植入技术、阈下听觉信息植入技术、阈下信息启动技术、神经系统潜意识声音操控技术等,不断扩大神经认知科学技术在军事领域的应用范围。

催生认知共振的元价值理念

认知理论中,认知共振是指跨越双方认知鸿沟,能够引发双方思想心理与认知共鸣共情的信息,从而实现对对方认知体系的解构和重构。在认知域作战中,这种认知聚能效应不是简单意义上的力量集中,而是体系合力的内在积聚。在现代信息传媒的扩散传播作用下,这种认知共振效应能在短时期内迅速扩散到全球各地,并产生二次间接心理效应或更多层次的衍生心理效应,呈现出一种累积迭代的状态,一旦超过心理临界点,即呈现出心理能量爆发状态,从而改变事件走向或结果。能够诱发这种认知共振的靶标,主要有价值信念、道德伦理、共通利益等。战争中,如果某一方触及或违反人类元价值观、共同情感指向等,则极易诱发集体声讨,承担违背人类道德的指责,陷于道义低谷。如越南战争期间的一张照片,画面呈现的是遭遇美军凝固汽油弹袭击后,一群越南孩子特别是一名9岁女孩在公路上因为烧伤而裸体奔跑。1972年,这张照片刊登后引发巨大轰动,掀起美国乃至全球的反战浪潮,加速了越战的结束。

分裂認知體系的認知縫隙

日常生活中,看似堅硬的鋼鐵,受低溫環境、材質缺陷、應力集中等因素影響,非常容易因材料脆性而斷裂,認知體係也是如此。認知縫隙是指目標對象認知思考中的裂縫、痛點、弱點與敏感點,主要表現為個體擔心自己沒有能力應對或無法適應環境的想法,並在焦慮情緒的作用下,構成認知脆弱性。安全威脅的經驗、團體結構的鬆散、信念理想的迷惘、權威媒介的失聲等,都會使得目標物出現認知上的衝突與撕裂。認知域作戰中,有時看似強大的作戰對手,背後卻潛藏著大量的思維裂隙與心理弱點,往往一個新聞事件就能動搖作戰對手的認知框架,刺破認知泡沫。此外,這種認知心理衝突也會使個體產生道德損傷和心理創傷。近年來,執行海外任務的美西方國家軍隊面對隨時隨地出現的“偽裝成平民的敵人”,對戰場環境的不確定感不斷提升,普遍缺乏作戰意義感知,進而內心充滿內疚與罪惡。大量士兵產生戰爭創傷後壓力障礙,戰場自殘自傷、戰後自殺與犯罪人數激增,參戰老兵自殺人數甚至超過戰場死亡人數。 (作者單位:國防大學政治學院)

來源:解放軍報、國防大學

中國軍事資源:https://www.sohu.com/a/664090407_358040

Chinese Military Analysis of New Features and Trends of US Information Warfare

中國軍事分析美國資訊戰新特色新趨勢

由國語音譯為現代英語

Information warfare has become an important topic in today’s international politics and security. As the world’s largest military and intelligence agency, the United States has very strong strength and resources in information warfare. It is an important initiator and participant in information warfare, and its information warfare capabilities have attracted much attention. In addition to adjusting the goals of information warfare, comprehensively advancing in various ways, and integrating domestic departments to unify actions, the US government is also actively expanding its information warfare alliances, by absorbing more countries to form a broad information warfare alliance, enhancing the effectiveness of information warfare, and further restricting the activity environment of rival countries.

    【Key words】Information warfare, U.S. national strategy 【Chinese Library Classification Number】D815 【Document Identification Code】A

    After the Biden administration came to power, the US national strategy has been further strengthened in terms of offensiveness and targeting, which has also brought about many new changes in the US information warfare. On the one hand, the Biden administration proposed the “integrated containment” strategy in the national security strategy, and information warfare has become an important tool to contain opponents in diplomacy, intelligence, economy and trade. On the other hand, the United States uses the Internet as the main field and widely uses modern information technology to comprehensively promote information warfare in various ways, trying to influence and change the public opinion and cognition of the target country. In addition, the United States has also vigorously expanded its information warfare alliances and included more countries in its alliance system to further restrict the activity environment of its competitors. Domestic academic circles have also conducted some research on US information warfare, such as: discussing the development of US information warfare from the aspects of origin, method, technical support and equipment, analyzing the implementation basis of information warfare from the perspective of US information security strategy, or exploring the training of US military information warfare talents. However, there is still a lack of relevant discussions in the academic community on the new changes and trends of US information warfare in recent years, especially under the Biden administration. This article focuses on analyzing the new characteristics and new trends of US information warfare.

    The historical origins of the United States launching information warfare around the world

    On May 4, 2023, the latest report released by the National Virus Emergency Response Center and 360 Company disclosed the main technical means by which the CIA planned, organized and implemented “color revolution” events around the world, including a non-traditional regime change technology called “swarming”, which was used to encourage young people connected by the Internet to join the “shoot and change places” mobile protests. For a long time, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the United States has secretly implemented “peaceful evolution” and “color revolutions” around the world and continued to carry out espionage activities. Information communication and on-site command are the decisive factors affecting the success or failure of “peaceful evolution” and “color revolutions”. The United States’ communication technology and its media applications are in a leading position internationally, which provides unprecedented technical support for the US intelligence agencies to launch “peaceful evolution” and “color revolutions” abroad.

    Entering the 21st century, with the further development of the Internet, driven by social media, the speed, diversity and breadth of information dissemination have been unprecedentedly improved. All over the world, information can be shared and transmitted in real time. Due to the development of information technology, many countries have begun to realize the importance of information warfare: on the one hand, countries can contain opponents and create an information environment that is beneficial to their own country through information transmission and control. On the other hand, the mobility and uncontrollability of information will pose a threat to national security. Therefore, information warfare has become an important issue in today’s international politics and security. The United States has the world’s largest military and intelligence agencies, has very strong strength and resources in information warfare, is an important participant and initiator of information warfare, and its information warfare capabilities have attracted much attention.

    After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the United States mainly adopted a defensive posture in information warfare, strengthening the construction and security monitoring of network facilities to prevent attacks from terrorism and opponents. Although during the Obama and Trump administrations, the United States gradually moved from defense to active offense, proposing “preemptive” cyber sanctions against countries suspected of cyber attacks. However, judging from the National Cybersecurity Strategy released in March 2023, the United States focuses mainly on cyber deterrence, using “forward defense” to prevent attacks and infringements on key national facilities. According to media reports, when Musk announced the “amnesty” of Twitter, Meta, the parent company of another American social platform Facebook, announced a list of banned accounts, among which a group of accounts were related to the US military. This shows that the purpose, method and characteristics of the United States in information warfare are undergoing major changes, from cyber defense and deterrence to the field of influencing and shaping cognition.

    In 1995, Colonel Szafranski of the US Army defined information warfare as a conflict that directly attacks information systems to attack the knowledge or concept fields of the opponent. Information warfare can be conducted as part of a larger, more comprehensive hostile activity (such as cyber warfare), or as the only form of hostility. In 2021, Field, an expert at the Hoover Institution in the United States, also made a similar definition: information warfare aims to convey information to the target audience, which is selected to influence emotions, motivations, reasoning, attitudes, understandings, beliefs or behaviors, thereby promoting the interests of the actors. This shows that there is a general consensus among American elites on the form and purpose of information warfare, that is, to influence the cognitive system of the target object in a variety of ways. Previously, although the United States mainly adopted network defense and attack to target the opponent’s network facilities, with the changes in the international environment and the comprehensive strength of the United States, the United States gradually shifted the operational field and goals of information warfare to the cognitive system of the target country to create an international environment more favorable to the United States.

    Information warfare is an important part of the U.S. national strategy and changes with strategic adjustments.

    Information warfare is an important part of the US national strategy and an important means to achieve its national strategic goals. Today is an information age. Information and information technology not only determine the direction of social change, but are also key factors affecting competition between countries. Countries adjust their national strategies based on changes in the external environment and their own strength, and the content, characteristics, methods and fields of information warfare will also change accordingly.

    In 2016, the Obama administration issued a cybersecurity strategy called the National Cybersecurity Action Plan, which mainly includes: innovation and protection of networks, prevention of cybercrime, strengthening cybersecurity education, enhancing international cooperation and strengthening government cybersecurity management. During this period, the US government’s information warfare mainly focused on preventing cyber attacks from opponents and protecting its own network facilities and security. In September 2018, the Trump administration also issued the National Cybersecurity Strategy, which also emphasized the protection of network facilities and ensuring network security. However, in this strategy, Trump proposed the concept of “forward defense”. When it is believed that there is a possibility of an attack, the United States will take the lead in attacking the opponent, which means that the US information warfare has shifted from defense to active offense. In March 2023, the Biden administration released the latest National Cybersecurity Strategy, which further emphasized the offensive posture and greatly expanded the scope of information warfare. In this strategy, five pillars are proposed. In addition to protecting critical infrastructure and establishing international partnerships, it also emphasizes the need to combat and destroy threat actors, expand the scope of information warfare, expand public-private cooperation, combat adversaries through cooperation between public and private sectors, and shape market forces to promote security and resilience. This shows that in information warfare, the United States will further infiltrate the private sector through various means, promote American ideology and rules through the market and investment, and restrict the development environment of its competitors.

    After the Biden administration came to power, the US national strategy has also added more targeted and offensive elements. In the 2021 National Security Strategic Guidance, it is proposed to build a global strategy around the long-term competition with China and Russia; strengthen the US presence and cooperation in the Pacific region, while strengthening cooperation with Asian allies and partners to deal with the so-called “China threat”. The 2022 National Security Strategy clearly proposes the implementation of an “integrated containment strategy”, requiring the comprehensive use of comprehensive national security tools, including military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, trade and financial means, to prevent any potential challenges to the United States and its allies. According to this strategy, information warfare is no longer just a function of defending against adversary cyber attacks and protecting domestic infrastructure. Information warfare occupies an important position in the “integrated containment strategy”. It not only undertakes the function of military strikes, but will also become an important tool for containing opponents in diplomacy, intelligence, economy and trade.

    The United States is comprehensively advancing information warfare with cognitive systems as its target

    Some scholars believe that the Gulf War was the beginning of information warfare, but as early as during the Cold War, the United States had conducted large-scale information warfare against the Soviet Union. The United States used the media it controlled to carry out extensive and in-depth false news propaganda on the Soviet people, instilling American ideology, and to a certain extent affecting the cognition of the Soviet people. After the end of the Cold War, American decision-makers are believed to have gradually reduced their emphasis on the non-material elements of war because they have defeated their ideological opponents. In the following decades, regarding information warfare, the United States is more inclined to frame these activities in a narrower military context. The “integrated containment strategy” proposed by the Biden administration shows that relying solely on a defense-oriented strategy may no longer be enough to limit competitors. The United States intends to contain its opponents in all areas of national strength, including diplomacy, economy, and information. This comprehensive containment approach focuses on mobilizing all elements of national power in competition other than military means. It requires not only the coordination of various important U.S. agencies, including the Department of Defense, the State Department, the CIA, the FBI, and the U.S. Agency for International Development, but also conventional military capabilities – focusing on destroying the target country and occupying its territory. It also requires the development of unconventional military capabilities – competing for influence and legitimacy among the people of various countries, enhancing the influence of the United States by influencing and changing the cognitive system of the people of the target country, and thereby undermining the opponent’s information environment and decision-making ability.

    The information market assumes that people will process information rationally, but psychological research shows that people often do not do so. Instead, the information environment in which people live affects their cognition, decision-making, and behavior, and the information environment is the operational environment of information warfare. In recent years, the U.S. Department of Defense has adopted an increasingly comprehensive understanding of the information environment. In the updated definition of the information environment, it points out that it “contains and aggregates many social, cultural, cognitive, technological, and physical attributes that affect the knowledge, understanding, beliefs, worldview, and ultimate actions of individuals, groups, systems, communities, or organizations.” Information warfare acts on the opponent’s information environment, by analyzing the opponent’s decision-making methods, psychological advantages and weaknesses, changing the information environment, and then affecting the “key factor” of the cognitive system, changing its national behavior to achieve the goal of winning.

    In the networked era, the transmission, aggregation and processing of information are mostly carried out through the network. The network constitutes the most important information environment, and the combat field of information warfare is also concentrated on the network. The United States not only uses its global media and cultural communication power to spread American culture and values ​​to the world through television, movies, music, games, etc., to strengthen its international influence and soft power. In addition, the US government and military also make extensive use of social media, search engines, artificial intelligence, the Internet and other information means, and through professional and systematic information operation agencies and cross-border cooperation between different agencies and departments, they carry out various forms of information warfare, such as posting political propaganda on social media, launching cyber attacks, conducting network monitoring and surveillance, and organizing network sabotage activities. It should be noted that social media is increasingly becoming an important medium for the United States to launch information warfare. This is because social media platforms can have a huge impact on a large number of people with their speed and breadth of information dissemination. At the same time, because people are irrational in cognition, large-scale simple repetition on social media has become a reliable way for people to believe in fallacies. The United States is deploying a large number of fake accounts on social media platforms to widely spread false information, manipulate information, incite emotions, create public opinion, mislead opponents’ decision-making behavior, and formulate and disseminate strategic narratives to prompt national behavior to change in a direction that is beneficial to the United States.

    Expanding the information warfare alliance and further constraining the environment for competitors

    In addition to adjusting the goals of information warfare, advancing it comprehensively in a variety of ways, and integrating domestic departments into unified actions, the U.S. government is also actively expanding its information warfare alliances by absorbing more countries to form a broad information warfare alliance, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of information warfare and further restricting the environment in which rival countries can operate.

    In Europe, the United States has been strengthening its cooperation with its NATO allies on information warfare. In November 2010, NATO updated the “Lisbon Strategic Concept”, emphasizing the need to more thoroughly respond to the rapidly evolving security challenges of the 21st century, including cyber attacks. The policy focuses not only on protecting NATO’s own networks, but also on establishing agreed benchmarks to protect the national networks of allies. The 2014 Wales Summit proposed a policy to strengthen cyber defense, making the cyber field one of its key political and strategic priorities, emphasizing the cooperation and unified action of member states, and linking the cyberspace with the collective defense of the alliance. At the 2016 Warsaw Summit, NATO recognized cyberspace as a new field of military operations. In February 2018, NATO member states established a cyber operations center within the NATO military command structure, which aims to strengthen the defense and response capabilities of NATO member states in cyberspace and improve the overall level of cyber security. These measures show that under the leadership of the United States, NATO has gradually established a strong cyber cooperation platform for information warfare. On the basis of this platform, the United States will implement information warfare more comprehensively and across fields. During the Ukrainian crisis, the United States and its allies used this platform to provide cyber defense for Ukraine and launch a large number of cyber attacks. They also used the Internet to spread various false information, distorting and shaping the country’s image that was unfavorable to Russia.

    In Asia, based on the existing military alliance, the United States has been deepening its security alliances to maintain its interests in the Indo-Pacific region, vigorously promoting the “four-country mechanism” consisting of the United States, Japan, India and Australia, deepening its relations with India, and striving to promote trilateral cooperation between the United States, Japan and South Korea, further promoting network rules that are beneficial to the United States and expanding the alliances led by the United States. This makes it easier for the United States to insert information operators in the networks of allied countries, spread information that is beneficial to the United States in multiple networks, and shape the information environment dominated by the United States to exclude and restrict competing countries in the information environment. At the same time, this transnational network is still expanding, and the United States’ network standards and norms are constantly being implemented in other countries, which has greatly helped the US government and military to infiltrate these networks and conduct information warfare. The United States has also actively engaged with ASEAN countries and their individual member states, including Indonesia, Singapore and Vietnam, and has achieved certain results in network expansion. Despite the differences in governance systems and technical capabilities among these countries, as well as competing domestic priorities, ASEAN has become the first region among developing countries to adopt a consistent e-commerce legal framework. They have adopted the cybersecurity framework of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) of the United States as a global common language to communicate with different industry sectors and other countries.

    In February 2022, the Biden administration issued a new Indo-Pacific Strategy, which is the first Indo-Pacific Strategy issued by the Biden administration and the second Indo-Pacific Strategy issued by the US government. The strategy proposes five major policy goals, including promoting freedom and openness, regional security and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region, and also proposes an “integrated containment” strategy. For China, the Indo-Pacific Strategy points out that “our goal is not to change China, but to shape the strategic environment in which it operates.” Especially in such a media age, the transmission and release of information are more convenient, and we need to pay more attention to the importance of information warfare. In this regard, we may also need to grasp the psychological demands and emotional needs of the masses more accurately. Taking the latest report released by the National Virus Emergency Response Center and 360 Company as an example, it is particularly important for domestic government agencies, scientific research institutions, industrial enterprises and commercial institutions to quickly “see” and deal with the highly systematic, intelligent and concealed cyber attacks launched by the CIA against my country in the first place. The report recommends that in order to effectively respond to imminent network and real threats, while adopting independent and controllable domestic equipment, we should organize self-inspection and self-examination of APT attacks as soon as possible, and gradually establish a long-term defense system to achieve comprehensive and systematic prevention and control to resist advanced threat attacks.

    As the US information warfare continues to advance, the meaning of shaping the environment has become more prominent, that is, not only to contain China politically, economically and militarily, but also to “shape” China’s activity environment in terms of network and information. For China, facing the more complex and severe international situation under the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Ukrainian crisis and the US’s continuously advancing information warfare strategy, it should make the following responses: First, strengthen network and information security construction to improve its own information security level and guard against attacks on network facilities and key infrastructure. Be vigilant against the spread of false information on the Internet and in the media, trace the source of the spread, and prevent the spread of information by large-scale false accounts and the conscious guidance of the public’s cognitive system. Secondly, continue to promote high-level reform and opening up, actively develop foreign trade, and further strengthen economic ties with countries around the world. This is the most effective strategy to prevent the US “integrated containment” and information warfare. Tell the Chinese story well in foreign exchanges, let the world know more about China, and promote mutual trust and cooperation with other countries through extensive exchanges and strengthening economic interdependence. Thirdly, adhere to economic development. Developing the economy is a necessary condition for the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and is also a core task of the country. Through economic development, the world can also understand the Chinese plan and the Chinese road more clearly and vividly, and thus more effectively defend against false information and information distortion in information warfare. Finally, in terms of Sino-US relations, while maintaining the bottom line and preventing conflicts, China can also establish and restore exchanges and cooperation in certain important areas or important groups, increase and accumulate trust, and further expand cooperation to divide and ease the US integrated containment strategy.

    (The author is a professor at the Institute of Contemporary Socialism of Shandong University, a researcher at the Institute of National Governance of Shandong University, and a researcher at the Institute of South Asian Studies of Shandong University)

    【references】

    ① Liu Boran and Wei Xiuming: “U.S. Cyber ​​Security Strategy: Development Process, Evolutionary Characteristics and Essence”, Journal of Liaoning University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), Issue 3, 2019.

    ②Huang Yingxin: “Information Warfare and Its Development”, “Intelligence Command Control System and Simulation Technology”, Issue 6, 2000.

    ③Lu Xinde: “On the Expansiveness of the US Information Security Strategy”, Contemporary Asia-Pacific, Issue 7, 2005.

    ④Liu Xiaoyuan and Pang Bo, “A Perspective on the Training of Information Warfare Talents in the US Military and Its Implications”, Journal of Higher Education Research, No. 3, 2005.

    ⑤[Japan] Kosawa Kunio and Jiang Xinfeng, translators: “IT Revolution and the Development of the U.S. and Japanese Navies”, International Outlook, No. 15, 2001.

    ⑥Wu Fei and Li Xuan: “The Role of the Media in the Information War between Russia and the United States under Geopolitical Game”, “External Communication”, Issue 6, 2022.

    ⑦Yang Guangbin et al.: “Characteristics of the Era of Turbulent Change”, “World Economy and Politics”, Issue 2, 2023.

繁體中文

《 人民論壇 》( 2023年10月09日 第 04 版)
【摘要】資訊戰已成為當今國際政治和安全領域的重要議題。因其全球最大的軍事和情報機構,在資訊戰方面有著非常強的實力和資源,是資訊戰的重要發起者和參與者,其資訊戰的能力備受關注。除了調整資訊戰的目標,以多種方式全面推進,整合國內各部門而統一行動外,美國政府還積極擴展資訊戰的同盟,透過吸收更多國家以形成廣泛的資訊戰聯盟,增強資訊戰的效果,並進一步限制對手國家的活動環境。

【關鍵字】資訊戰 美國國家戰略 【中圖分類號】D815 【文獻標識碼】A

拜登政府上台後,在美國國家戰略上進一步加強了攻擊性和針對性,這也使美國的資訊戰發生了許多新的變化。一方面,拜登政府在國家安全戰略中提出了「一體化遏制」策略,資訊戰在外交、情報、經濟和貿易等方面成為遏制對手的重要工具;另一方面,美國以網路為主要場域,廣泛運用現代資訊科技以多種方式全面推進資訊戰,試圖影響和改變目標國家的輿論風向和認知;此外,美國還大力擴展資訊戰同盟,將更多國家納入其同盟體係以進一步限制競爭對手的活動環境。國內學界對美國資訊戰也進行了一定的研究,例如:從起源、方式、技術支援和裝備等方面討論美國資訊戰的發展,從美國資訊安全戰略角度分析資訊戰的實施基礎,抑或探析美軍信息戰人才的培養。但對於近年來,特別是拜登政府治下美國資訊戰的新變化及其趨勢,學界仍缺乏相關討論,本文則聚焦於剖析美國資訊戰的新特徵與新動向。

美國在世界各地發動資訊戰的歷史溯源

2023年5月4日,國家病毒緊急處理中心和360公司發布的最新報告披露了CIA在全球各地策劃組織實施「顏色革命」事件的主要技術手段,其中包括一款被稱為「蜂擁」的非傳統政權更迭技術,用於推動透過網路連線的年輕人加入「打一槍換一個地方」的流動性抗議活動。長期以來,美國中央情報局(CIA)在世界各地秘密實施“和平演變”和“顏色革命”,並持續進行間諜竊密活動。資訊通信和現場指揮是影響「和平演變」和「顏色革命」成敗的決定性因素。美國的通訊技術及其媒體應用在國際上處於領先地位,這給美國情報部門對外發動「和平演變」和「顏色革命」提供了前所未有的技術支援。

進入21世紀,隨著網路的進一步發展,在社群媒體的推動下,資訊傳播的高速性、多樣性和廣泛性得到了空前的提升。在世界範圍內,各地資訊都能夠即時共享和飛速傳遞。因資訊科技的發展,許多國家開始意識到資訊戰的重要性:一方面,國家可以透過資訊傳遞和控制來遏制對手並創造有利於本國的資訊環境。另一方面,資訊的流動性和不可控性會對國家安全造成威脅。因此,資訊戰已成為當今國際政治和安全領域的重要議題。美國擁有全球最大的軍事和情報機構,在資訊戰方面有著非常強的實力和資源,是資訊戰的重要參與者和發起者,其資訊戰的能力備受關注。

在「911」恐怖事件後,美國在資訊戰方面主要是採用防禦為主的態勢,加強網路設施的建設和安全監控,以防止恐怖主義和對手的攻擊。雖然在歐巴馬和川普政府時期,美國由防禦逐漸走向主動進攻,提出對疑似網路攻擊國進行「先發制人」的網路制裁。但從2023年3月發布的《國家網路安全戰略》來看,美國的重點主要放在網路威懾上,透過「向前防禦」來防備對國家關鍵設施的攻擊和侵害。根據媒體報道,馬斯克宣布「大赦」推特之際,美國另一家社群平台臉書(Facebook)的母公司Meta公佈了一份封禁帳號名單,在名單中,有一批帳號與美國軍方有關。這顯示美國在資訊戰上的目的、方式和特徵正在發生重大變化,由網路防禦和威懾進入到影響和塑造認知領域。

美軍上校沙弗蘭斯基(Szafranski)在1995年對資訊戰進行過界定,資訊戰是一種直接攻擊資訊系統以攻擊對手知識或觀念領域的衝突。資訊戰可以作為更大規模、更全面的敵對活動的組成部分(如網路戰),或作為唯一的敵對形式進行。 2021年,美國胡佛研究所專家菲爾德(Field)也做出了類似的定義:資訊戰旨在向目標受眾傳達訊息,這些訊息被挑選出來,以影響情感、動機、推理、態度、理解、信仰或行為,從而促進行動者的利益。這說明在美國菁英中對於資訊戰的形式和目的有大致一致的認識,即透過多種方式影響目標對象的認知系統。此前,美國雖然主要採用網路防禦和攻擊,有針對性地打擊對手的網路設施,但隨著國際環境和美國綜合實力的變化,美國逐步將資訊戰的作戰領域和目標轉移到對象國的認知系統,以營造更有利於美國的國際環境。

資訊戰是美國國家戰略的重要組成部分,隨戰略調整而變化

資訊戰是美國國家戰略的重要組成部分,也是實現其國家戰略目標的重要手段。當今時代是資訊化時代,資訊與資訊科技不僅決定社會變革的方向,同時也是影響國家間競爭的關鍵因素。國家依據外部環境和自身實力的變化調整國家戰略,而資訊戰的內容、特徵、方式和領域也會隨之改變。

歐巴馬政府在2016年推出了名為《網路安全國家行動計畫》的網路安全策略,其主要內容包括:創新和保護網絡,預防網路犯罪,加強網路安全教育,增強國際合作與加強政府網路安全管理。在這段時期,美國政府在資訊戰上主要是防範對手的網路攻擊,保護自身的網路設施和安全。在2018年9月,川普政府也頒布了《國家網路安全戰略》,同樣強調對網路設施的防護,並確保網路安全。但在這份戰略中,川普提出了「向前防禦」的概念,當認為有可能遭遇到襲擊時,美國將率先攻擊對方,這意味著美國資訊戰由防禦轉向了主動進攻。 2023年3月,拜登政府公佈了最新的《國家網路安全戰略》,進一步強調了進攻的態勢,並大大擴展了資訊戰的範圍。在該戰略中,提出了5項支柱,除了保護關鍵基礎設施和建立國際夥伴關係外,還強調要打擊和摧毀威脅行為體,並且擴展資訊戰的範圍,擴大公私合作,透過公私部門間的合作來打擊敵手,並塑造市場力量以推動安全和彈性。這說明在資訊戰上美國將進一步透過各種方式滲透入私人領域,透過市場和投資宣揚美國的意識形態和規則,以限制競爭對手的發展環境。

拜登政府上台後,美國國家戰略中也加入了更多的針對性和攻擊性。在2021年的《國家安全戰略指導》中提出:圍繞與中國和俄羅斯的長期競爭,建構全球性戰略;強化美國在太平洋地區的存在和合作,同時加強與亞洲盟友和夥伴的合作,以應對所謂「中國的威脅」。 2022年的《國家安全戰略》更是明確提出實施“一體化遏制戰略”,要求綜合運用全面的國家安全工具,包括軍事、外交、情報、經濟、貿易和金融等手段,以防止對美國和其盟友的任何潛在挑戰。依照這個策略,資訊戰就不再只是發揮防禦對手網路攻擊和保護國內基礎設施的功能,資訊戰在「一體化遏制戰略」中佔據著重要的地位,不僅承擔著軍事打擊的功能,在外交、情報、經濟和貿易等方面也將成為遏制對手的重要工具。

美國以認知系統為目標全面廣泛推進資訊戰

有些學者認為海灣戰爭是資訊戰的開端,但早在冷戰期間,美國就對蘇聯進行大規模的資訊戰。美國利用掌控的媒體對蘇聯民眾進行了廣泛深入的假新聞宣傳,灌輸美國的意識形態,在一定程度上影響了蘇聯民眾的認知。冷戰結束後,美國的決策者被認為對於戰爭的非物質元素的強調逐漸減少,因為已經戰勝了其意識形態對手,在其後幾十年中,關於信息作戰,美國更傾向於在更狹窄的軍事背景下框定這些活動。而拜登政府所提出的「一體化遏制戰略」則表明僅依賴一種以防禦為主的策略,可能已不足以限制競爭對手,美國意圖在包括外交、經濟和資訊在內的所有國家實力領域去遏制對手。這種全面遏制方式著重於在軍事手段之外的競爭中調動國家力量的所有要素,不僅要求能夠協調美國各個重要機構,包括國防部、國務院、中情局、聯邦調查局和美國國際開發署等,並且除了常規軍事能力——專注於摧毀目標國並佔領其領土,還要發展非常規軍事能力——在各國民眾中爭奪影響力和合法性,透過影響和改變目標國家民眾的認知系統,增強美國的影響力,進而破壞對手的資訊環境與決策能力。

資訊市場假定人們會理性處理訊息,但心理學研究表明,人們往往不會這樣做。相反,人們所處的資訊環境會影響其認知、決策和行為,而資訊環境就是資訊戰的作戰環境。近年來,美國國防部對資訊環境採取了越來越全面的理解,在關於資訊環境的定義更新中指出,它「包含和聚合了許多社會、文化、認知、技術和物理屬性,這些屬性對個人、群體、系統、社區或組織的知識、理解、信仰、世界觀和最終行動產生影響」。資訊戰則是作用於對手的資訊環境,透過分析對手的決策方法、心理優勢和弱點,改變資訊環境,進而影響認知系統這一“關鍵因素”,改變其國家行為以實現制勝目的。

在網路化時代,資訊的傳遞、聚合與處理絕大部分經由網絡,網絡構成了最主要的資訊環境,資訊戰的作戰場域也集中在網絡。美國不僅運用其全球性的媒體和文化傳播力量,透過電視、電影、音樂、遊戲等方式向全球傳播美國文化和價值觀,加強其國際影響力和軟實力。並且,美國政府和軍方也大量使用如社群媒體、搜尋引擎、人工智慧和網路以及其他資訊手段,並透過專業化和系統化的資訊操作機構以及不同機構和部門的跨界合作,進行各種形式的資訊戰,例如在社群媒體上發布政治宣傳、發動網路攻擊、進行網路監聽和監控、組織網路破壞活動等。需要注意的是,社群媒體越來越成為美國發起資訊戰的重要媒介。這是由於社群媒體平台以其訊息傳播的速度和廣度,能夠對龐大人群產生巨大影響,同時又因為人們在認知上的非理性,使得社群媒體的大規模簡單重複成為人們相信謬誤的可靠方法。美國正大量地在社群媒體平台中投放虛假帳號,廣泛傳播假訊息、操縱訊息、煽動情緒、製造輿論導向,誤導對手的決策行為,並制定和傳播戰略大敘事,促使國家行為朝著有利於美國的方向轉變。

擴大資訊戰同盟並進一步限制競爭對手的環境

除了調整資訊戰的目標,以多種方式全面推進,整合國內各部門而統一行動外,美國政府還積極擴展資訊戰的同盟,透過吸收更多國家以形成廣泛的資訊戰聯盟,增強資訊戰的效果,並進一步限制對手國家的活動環境。

在歐洲,美國不斷強化與其北約盟友在資訊戰上的合作。 2010年11月,北約更新了“里斯本戰略概念”,強調需要更徹底地應對快速發展的21世紀的安全挑戰,包括網路攻擊。該政策的重點不僅是保護北約自身的網絡,還包括建立商定的基準來保護盟國的國家網絡。 2014年的威爾斯高峰會提出了加強網路防禦的政策,將網路領域作為其關鍵的政治和戰略重點之一,強調成員國的合作與統一行動,把網路與聯盟的集體防禦聯繫起來。 2016年華沙峰會上,北約承認網路空間是軍事行動的新領域。 2018年2月,北約成員國在北約軍事指揮機構內設立了一個網路行動中心,該中心旨在加強北約成員國在網路空間的防禦和應變能力,並提升網路安全的整體水準。這些舉措顯示在美國主導下,北約在資訊戰上逐步建立起一個強大的網路合作平台。在這一平台的基礎上,美國將更為全面且跨領域地實施資訊戰。在烏克蘭危機中,美國及其盟友就利用這個平台,為烏克蘭提供網路防禦,並實施大量的網路攻擊,也利用網路散播各種虛假訊息,歪曲和塑造對俄羅斯不利的國家形象。

在亞洲,在原有的軍事同盟基礎上,美國為維持其在印度—太平洋地區的利益,不斷深化其安全聯盟,大力推動「美、日、印、澳」組成的四國機制,深化與印度的​​關係,努力促進美、日、韓三邊合作,進一步推廣有利於美國的網路規則和擴展美國主導的同盟。這使得美國可以更為便利地在同盟國家的網絡中安插信息操作人員,在多個網絡中散佈有利於美國的信息,塑造美國主導的信息環境,以形成在信息環境上對競爭國家的排斥和限制。同時,這個跨國網絡仍在不斷擴展,美國的網路標準和規範不斷在其他國家得以實施,這為美國政府和軍方滲入這些網路並實施資訊戰提供了極大助益。美國也積極與東協國家及其個別成員國,包括印尼、新加坡和越南等國接觸,在網路擴展上取得了一定的成效。儘管這些國家在治理體系和技術能力上存在差異,並且存在競爭性國內優先事項,但東協成為發展中國家中第一個採用一致的電子商務法律框架的地區,他們採用了美國國家標準技術研究所

(NIST)的網路安全框架作為全球通用語言,以與不同產業部門和其他國家溝通。

2022年2月,拜登政府推出了新的《印太戰略》,這是拜登政府發布的首份,也是美國政府發布的第二份印太戰略。該戰略提出了促進印太地區的自由開放、區域安全和繁榮等五大政策目標,也提出了「一體化遏制」策略。對於中國,《印太戰略》指出「我們的目標不是改變中國,而是塑造其運作的戰略環境」。尤其是在這樣一個媒體時代,訊息的傳遞和發布更加方便,我們更需要重視資訊戰的重要性。在這方面,我們也可能需要更精確地抓住群眾的心理訴求和情感需求。以國家病毒緊急處理中心和360公司發布的最新報告為例,針對CIA對我國發起的高度體系化、智慧化、隱蔽化的網路攻擊,境內政府機構、科研院校、工業企業和商業機構如何快速「看見」並第一時間進行處置尤為重要。報告建議,為有效應對迫在眉睫的網路和現實威脅,我們在採用自主可控國產化設備的同時,應盡快組織開展APT攻擊的自檢自查工作,並逐步建立起長效的防禦體系,實現全面系統化防治,抵禦高階威脅攻擊。

隨著美國資訊戰的不斷推進,塑造環境的意義得以彰顯,即不僅是在政治、經濟和軍事上對中國進行遏制,同時在網路和資訊上也要「塑造」中國的活動環境。對中國而言,面對在新冠疫情和烏克蘭危機衝擊下更為複雜嚴峻的國際局勢以及美國不斷推進的信息戰策略,應該做好以下應對:首先,加強網絡和信息安全建設提高自身信息安全水平,防備對網路設施和關鍵基礎設施的攻擊。警惕網路和媒體中的假訊息傳播,追溯傳播源頭,防範大規模假帳號所進行的資訊散播和有意識地對民眾認知系統的引導。其次,持續推動高水準的改革開放,積極發展對外貿易,進一步加強與世界各國的經濟聯繫。這是防範美國「一體化遏制」和資訊戰最有效的策略。在對外交往中講好中國故事,讓世界更了解中國,透過廣泛交流和加強經濟互賴,促進和其他國家的互信與合作。再次,堅持經濟發展。發展經濟是中華民族復興的必要條件,同時也是國家的核心任務。透過經濟發展也可以讓世界更清楚、形象化地理解中國方案和中國道路,進而更有效地防禦資訊戰中的假訊息和訊息扭曲。最後,在中美關係上,中國在守住底線、防止衝突的同時,也可以建立和恢復某些重要領域或重要團體的交往與合作,增加和積累信任,並進​​一步擴展合作,分化和緩解美國的一體化遏制戰略。

(作者為山東大學當代社會主義研究所教授、山東大學國家治理研究院研究員、山東大學南亞研究所研究員)

【參考文獻】

①劉勃然、魏秀明:《美國網路資訊安全戰略:發展歷程、演進特徵與實質》,《遼寧大學學報(哲學社會會科學版)》,2019年第3期。

②黃迎馨:《資訊戰及其發展》,《情報指揮控制系統與模擬技術》,2000年第6期。

③盧新德:《論美國資訊安全戰略的擴張性》,《當代亞太》,2005年第7期。

④劉曉元、龐波:《美軍資訊戰人才培養透視及其啟示》,《高等教育研究期刊》,2005年第3期。

⑤[日]小繩國雄,江新鳳編譯:《IT革命與美日海軍發展》,《國際展望》,2001年第15期。

⑥吳非、李旋:《地緣政治博弈下俄美訊息戰中的媒體角色》,《對外傳播》,2022年第6期。

⑦楊光斌等:《動盪變革期的時代特徵》,《世界經濟與政治》,2023年第2期。

原始中國政府資源:http://paper.people.com.cn/rmlt/html/2023-10/09/content_26023698.htm

中國軍隊——揭開境外網路空間行動之謎

Chinese Military – Uncovering the Mysteries of Foreign Cyberspace Operations

原始中文國語:

隨著科學技術的不斷發展,戰爭形式已進入資訊化戰爭時代。 資訊已成為戰鬥力的主導要素。 雙方圍繞著資訊的收集、傳輸和處理展開了激烈的對抗。 網路空間是資料和資訊傳輸的通道。 現代作戰單位之間的橋樑。

美國軍方是第一個將網路空間軍事化的國家。 2008年,美國成立空軍網路司令部,將網路空間定義為整個電磁頻譜空間,將認知和實踐從狹隘的資訊域延伸到廣闊的網路域。 。 2018年1月,美國陸軍訓練與條令司令部(TRADOC)發布了《TP 525-8-6美國陸軍網路空間與電子戰作戰概念2025-2040》,描述了美國陸軍將如何在網路空間和電子戰中作戰。 在電磁頻譜中運行,以應對未來作戰環境的挑戰。 與其他傳統作戰領域相比,網路空間將對未來作戰產生哪些影響? 在未來一體化聯合作戰背景下,能為多域聯合作戰帶來哪些突破?

神秘-網路空間行動

第五大領域資訊化戰爭。 賽博空間一詞最早出現在1982年的加拿大科幻小說《全像玫瑰碎片》中,描述了網路與人類意識融合的賽博空間。 根據美國國防部軍事詞彙詞典,網路空間是資訊環境中的全球性領域,由獨立的資訊技術基礎設施網路組成,包括互聯網、電信網路、各種區域網路和電腦系統以及嵌入式處理器和控制器。 隨著網路技術的不斷發展,網路空間已從電腦網路擴展到不可見的電磁頻譜,即電磁環境中的實體場。 它不僅包括我們通常認識的電腦網絡,還包括使用各種電磁能量的所有物理系統。

此外,在現代戰爭中,網路空間是資訊戰的新領域。 已被美軍列為與陸、海、空、天同等重要、必須保持決定性優勢的五個領域之一。 涉及網路戰、資訊戰、電子戰、太空戰、指揮控制戰、C4ISR等領域。 它是超越傳統的陸、海、空、天四維戰鬥空間的第五維度戰鬥空間。 它既相對獨立又嵌入其他領域。 與傳統領域相比,網路空間具有邊界邊界模糊、覆蓋範圍廣、情勢複雜多變的特性。

網路空間作戰超越了時間和空間的限制。 由於電磁頻譜缺乏地理邊界和自然邊界,網路空間超越了地理邊界、時間和距離的限制,使得網路空間作戰幾乎可以在任何地方發生,跨越陸地、海洋、太空和空中作戰,將傳統的四種作戰方式融為一體。立體作戰空間領域,可瞬間對遠程目標進行攻擊。 由於資訊在網路空間的傳播速度接近光速,高速資訊傳輸將大幅提升作戰效率與能力,提供快速決策、指導作戰、達到預期作戰效果的能力。 更重要的是,根據作戰需要,在網路空間或透過網路空間實現軍事目標或軍事效果可以分為進攻性網路作戰和防禦性網路作戰兩種類型。

進攻性網路行動是指在網路空間預防、削弱、中斷、摧毀或欺騙敵方網絡,以確保己方在網路空間的行動自由。 其主要行動包括實施電子系統攻擊、電磁系統封鎖和攻擊、網路攻擊和基礎設施攻擊等。防禦性網路行動包括防禦、偵測、表徵、反擊和減輕網路空間威脅事件的活動,旨在保護美國國防部防禦網絡或其他友方網絡,維持被動和主動利用友方網路空間的能力,保護資料、網路和其他指定的系統能力。

網路空間電磁戰

戰略威懾,輿論制勝。 近年來,針對經濟、政治、軍事等目標的網路攻擊不斷增加。 由於具有規模大、隱蔽性好、攻擊基礎設施能力強等特點

網路攻擊已成為一些國家在政治衝突中的優勢。 優勢手段。 俄烏衝突期間,俄羅斯以網路空間為陣地,以無線電電子戰為輔助,切斷烏克蘭系統通訊,中斷烏克蘭指揮; 抵制輿論負面消息,發布正面消息; 它癱瘓了網路上的敵人。 利用敵方網站製造恐慌,然後配合部隊正面進攻,達到速勝的目的。

全球佈局,千里之外擒敵。 美國在建立以本國主導的網路空間安全框架的過程中,掌握了盟友的網路空間作戰能力,建立了全球軍事基地和網路空間互聯互通。 相關情報人員平時透過情報行動完成網路預設,例如利用網路等手段透過情報分析來監控和收集敵方網路資料。 透過網路預設,必要時可利用網路漏洞入侵敵方網路、控制系統、破壞資料等,實現「千里取敵性命」。 2010年7月,美國透過某種蠕蟲病毒入侵伊朗核電廠,並控制了其核心設備,大大拖延了伊朗的核計畫。

充分發揮非對稱作戰優勢,提高作戰效益。 「舒特」計畫是美國空軍為了壓制敵方防空能力而提出的。 它利用不對稱作戰理論來摧毀敵方的防空系統。 核心目標是入侵敵方通訊、雷達、電腦等網路電力系統。 戰爭中,「舒特」攻擊可以透過遠程無線電侵入敵方防空預警系統和通訊系統的電腦網絡,進而攻擊並癱瘓敵方防空系統,或攻擊敵方可用的電子系統和網路系統,突破敵人的網絡。 攔截,然後利用相應的專業算法(主要是“木馬”病毒)侵入敵方雷達或網絡系統,監聽或竊取相關信息,洩露敵方作戰計劃、部隊部署、武器裝備等重要信息,從而幫助調整己方的作戰計畫、作戰結構和武器配比,以最小的成本獲得最大的利益。

網路空間作戰的未來發展

各國日益重視,大力發展。 隨著各國意識的加深,發展網路能力、贏得網路戰爭已成為各國謀求軍事優勢、贏得未來戰爭的重要內容。 2015年,美軍根據「伊斯蘭國」組織成員在網路上發布的評論和照片,利用大數據分析和偵察定位,最終在22小時內摧毀了一個「伊斯蘭國」指揮所。 目前,美國已成立網路空間司令部,組成網路空間作戰部隊,深化作戰理論研究,初步形成網路空間作戰能力。 其他國家也開展了網路競賽。 為了加強網路空間作戰能力,法國成立了新的資訊系統安全局。 英國政府發布國家通訊安全戰略,宣布成立網路安全辦公室和網路安全行動中心。 日本建立了以電腦專家為主的網路戰部隊,顯示網路空間戰引起了越來越多國家的興趣。

融合多種技術,增強網路空間作戰能力。 隨著新技術的突破,大數據技術、5G技術、人工智慧技術可以應用於網路空間作戰。 大數據技術可以儲存大量數據、收集複雜類型的數據,並且可以快速計算並獲取有用的信息。 它可以加快網路空間戰爭各方面的執行速度並使其更加精準。 5G技術具有低時延、高傳輸、大容量的特點,使得網路空間戰爭在全球環境、多域協同作戰中更具威脅性。 此外,還可以利用人工智慧深度學習、推理等能力來模擬網路空間戰爭。 在這個過程中,可以發現自身武器系統的弱點並加以改進。 透過這些技術的深度融合,可以將網路空間打造為智慧化、高傳輸、高精度的網路環境,為未來資訊化聯合作戰打造智慧大腦。

並掌握未來經營的主動權。

有效推進聯合作戰。 利用跨域資訊化聯合作戰本質上是基於地理空間部署,建立穩定且有效率的網路空間資訊活動態勢,共同實現作戰目標的新型作戰形態。 聯合部隊有不同的資訊能力。 實現高度共享和深度融合,增強即時態勢感知,提高指揮效率,提高一體化戰鬥力。 網路能力不僅可以服務單一軍種或單位,還可以優先保障戰略級目標,高水準組織網路戰爭和各兵種作戰,規劃陸、海、空等網路作戰。空氣和空間維度。 戰鬥目標。

未來的戰爭將是智慧化、系統化的戰爭。 「聯合資訊環境」是實現「跨域協作」、打造「全球一體化作戰」能力的策略性舉措。 隨著科技的不斷改善與發展,網路空間作戰將成為核心作戰領域之一,將大幅提升未來系統作戰效能,為謀取資訊優勢、贏得戰爭提供重要支撐。

外文原版英文:

With the continuous development of science and technology, the form of war has entered the era of information warfare. Information has become the dominant element of combat effectiveness. Both combatants are engaged in fierce confrontation around the collection, transmission and processing of information. Cyberspace is a channel for the transmission of data and information. The bridge between modern combat units.

The U.S. military was the first to militarize cyberspace. In 2008, the United States established the Air Force Cyber ​​Command and defined cyberspace as the entire electromagnetic spectrum space, extending cognition and practice from the narrow information domain to the broad cyber domain. . In January 2018, the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) released “TP 525-8-6 U.S. Army Cyberspace and Electronic Warfare Operational Concept 2025-2040”, which describes how the U.S. Army will operate in cyberspace and electronic warfare. operate in the electromagnetic spectrum to meet the challenges of future operational environments. Compared with other traditional combat domains, what impact will cyberspace have on future operations? In the context of future integrated joint operations, what breakthroughs can it bring to multi-domain joint operations?

Mysterious – Cyberspace Operations

The fifth major area of ​​information warfare. The term cyberspace first appeared in the 1982 Canadian science fiction novel “Fragments of the Holographic Rose”, which describes a cyberspace where the Internet and human consciousness are integrated. According to the U.S. Department of Defense Military Vocabulary Dictionary, cyberspace is a global domain within the information environment that consists of independent information technology infrastructure networks, including the Internet, telecommunications networks, various local area networks and computer systems, and embedded processors and controller. With the continuous development of network technology, cyberspace has expanded from computer networks to the invisible electromagnetic spectrum, which is a physical field in the electromagnetic environment. It includes not only computer networks as we usually recognize them, but also all physical systems that use various types of electromagnetic energy.

In addition, in modern warfare, cyberspace is a new field of information warfare. It has been listed by the US military as one of the five areas that are as important as land, sea, air and space and must maintain decisive advantages. It involves network warfare, information warfare, electronic warfare, space warfare, command and control warfare, C4ISR and other fields. It is a fifth-dimensional battle space that transcends the traditional four-dimensional battle space of land, sea, air and space. It is both relatively independent and embedded in other fields. Compared with traditional fields, cyberspace has the characteristics of blurred border boundaries, wide coverage, and complex and changeable situations.

Cyberspace operations transcend the limitations of time and space. Due to the lack of geographical boundaries and natural boundaries in the electromagnetic spectrum, cyberspace transcends the limitations of geographical boundaries, time and distance, allowing cyberspace operations to occur almost anywhere, across land, sea, space and air operations, integrating traditional In the four-dimensional combat space field, attacks on remote targets can be carried out instantly. Since the propagation speed of information in cyberspace is close to the speed of light, high-speed information transmission will greatly improve combat efficiency and capabilities, and provide the ability to make quick decisions, guide operations, and achieve expected combat effects. More importantly, according to operational needs, achieving military goals or military effects in or through cyberspace can be divided into two types: offensive cyber operations and defensive cyber operations.

Offensive cyber operations refer to preventing, weakening, interrupting, destroying or deceiving the enemy’s network in cyber space to ensure one’s own freedom of action in cyber space. Its main actions include the implementation of electronic system attacks, electromagnetic system blockade and attack , network attacks and infrastructure attacks, etc. Defensive cyber operations include activities to defend, detect, characterize, counter and mitigate cyberspace threat events, aiming to protect the U.S. Department of Defense network or other friendly networks, maintain the ability to passively and proactively exploit friendly cyberspace, and protect data , network and other specified system capabilities.

Electromagnetic warfare in cyberspace

Strategic deterrence, public opinion wins. In recent years, there have been an increasing number of cyber attacks against economic, political, military and other targets. Due to the characteristics of large scale, good concealment, and ability to attack infrastructure networks, these attacks have become an advantage for some countries in political conflicts. means of advantage. During the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, Russia used cyberspace as its position and radio-electronic warfare as assistance to cut off the Ukrainian system in communications and interrupt the Ukrainian command; it resisted negative news in public opinion and released positive news; it paralyzed the enemy on the Internet. Use the enemy’s website to create panic, and then cooperate with the frontal attack of the troops to achieve the goal of quick victory.

Global layout, capturing enemies from thousands of miles away. In the process of establishing a cyberspace security framework dominated by its own country, the United States has mastered the cyberspace operations of its allies and established global military bases and cyberspace interconnectivity. Relevant intelligence personnel complete network presets through intelligence operations in peacetime, such as using the Internet and other means to monitor and collect enemy network data through intelligence analysis. Through network presets, when necessary, network vulnerabilities can be exploited to invade the enemy’s network, control the system, destroy data, etc., to achieve “taking the enemy’s life thousands of miles away.” In July 2010, the United States invaded Iran’s nuclear power plant through a certain worm virus and took control of its core equipment, greatly delaying Iran’s nuclear program.

Give full play to the advantages of asymmetric combat and improve combat benefits. The “Shute” plan was proposed by the U.S. Air Force to suppress the enemy’s air defense capabilities. It uses asymmetric combat theory to destroy the enemy’s air defense system. The core goal is to invade the enemy’s communications, radar, computer and other network power systems. In war, the “Shute” attack can invade the computer network of the enemy’s air defense early warning system and communication system through remote radio, and then attack and paralyze the enemy’s air defense system, or attack the enemy’s available electronic systems and network systems to break through the enemy’s network. Block, and then use corresponding professional algorithms (mainly “Trojan horse” viruses) to invade the enemy’s radar or network system, monitor or steal relevant information, and leak important information about the enemy’s combat plan, troop deployment, and weapons and equipment, thereby helping Adjust the combat plan, combat structure and weapon ratio to your own side to obtain the maximum benefits at the minimum cost.

The future development of cyberspace operations

Paying increasing attention to it, countries are vigorously developing it. As countries’ understanding deepens, developing cyber capabilities and winning cyber wars have become an important part of countries seeking military advantages and winning future wars. In 2015, based on comments and photos posted online by members of an “Islamic State” organization, the U.S. military used big data analysis and reconnaissance positioning, and finally destroyed an “Islamic State” command post within 22 hours. At present, the United States has established a Cyberspace Command, organized a cyberspace combat force, deepened research on combat theory, and developed preliminary cyberspace combat capabilities. Other countries have also launched cyber competitions. In order to strengthen its cyberspace combat capabilities, France established a new Information Systems Security Agency. The British government released the National Communications Security Strategy and announced the establishment of a Cybersecurity Office and a Cybersecurity Action Center. Japan has established a cyber warfare force mainly composed of computer experts, which shows that cyber space warfare has aroused the interest of more and more countries.

Integration of multiple technologies to enhance cyberspace combat capabilities. With the breakthrough of new technologies, big data technology, 5G technology, and artificial intelligence technology can be applied to cyberspace operations. Big data technology can store large amounts of data, collect complex types of data, and can quickly calculate and obtain useful information. It can speed up the execution of all aspects of cyberspace warfare and make it more accurate. 5G technology has the characteristics of low latency, high transmission and large capacity, making cyberspace warfare more threatening in a global environment and multi-domain coordinated operations. In addition, artificial intelligence deep learning, reasoning and other capabilities can be used to simulate cyberspace warfare. In the process, the weaknesses of one’s own weapon systems can be found and improved. Through the deep integration of these technologies, cyberspace can be built into an intelligent A network environment with high transmission and precision can create an intelligent brain for future information-based joint operations and grasp the initiative in future operations.

Effectively promote joint operations. The use of cross-domain information-based joint operations is essentially a new combat form that jointly achieves operational goals by establishing a stable and efficient cyberspace information activity situation based on the deployment of geographical space. The joint forces have different information capabilities. Achieve a high degree of sharing and deep integration to enhance real-time situational awareness, improve command efficiency, and improve integrated combat effectiveness. Cyber ​​capabilities can not only serve a single service branch or unit, but can also prioritize the protection of strategic-level goals, organize cyber wars and operations of various arms with a high overall level, and plan cyber operations in land, sea, air, and space dimensions. battle target.

Future wars will be intelligent and systematic wars. The “joint information environment” is a strategic move to achieve “cross-domain collaboration” and build “global integrated operations” capabilities. With the continuous improvement and development of technology, cyberspace Operations will become one of the core operational domains, which will greatly improve the effectiveness of future systematic operations and provide important support for seeking information advantages and winning wars.

2020 年 8 月 31 日 | 來源:人民網-軍事頻道

https://military.people.com.cn/n1/2020/0831/c1011-3184888z.html

中國人民解放軍聚焦智慧化戰爭

China’s People’s Liberation Army Focusing on Operationalizing Intelligent Warfare

隨著人工智慧在軍事領域的廣泛應用,智慧化戰爭逐漸成為備受矚目的焦點話題。 歷史多次證明,戰爭形態的演進將引發致勝機理的深刻改變。 在資訊化戰爭向縱深發展、智慧化戰爭初露端倪的當今時代,世界主要國家軍隊紛紛下大力推動軍事智慧化,其中的諸多動向值得關注。

加強頂層設計

勾勒智能化戰爭“路線圖”

在新一輪科技革命與產業革命推動下,智慧化軍事變革正向縱深發展。 美國、俄羅斯、日本等國紛紛把人工智慧視為「改變戰爭遊戲規則」的顛覆性技術,並事先佈局,加強頂層設計和規劃引領,探索人工智慧的軍事應用方向。

美軍在《為人工智慧的未來做好準備》《國家人工智慧研究與發展戰略計畫》《人工智慧與國家安全》《2017至2042財年無人係統綜合路線圖》《美國人工智慧計畫》: 在首個年度報告》等文件中,詳述了人工智慧的發展現狀和發展規劃,並將人工智慧發展提升至國家戰略層面。 2021年,美軍在發布的《美國防部人工智慧態勢:評估與改進建議》中指出,美軍發展人工智慧應考慮三個指導性問題:與美軍相關的人工智慧現處於何種狀態;美軍目前 在人工智慧方面的態勢如何;哪些內部行動以及潛在的立法或監管行動可能會增強美軍的人工智慧優勢。

俄羅斯投入大量資源,以維持與美國在人工智慧軍事領域應用競爭的平衡。 2021年,俄總統普丁在年度首場國防部會議上表示,人工智慧將大幅推動軍事領域變革,俄國聯邦武裝力量要加速機器人、智慧單兵系統和武器智慧化模組等人工智慧應用技術的研發 工作,早日形成核心技術能力和戰場競爭優勢。 《2025年前未來軍用機器人技術裝備研發專題綱要》《未來俄軍用機器人應用構想》《人工智慧在軍事領域的發展現狀以及應用前景》等文件,從國家層面為俄軍推動人工智慧軍事應用確立了 一系列機制。

日本政府也推出了《人工智慧戰略》,旨在引領人工智慧技術研發和產業發展。 在英國制定的《機器人與人工智慧》戰略規劃中,強調了人工智慧在戰場建設中的應用。 2021年1月,澳洲國防部發布《打好人工智慧戰爭:未來智慧化戰爭之作戰構想》,這份文件探討如何將人工智慧應用到陸、海、空作戰領域。

創新作戰概念

推動智慧化戰爭“思想先行”

作戰概念創新對軍事科技發展、戰爭形態演變具有思想牽引作用。 過去人們對戰爭的認識與掌握,主要源自於對實務經驗的歸納總結,作戰概念即經驗概念。 未來智慧化戰爭時代,作戰概念不僅是經驗概念,更是對作戰的構想、設計與前瞻。

美陸軍提出「多域戰」概念,要求陸、海、空、天、電磁、網路等各域作戰能力深度整合與密切協同。 為此,美陸軍先後發布《多域戰:21世紀合成兵種的發展(2025至2040)》《美國陸軍多域戰(2028)》《運用機器人與自主技術支援多域戰》等白皮書。 2021年3月,美陸軍部發布文件《陸軍多域轉型:準備在競爭和衝突中取勝》,顯示「多域戰」已成為引領美陸軍轉型發展的一面「旗幟」。 美國防高級研究計畫局提出「馬賽克戰」概念,旨在打造一種由不同作戰功能單元構成的、以先進電腦技術與網路技術為基礎的、高度分散、具有高度適應性的「殺傷網」。 美國防部大力支持「聯合全域作戰」概念。 2020年3月,美空軍率先將「聯合全域作戰」寫入條令,探討空軍如何在「聯合全域作戰」中發揮作用。

俄軍提出「指控瓦解」概念。 「瓦解」是當前俄羅斯最重要的作戰概念之一,俄軍電子戰部隊把使敵人的訊息、指控、電子戰和機器人系統失效作為目標,認為這一目標將「決定所有軍事行動的命運」。 擾亂敵方部隊和武器系統的指揮和控制,降低敵方偵察和使用武器的效率,是進行電子戰的首要任務。 目前,俄軍正在考慮組建12種類型的電子戰部隊。 俄軍也提出「非核遏制體系」概念,核心是使用非核武進攻性戰略武器遏制對手。 其所定義的非核武攻擊性戰略武器既包括所有裝備非核彈頭的彈道飛彈,也包括戰略轟炸機和遠程空基、海基巡航飛彈。 此外,俄軍也提出「混合戰爭」概念,希望利用人工智慧系統謀求戰場資訊優勢。

英國防部提出「多域融合」概念,將發展具備智慧化能力的新型指控系統,以實現全面、持久、準確、快速的戰場感知與力量協同。

注重技術研發

塑造智慧化戰爭作戰模式

人工智慧發揮效用的關鍵是與其他多種技術的組合,這種組合也被描述為「人工智慧堆疊」。 各種技術透過互動的方式產生組合效應,進而提升每項技術所產生的能力與效果。 在人工智慧技術支援的智慧化戰爭中,「人機一體、雲腦控制」的協同作戰模式,「混搭編組、群體智慧」的集群作戰模式,「智慧主導、攻智為上」的認知作戰 模式等,將不斷更新人們對戰爭的認知。

聚焦創新專案研發。 美軍正在大力推廣人工智慧晶片在現有武器裝備系統中的應用,為武器加上“智慧大腦”,使之具備類人思考和自主互動能力。 2021年10月,美海軍推出被視為“當前最高優先事項”的“超越計劃”,旨在通過構建海上作戰軍事物聯網,整合有人無人聯合編隊,加速交付人工智能和機器學習工具,支撐 全新的智慧化海軍架構,提升大規模火力殺傷、實現海軍智慧化分散式作戰。 此外,美國防高級研究計畫局也進行了「自適應電子戰行為學習」「自適應雷達對抗」「極端射頻頻譜條件下的通訊」等認知電子戰項目,研發出認知雷達電子戰系統原型 機。 俄國防部智慧技術裝備科研試驗中心與俄聯邦科學院控制問題研究所合作,開發測試了包括無人機群指揮控制在內的自主智慧演算法,也與國家航空系統科研所共同開發基於神經網路原理的物體 自動辨識軟體系統。

組成創新研發機構。 新技術的不斷湧現是軍事智慧化蓬勃發展的不竭動力,高水準的軍事智慧化建設離不開專職機構的技術研發。 一些國家和軍隊組成研發中心,注重從技術層面創新發展。 美國國防部建立了聯合人工智慧中心,計劃將該中心打造成國家級重點實驗室,用於領導數百個與人工智慧相關的項目,確保對人工智慧相關數據資訊的高效利用,以保持美國 在該領域的技術優勢。 俄羅斯組成了人工智慧和大數據聯盟、國家人工智慧中心和隸屬國防部的機器人技術科研試驗中心,主要進行人工智慧和資訊科技領域的理論和應用研究。 法國成立了創新國防實驗室,英國設立了人工智慧實驗室,印度組成了人工智慧特別工作小組,進行相關技術探索。

加強裝備研發列裝。 近年來,多國重視研發智慧武器裝備,無人飛行器、無人戰車、無人艦艇、無人潛航器等不斷湧現。 目前,美空軍已開始在F-35戰機上實踐「人機協同,人在迴路」的作戰理念。 美XQ-58A「女武神」隱身無人機先前主要與F-35和F-22戰機進行人機協同作戰,2021年4月該隱身無人機成功投放ALTIUS-600小型無人機系統,進一步 提升了其有人無人協同作戰能力。 俄羅斯正聚焦偵察監視、指揮決策、火力打擊、作戰支援等多個領域,展開智慧裝備研發和列裝工作,計畫到2025年將無人作戰系統在武器裝備中的比例提高到30%以上。 以“天王星”系列和“平台-M”“阿爾戈”等型號為代表的俄地面無人作戰武器發展迅速。 其中,Nerekhta無人戰車可搭載遙控機槍和火箭發射器,除擁有一般裝甲車的戰鬥力外,還兼具運輸和偵察功能。 此外,日本自衛隊計劃在2035年正式部署具有較強作戰能力的無人空中編隊。

現代英語:

With the widespread application of artificial intelligence in the military field, intelligent warfare has gradually become a hot topic. History has proven many times that the evolution of war patterns will trigger profound changes in the winning mechanism. In today’s era when information warfare is developing in depth and intelligent warfare is beginning to emerge, the militaries of major countries in the world have vigorously promoted military intelligence, and many of these trends deserve attention.

 Strengthen top-level design

 Outline a “roadmap” for intelligent warfare

 Driven by a new round of scientific and technological revolution and industrial revolution, intelligent military transformation is developing in depth. The United States, Russia, Japan and other countries have regarded artificial intelligence as a disruptive technology that “changes the rules of the war game” and have made arrangements in advance, strengthened top-level design and planning guidance, and explored the direction of military application of artificial intelligence.

 In “Preparing for the Future of Artificial Intelligence”, “National Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Strategic Plan”, “Artificial Intelligence and National Security”, “Comprehensive Roadmap for Unmanned Systems from Fiscal Years 2017 to 2042” and “U.S. Artificial Intelligence Plan”: “First Annual Report” and other documents detail the development status and development plans of artificial intelligence, and elevate the development of artificial intelligence to the national strategic level. In 2021, the U.S. military pointed out in its “U.S. Department of Defense Artificial Intelligence Situation: Assessment and Improvement Suggestions” that the U.S. military should consider three guiding questions when developing artificial intelligence: What is the current status of artificial intelligence related to the U.S. military; What is the posture regarding artificial intelligence; what internal actions and potential legislative or regulatory actions may enhance the U.S. military’s artificial intelligence advantage. 

Russia has invested a lot of resources in order to maintain a balance with the United States in the competition with the United States in the military application of artificial intelligence. In 2021, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated at the first Ministry of Defense meeting of the year that artificial intelligence will greatly promote changes in the military field, and the Russian Federation’s armed forces must accelerate the research and development of artificial intelligence application technologies such as robots, intelligent individual soldier systems, and weapon intelligent modules. work to form core technical capabilities and battlefield competitive advantages as soon as possible. Documents such as the “Special Outline for the Research and Development of Future Military Robot Technology and Equipment by 2025”, “Future Russian Military Robot Application Concept”, “The Development Status and Application Prospects of Artificial Intelligence in the Military Field” have established the national level for the Russian military to promote the military application of artificial intelligence. A series of mechanisms.

 The Japanese government has also introduced the Artificial Intelligence Strategy, aiming to lead the research and development of artificial intelligence technology and industrial development. In the “Robotics and Artificial Intelligence” strategic plan formulated by the United Kingdom, the application of artificial intelligence in battlefield construction is emphasized. In January 2021, the Australian Department of Defense released “Fighting Artificial Intelligence Warfare: Operational Concepts for Future Intelligent Warfare.” This document explores how to apply artificial intelligence to land, sea, and air combat fields.

 innovative operational concepts

 Promote intelligent warfare with “ideas first”

 The innovation of operational concepts has an ideological pulling effect on the development of military science and technology and the evolution of war forms. In the past, people’s understanding and understanding of war mainly came from the summary of practical experience. The concept of combat is the concept of experience. In the future era of intelligent warfare, the concept of combat is not only an empirical concept, but also the conception, design and foresight of combat.

 The U.S. Army has proposed the concept of “multi-domain warfare”, which requires deep integration and close coordination of combat capabilities in land, sea, air, space, electromagnetic, network and other domains. To this end, the U.S. Army has successively released white papers such as “Multi-Domain Warfare: The Development of Combined Arms in the 21st Century (2025-2040)”, “U.S. Army Multi-Domain Warfare (2028)” and “Using Robots and Autonomous Technology to Support Multi-Domain Warfare”. In March 2021, the U.S. Department of the Army released the document “Army Multi-Domain Transformation: Preparing to Win in Competition and Conflict”, indicating that “multi-domain warfare” has become a “flag” leading the transformation and development of the U.S. Army. The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency proposed the concept of “mosaic warfare”, aiming to create a highly decentralized and highly adaptable “kill network” composed of different combat functional units and based on advanced computer technology and network technology. The U.S. Department of Defense strongly supports the concept of “joint all-domain operations.” In March 2020, the U.S. Air Force took the lead in writing “Joint All-Domain Operations” into its doctrine to explore how the Air Force can play a role in “Joint All-Domain Operations.”

 The Russian army proposed the concept of “charge disintegration”. “Disintegration” is currently one of the most important operational concepts in Russia. The Russian electronic warfare force sets the goal of disabling the enemy’s information, command, electronic warfare and robotic systems, believing that this goal will “determine the fate of all military operations.” Disrupting the command and control of enemy forces and weapon systems and reducing the efficiency of enemy reconnaissance and weapons use are the primary tasks of electronic warfare. Currently, the Russian army is considering forming 12 types of electronic warfare units. The Russian military also proposed the concept of a “non-nuclear containment system”, the core of which is to use non-nuclear offensive strategic weapons to contain opponents. The non-nuclear offensive strategic weapons defined by it include all ballistic missiles equipped with non-nuclear warheads, as well as strategic bombers and long-range air-based and sea-based cruise missiles. In addition, the Russian military has also proposed the concept of “hybrid warfare”, hoping to use artificial intelligence systems to seek battlefield information advantages.

 The British Ministry of Defense has proposed the concept of “multi-domain integration” and will develop a new command and control system with intelligent capabilities to achieve comprehensive, durable, accurate and rapid battlefield perception and force coordination.

 Focus on technology research and development

 Shape intelligent warfare operations model

 The key to AI’s effectiveness is its combination with a variety of other technologies, also described as the “AI stack.” Various technologies interact to create a combined effect, thereby enhancing the capabilities and effects of each technology. In intelligent warfare supported by artificial intelligence technology, the collaborative combat mode of “man-machine integration, cloud brain control”, the cluster combat mode of “mixed grouping, swarm intelligence”, and the cognitive warfare of “intelligence-led, intelligence-based attack first” models, etc., will continue to update people’s understanding of war.

 Focus on the research and development of innovative projects. The US military is vigorously promoting the application of artificial intelligence chips in existing weapons and equipment systems, adding “intelligent brains” to weapons to enable them to have human-like thinking and autonomous interaction capabilities. In October 2021, the US Navy launched the “Beyond Plan”, which is regarded as the “current highest priority”. It aims to build a maritime combat military Internet of Things, integrate manned and unmanned joint formations, accelerate the delivery of artificial intelligence and machine learning tools, and support The new intelligent naval architecture improves large-scale firepower destruction and realizes intelligent distributed naval operations. In addition, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has also carried out cognitive electronic warfare projects such as “Adaptive Electronic Warfare Behavior Learning”, “Adaptive Radar Countermeasures” and “Communication under Extreme Radio Frequency Spectrum Conditions”, and developed a cognitive radar electronic warfare system prototype. machine. The Russian Ministry of Defense’s Intelligent Technology and Equipment Scientific Research and Testing Center cooperated with the Institute of Control Problems of the Russian Federal Academy of Sciences to develop and test autonomous intelligent algorithms including the command and control of UAV groups. It also jointly developed objects based on neural network principles with the National Aviation Systems Research Institute. Automatic recognition software system.

 Establish innovative R&D institutions. The continuous emergence of new technologies is an inexhaustible driving force for the vigorous development of military intelligence. High-level military intelligence construction is inseparable from the technical research and development of specialized institutions. Some countries and militaries have established R&D centers to focus on innovation and development at the technical level. The U.S. Department of Defense has established a Joint Artificial Intelligence Center and plans to build the center into a national key laboratory to lead hundreds of artificial intelligence-related projects and ensure the efficient use of artificial intelligence-related data and information to maintain the U.S. technical advantages in this field. Russia has established the Artificial Intelligence and Big Data Alliance, the National Artificial Intelligence Center, and the Robotics Research and Test Center under the Ministry of Defense to mainly carry out theoretical and applied research in the fields of artificial intelligence and information technology. France has established an innovative defense laboratory, the United Kingdom has established an artificial intelligence laboratory, and India has established an artificial intelligence task force to explore related technologies.

 Strengthen equipment research and development and installation. In recent years, many countries have attached great importance to the research and development of intelligent weapons and equipment, and unmanned aerial vehicles, unmanned combat vehicles, unmanned ships, unmanned submarines, etc. have continued to emerge. Currently, the U.S. Air Force has begun to practice the combat concept of “man-machine collaboration, man-in-the-loop” on the F-35 fighter jets. The US XQ-58A “Valkyrie” stealth drone previously mainly conducted man-machine collaborative operations with F-35 and F-22 fighters. In April 2021, the stealth drone was successfully launched into the ALTIUS-600 small drone system, further Improved its manned and unmanned collaborative combat capabilities. Russia is focusing on reconnaissance and surveillance, command and decision-making, fire strikes, combat support and other fields to develop and field intelligent equipment. It plans to increase the proportion of unmanned combat systems in weapons and equipment to more than 30% by 2025. Russian ground unmanned combat weapons, represented by the “Uranus” series and “Platform-M” and “Argo” models, have developed rapidly. Among them, the Nerekhta unmanned combat vehicle can be equipped with remote-controlled machine guns and rocket launchers. In addition to having the combat effectiveness of ordinary armored vehicles, it also has transportation and reconnaissance functions. In addition, the Japan Self-Defense Force plans to formally deploy unmanned aerial formations with strong combat capabilities in 2035.

http://www.mod.gov.cn/888/沒有湯給你

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

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

喬亮將軍:充滿信心的網絡領導贏得了未來的“網絡太空戰爭”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original Mandarin Chinese:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(作者係國防大學教授)

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

 

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

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

美國煽動網絡戰 – 中國如何在美國網絡戰時代實現中國夢

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

How does the United States face the cyber war era?

來源:中國國防報·軍事特刊作者:郝葉力責任編輯:黃楊海

Core tips

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

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

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

The era of cyber war has arrived

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

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

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

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

Original Mandarin Chinese:

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

美國如何迎戰網絡戰時代

核心提示

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

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

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

網絡戰時代已經到來

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original Mandarin Chinese:

美國加快網絡戰發展的主要舉措

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original Mandarin Chinese:

美國加快網絡戰發展的三個關鍵支柱

美國加快網絡戰發展有三個關鍵性支柱:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original Mandarin Chinese:

絕對安全:美國網絡安全觀的雙重標準及現實悖論

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

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

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

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

(作者係國家創新與發展戰略研究會副會長)。

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

 

Chinese Military Analysis of US Navy Cyber Warfare Efforts // 中國對美國海軍網絡戰爭的軍事分析

Chinese Military Analysis of US Navy Cyber Warfare Efforts //

中國對美國海軍網絡戰爭的軍事分析

2011/02/15

US Navy’s 10th Fleet. As the naval task force, the US Fleet cyber command is the Navy’s second-level command, which is part of the Naval Combat Command. Its main task is to guide the cyber operations in defense, and to support the combat troops to carry out deterrence, repel violations, and guarantee. Freedom of movement. Our mission is similar to that of other military cyberspace commanders. It is responsible for carrying out combat operations in the fields of network, password, signal intelligence, information warfare, cyberspace, electronic warfare, and space to support sea and land. Combat power. Naval operations require the integration of traditional combat capabilities, the expansion of new capabilities, and the development of capabilities across networks, signal intelligence systems, and electronic warfare systems to achieve the full development of our cyberspace combat capabilities. Similarly, we are also responsible for organizing and commanding the Navy’s global cryptographic operations, integrating information operations and space operations.

History

The Tenth Fleet was established during the Second World War and developed anti-submarine warfare capabilities primarily in the Atlantic. At that time, we were faced with a hostile threat that greatly exceeded the combat capability of World War I, and its ability to change the situation was very strong. The Tenth Fleet without any warships defeated the German submarines through intelligence fusion, innovative tactics, technology, and processes. Today, the rebuilt Tenth Fleet still adheres to these operational concepts. Together with information warfare experts, intelligence specialists, password and electronic warfare experts, and traditional military experts, we command operations to ensure the flexibility of operations and respond to changing hostile threats. The focus of the fleet cyber command is to enable the navy to quickly respond to cyber threats and maintain information superiority. This framework of action requires us to complete the task of cyber operations defense.

To win in modern warfare, we must have the ability to move freely in the full spectrum electromagnetic space, and its defense range has expanded from ordinary electromagnetic interference to advanced network intrusion and malicious attacks. The function of the fleet cyber command is to analyze this threat, innovate tactics, techniques, and processes to protect the network and ensure freedom of movement.

Naval operations are dynamic, and the naval network also has time and space complexity. The Navy must not only be deployed in various oceans, but also support ground operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and other places. We currently have more than 10,000 naval officers and men involved in these ground operations.

The Fleet Cyber ​​Command is a global command with the ability to maintain network strength and conduct cyber operations worldwide, and to ensure that the operational capabilities of the cyber operations are commanded in a full spectrum electromagnetic space. Since the Commander of the Tenth Fleet is a combat-level commander, our command is also based on the structure of a typical naval mission force. This power structure can assign subordinate missions to regional missions to support specific password requirements. This task force has been designed to take into account the changing intelligence, skills and responsibilities, has the ability to respond quickly to the fleet’s operational missions, and has facilitated local communication and collaboration with the US Cyber ​​Command and the Division. We have been working to develop a robust organizational structure that provides rapid and direct support for a variety of operations.

The Cyber ​​Warfare Command (CTF1010) is responsible for naval cyber operations, and its subordinate units include the Atlantic and Pacific Regional Naval Computer and Telecommunications Ground Master Station (NCTAMS), which provides network guidance, maintenance, and shoreline relay. The Navy Cyber ​​Defense Operations Command (CTF 1020) is responsible for network defense. The unit is responsible for monitoring cyber threats and monitoring network response.

Norfolk’s Naval Information Operations Command (CTF 1030) specializes in naval information operations, with its task force located in San Diego and Whidbey Island. Texas Naval Information Operations Command (CTF 1040), Georgia Naval Information Operations Command (CTF 1050), Maryland Naval Information Operations Command (CTF 1060), Colorado Naval Information Operations Command (CTF 1080 And its subordinate headquarters around the world to coordinate the fleet and theater operations. The password action is the responsibility of the CTF 1000 power structure.

The Hutland Naval Information Operations Center (CTF 1090) is based on our research and development brigade and its main mission is to provide battlefield preparation techniques for supporting fleet and joint operations missions.

The successful completion of the mission must be based on efficient recruitment and training of personnel who must have a keen technical insight and the ability to apply personal skills to fleet defensive operations. I have checked almost all of the combatant commands, and I can assure the committee that the Navy has a group of outstanding combatants who are ready to conduct cyberspace operations. Due to the dynamic nature of the cyberspace space, we must continue to advance the development of combat forces. We have taken the initiative to set up new expert officers including cyber engineers and warrants. The construction of the National Naval Academy cyber curriculum will also provide new opportunities for student education, and these students will become the backbone of the naval cyber operations command.

Task

As the fleet cyber command is maturing, we are also trying to learn to use the technology of the brother service. As the support command of the National Cyber ​​Command, we also contacted personnel from other service departments to establish a defense system to improve resilience and enhance the robustness and adaptability of global cyber defense. If a service department discovers, analyzes, or destroys a threat, the information is quickly distributed to other services, minimizing the damage and achieving a joint response.

In fact, we have already started to act. Since the establishment in January, we have been involved in supporting the National Pacific Command and Pacific Fleet exercises with the National Cyber ​​Command. We enhance shared situational awareness and collaborative surveillance security capabilities by examining cyber operations. We also work with industry, academia, and the Federal Fund Research and Development Center to learn to leverage their knowledge and capabilities. The business sector is driving the development of the cyberspace sector, and we must get their capabilities and financial support.

Inter-domain coordination and interaction are extremely important. Safeguarding system security or network defense work must be coordinated with preventing our system from unintentionally interfering with work. From navigation systems to network access, from the EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft to the shipboard SLQ-32 jammers, the Tenth Fleet quickly integrates with other numbering fleets and regional naval department commanders to meet their mission requirements. The collaboration between the fleet staff is one of the key factors behind the achievements of the Tenth Fleet and one of the reasons for our initial success.

The ability of the staff and commanders at Ft. Meade has improved every month. At present, there are 130 staff officers and commanders in our department, which will increase to about 200 in recent years. This growth rate guarantees that the command will not only increase the number of technical experts, but also increase the number of people with operational experience who can get rid of the numerous challenges related to cyber security.

These challenges include: developing and maintaining the concept of viewing the network as a battle space; providing support across the services to maintain our freedom of movement in the cyberspace; developing cyber operations into a functional area and creating a series of detailed concepts .

As our capabilities continue to grow, we will have better support for fleet and joint exercise capabilities, and through their necessary feedback to improve our combat capabilities in hostile or cyberspace environments. This feedback is very important, and it enables us to assess and improve our capabilities to support freedom of action in the face of stronger threats. These threats will not only affect the Navy or the Department of Defense system, but also civilian users, and they may be sources of non-traditional threats. There is no doubt that the people of non-state entities are also looking for the means and capabilities that affect our networks, so as a country, we must be prepared to deal with these asymmetric challenges and threats.

The US Fleet Cyber ​​Command is also the authoritative operational arm of the Navy in electronic warfare and electromagnetic spectrum operations. By working with other services, we are working hard to develop a comprehensive joint electromagnetic spectrum operational plan. All radio frequency users have proven that it is not enough to defend against dynamic targeted network attacks. We must also have a network protection network in full-dimensional space. ability.

Every day, my staff are working hard to go beyond the traditional field and apply their expertise to the cyberspace field. I am very proud of it. This is the environment we create to nurture and use future domain experts. The Ministry of Defence is not comparable to the industry in terms of monetary subsidies, but we are able to provide our staff with a wider range of education and training opportunities and help them gain leadership experience that is not available elsewhere.

Original Mandarin Chinese:

美國艦隊賽博司令部和美國海軍第十艦隊司令。作為海軍特遣司令部的美國艦隊賽博司令部,是海軍二級司令部,隸屬於海軍作戰司令部,主要任務是指導防禦中的賽博作戰,支援作戰部隊實施威懾、擊退侵犯、保證行動自由。我部任務與其他軍種賽博特遣司令部類似,擔負有在網絡、密碼、信號情報、信息作戰、賽博空間、電子戰以及太空等領域實施作戰行動的獨特任務,以支援海上、陸上作戰力量。海軍作戰需要通過融合傳統作戰能力,拓展新型能力,發展跨越網絡、信號情報系統和電子戰系統的能力,從而實現我部在賽博空間作戰能力方面的全面發展。同樣,我們也擔負有組織指揮海軍全球範圍的密碼作戰,集成信息作戰和太空作戰的任務。

歷史

第十艦隊成立於二戰期間,主要在大西洋發展實施反潛戰能力。那時,我們面臨的是作戰能力大大超越一戰時期的敵對威脅,其改變戰局能力十分強大。沒有任何軍艦的第十艦隊,通過情報融合,創新戰術、技術、流程戰勝了德軍潛艇。如今,重建的第十艦隊仍恪守這些作戰理念。我們與信息戰專家,情報專家,密碼和電子戰專家,以及傳統軍事專家一起,指揮作戰行動,確保作戰行動的靈活性,應對日益變化的敵對威脅。艦隊賽博司令部作戰重點是使海軍具備快速應對網絡威脅能力,保持信息優勢。這一行動框架要求我們要完成網絡作戰防禦的任務。

在現代戰爭中取勝,我們必須要具備在全譜電磁空間內的自由行動能力,其防禦範圍已從普通的電磁干擾擴展到高級的網絡入侵和惡意攻擊。艦隊賽博司令部職能就是分析這種威脅,創新戰術、技術、流程,來防護網絡並保證自由行動能力。

結構

海軍作戰具有動態性,海軍網絡也具有時空複雜性。海軍不僅要配置在各大洋,還要在阿富汗、伊拉克等其它地方支援地面作戰,我們目前有超過1萬名海軍官兵參與這些地面作戰。

艦隊賽博司令部是一個全球性的司令部,具備在世界範圍內保持網絡優勢、實施網絡作戰的能力,並確保在全譜電磁空間指揮賽博作戰行動能力的發揮。由於第十艦隊指揮官是作戰級指揮官,我們司令部也是基於典型海軍任務力量結構而建立的。此力量結構能夠給下級特遣大隊分派地域性任務,為特定密碼需求提供支援。這種特遣部隊編成考慮了多變的情報通報,技術和職責,具備了保障艦隊作戰任務的快速反應能力,並且推動了與美國賽博司令部和軍種賽博部門在局部的交流協作。我們一直在致力於發展一種健壯的組織結構,能夠對各種作戰​​行動提供迅速直接的支援。

網絡戰司令部(CTF1010)負責海軍網絡作戰,其下屬單位包括大西洋和太平洋地區性海軍計算機與遠程通信地面主站(NCTAMS),該主站能夠提供網絡引導、維護和岸艦中繼。海軍賽博防禦作戰司令部(CTF 1020)負責網絡防禦,該單位主要負責監測網絡威脅和監控網絡響應。

諾福克的海軍信息作戰司令部(CTF 1030)專門負責海軍信息作戰,其特遣大隊位於聖地亞哥和惠德貝島。德克薩斯的海軍信息作戰司令部(CTF 1040),喬治亞州的海軍信息作戰司令部(CTF 1050),馬里蘭的海軍信息作戰司令部(CTF 1060),科羅拉多的海軍信息作戰司令部(CTF 1080 )及其覆蓋全球的下屬司令部來負責協同艦隊和戰區作戰。密碼行動由CTF 1000力量結構負責。

休特蘭海軍信息作戰中心(CTF 1090)在我們的研究與開發大隊基礎上建立,其主要任務是為支援艦隊和聯合作戰任務提供戰場準備技術。

外部和內部組織結構圖見下方。

任務的圓滿完成必須要以人員的高效徵募和培訓為基礎,這些人員必須具備敏銳的技術洞察力和將個人技能應用於艦隊網絡防禦行動的能力。我檢查過幾乎所有的作戰司令部,我能夠向委員會保證,海軍擁有一批傑出的作戰人員,他們已經做好準備遂行賽博空間作戰行動。由於賽博空間領域的動態性,我們必須持續推進作戰力量的發展,我們主動設置新的專家官員包括賽博工程師和準尉。國家海軍學院賽博課程的建設也將為學員教育提供新的機遇,這些學員將成為海軍賽博作戰指揮的骨幹力量。

任務

隨著艦隊賽博司令部日趨成熟,我們也在試圖學習利用兄弟軍種的相關技術。作為國家賽博司令部的支援司令部,我們還聯繫了其它軍種部門的人員共同建立深度防禦體系,提高應變能力,增強全球賽博防禦的健壯性和適應性。如果某軍種部門發現、分析、摧毀了某種威脅,該信息將會迅速被分發到其它軍種,使侵入破壞程度最小化並實現聯合響應。

實際上我們已經開始行動了,從一月份成立開始,我們就與國家賽博司令部軍種部門一起,一直在參與支援國家太平洋司令部和太平洋艦隊演習。我們通過考察網絡作戰行動,來增強共享態勢感知能力和協同監督安全能力。我們還與工業界、學術界和聯邦基金研究發展中心開展合作,學習利用他們的知識和能力。商業部門推動著賽博領域的發展,我們必須獲得他們的能力和資金支持。

跨領域間的協調與相互作用是極其重要的。保障系統安全或者網絡防禦工作必須要同阻止我方系統無意干擾工作協調開展。從導航系統到網絡訪問,從EA-18G咆哮者電子戰飛機到艦載SLQ-32干擾機,第十艦隊都迅速集成其它編號艦隊及地區海軍部門指揮官,並滿足其任務需求。艦隊參謀間的協作是第十艦隊成就背後的關鍵因素之一,也是我們取得初始成功的原因之一。

在Ft. Meade的參謀和指揮人員的能力素質每個月都有提高。目前我部指揮參謀人員有130名,在近幾年將會增加到200名左右。這個增長速率保證司令部不僅要增加技術專家型人員,還要增加哪些富有作戰經驗的人員,他們能夠從賽博安全相關的大量挑戰中擺脫出來。

這些挑戰包括:發展與保持將網絡視為一個作戰空間的觀念;跨軍種提供支援,保持我方在賽博空間的行動自由;將賽博作戰發展成一個職能領域,並創建一系列詳實的概念。

隨著我們作戰能力的持續發展,我們將具備更好的支援艦隊和聯合演習能力,並通過他們必要的反饋來提高我們在敵對或對抗賽博環境中的作戰能力。這種反饋是非常重要的,它能夠促使我們評估和改進自身能力,從而支持在面對更強大威脅時的行動自由。這些威脅將來不僅僅會影響海軍或者國防部的系統,也會威脅到平民用戶,並且它們可能是一些非傳統威脅來源。毫無疑問,非國家實體的人員也在尋找影響我們網絡的手段和能力,那麼作為一個國家,我們必須做好準備應對這些非對稱的挑戰與威脅。

美國艦隊賽博司令部也是海軍在電子戰和電磁頻譜作戰方面的權威作戰部門。通過與其它軍種協力合作,我們正在努力製定全面的聯合電磁頻譜作戰計劃,所有的無線電頻率用戶都證明,能夠防禦動態定向的網絡攻擊是不夠的,我們還必須具備在全維空間防護網絡行動的能力。

每天,我部人員都在努力超越傳統領域,並將他們的專業知識應用到賽博領域,我為此深感驕傲。這就是我們為培育和使用將來的領域專家所營造的環境。在金錢補助方面國防部是無法同業界進行比較的,但我們能夠為所屬人員提供更為廣泛的教育和培訓機會,並幫助他們獲得其它地方無法取得的領導經驗。

Original referring 2011 url:  http://www.china.com.cn/military/txt/2011-02