Tag Archives: #Chinese military cognitive warfare

#Artificial #Intelligence, #intelligent warfare, #intellligentization, #mosaic #warfare, Chinese Military Intelligentization, Chinese Military Use of Cognitive Confrontation within the Combat Domain, Combat Planning, Intelligent Warfare, Mosaic Warfare

The Intrinsic Evolution of the Winning Mechanisms in Chinese Military Joint Operations

01/18/2026 admin Leave a comment

中國軍事聯合作戰中獲勝機制的內在演變

現代英語:

Joint operations, as a fundamental form of modern warfare, have evolved in their winning mechanisms along with advancements in military technology and changes in the nature of warfare. From the coordinated formations of the cold weapon era to the combined arms operations of infantry and artillery in the era of firearms, from joint operations of various services and branches in the era of mechanized warfare to multi-domain joint operations in the era of informationized warfare, each military revolution has brought about fundamental changes in the winning mechanisms of warfare.

Currently, emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, big data, cloud computing, and the Internet of Things are driving the evolution of warfare towards informatization and intelligence at an unprecedented pace. The connotation and extension of joint operations are constantly expanding, and the mechanisms of victory are also showing a series of new development trends. In-depth research into the development trends of the mechanisms of victory in joint operations, based on a multi-perspective analysis framework, systematically exploring the historical evolution and future development direction of these mechanisms from five dimensions—operation time, operation space, operation force, operation actions, and operation command and control—is of vital importance for accurately grasping the changes in future warfare, scientifically establishing the direction of military force development, and effectively enhancing joint operations capabilities.

From a combat time perspective: the strategy has evolved from step-by-step progression to instantaneous enemy destruction.

Time is one of the fundamental elements of war, and the art of utilizing operational time is key to victory in joint operations. In the era of mechanized warfare, limited by intelligence gathering methods, command and control capabilities, and weapon performance, joint operational operations are typically organized and implemented under strict time constraints, unfolding sequentially in stages: reconnaissance and early warning, fire preparation, forward breakthrough, deep attack, and fortification. Each branch of the armed forces carries out its operational mission according to a predetermined plan at each stage. This operational model results in a relatively slow pace of combat and inefficient use of time, often requiring several days or even months to complete a single operational phase. With the development of information technology and precision-guided weapons, the time-dimensional winning mechanism of modern joint operations is shifting towards “instantaneous enemy destruction.” The pace of combat operations has accelerated significantly, and the division of combat phases has become increasingly blurred. The traditional step-by-step approach is gradually being replaced by “instantaneous” warfare characterized by real-time perception, real-time decision-making, and real-time action. Real-time information sharing and rapid flow have drastically shortened the combat command and decision-making cycle, achieving the “detect and destroy” combat effect. The widespread application of precision-guided weapons has greatly improved the speed and accuracy of firepower strikes, enabling combat forces to carry out devastating strikes against key targets in an instant. In the future, with the development and application of artificial intelligence technology, the speed of combat decision-making and action will be further improved, and the instantaneous nature of joint operations will become more prominent.

From the perspective of operational space: expanding from the tangible battlefield to the intangible space

The operational space is the arena for joint combat forces, and its constantly evolving form and scope directly influence the mechanisms of victory in joint operations. In industrial-era warfare, the operational space was primarily confined to tangible physical spaces such as land, sea, and air. Operations mainly revolved around seizing and controlling key geographical points, transportation lines, and strategic locations, and the deployment of combat forces and the evaluation of operational effectiveness were also primarily based on the tangible spatial scope. Entering the information age, the operational space is undergoing revolutionary changes. In addition to the traditional tangible physical spaces of land, sea, air, and space, intangible spaces such as information space, cyberspace, and psychological space are increasingly becoming important battlefields for joint operations, even determining the outcome of combat to some extent. The struggle for information space has become a primary aspect of joint operations, the battle in cyberspace is intensifying, and the psychological warfare is constantly evolving. The battlefield of modern joint operations is characterized by a fusion of tangible and intangible spaces, and an equal emphasis on the physical and information domains. In the future, with the development of emerging technologies such as quantum technology, biotechnology, and artificial intelligence, the space for joint operations will further expand, potentially giving rise to new operational domains such as quantum space and biological space. The mechanisms for winning in joint operations will also undergo profound changes.

From the perspective of combat power: a shift from human-machine integration to human-machine collaboration.

Combat forces are the material foundation of joint operations, and their composition and deployment directly affect the outcome of such operations. In the era of mechanized warfare, the composition of joint combat forces was primarily a human-equipment integration model, with personnel as the main body and weapons and equipment as the tools. The effectiveness of combat forces depended mainly on the number and quality of personnel, the performance and quantity of weapons and equipment, and the degree of integration between personnel and equipment. Armies around the world emphasize improving the level of personnel-equipment integration through rigorous training to fully leverage the combat effectiveness of weapons and equipment. With the development of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, robotics, and big data, the composition and deployment of modern joint combat forces are undergoing profound changes, and human-machine collaboration is becoming a new logic for winning joint combat operations. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), unmanned ships, unmanned combat vehicles, and unmanned underwater vehicles have become an important component of joint combat forces. They are capable of performing reconnaissance, surveillance, strike, and interference missions in high-risk environments, significantly improving the survivability and combat effectiveness of combat forces. The application of artificial intelligence technology has also endowed weaponry with a certain degree of autonomous action, enabling them to autonomously collaborate with humans to complete complex tasks. Machine intelligence has not only changed the composition of combat forces but also their operational methods. In the future, with the continuous advancement of human-machine integration technology, the boundaries between humans and machines will become increasingly blurred, and human-machine collaboration will reach an even higher level.

From a combat operations perspective: The shift from segmented cooperation to cross-domain integration.

Joint operations are the concrete practice of joint warfare, and their organizational form and implementation methods directly affect the overall effectiveness of joint operations. In traditional joint operations, limited by command and control capabilities and coordination mechanisms between various services and branches, forces from each service and branch can only carry out missions within their respective operational domains and conduct limited cooperation through pre-established coordination plans. This domain-specific cooperation model is prone to problems such as coordination failures and operational disconnects. In the information age, with the improvement of all-domain awareness capabilities and the refinement of command and control methods, joint operations are gradually developing towards cross-domain integration. Cross-domain integration emphasizes breaking down the boundaries between different operational domains, achieving seamless connection and deep integration of operational forces across multiple domains such as land, sea, air, space, electromagnetic, and cyberspace, forming a coordinated overall operational effect. Operational forces in each domain can share battlefield information in real time, dynamically adjust operational actions, rapidly transcend geographical and domain boundaries, and conduct operations simultaneously in multiple domains. Through the integration and sharing of multi-domain information, a high degree of coordination and precise cooperation in operational actions across domains is achieved, forming a synergistic and effective overall operational effect. In the future, with the continuous development of information technology, the degree of cross-domain integration in joint operations will further deepen, becoming a key to victory in joint operations.

From the perspective of combat command and control: Evolution from central radiation to flexible periphery

Operational command and control is the “brain” and “nerve center” of joint operations; its mode selection and effectiveness directly determine the success or failure of joint operations. In the era of mechanized warfare, due to limited command and control technology, joint operational command and control typically adopted a centralized, hierarchical, tree-like organizational model. This model, centered on the highest command organization, implements operational command and control by transmitting orders downwards and feeding back information upwards, possessing significant advantages in centralized and unified action. However, it also suffers from drawbacks such as multiple command levels, slow information transmission, and poor responsiveness. With the development of information network technology and artificial intelligence technology, modern joint operational command and control is evolving towards greater flexibility. A modular and reconfigurable command structure enables the entire combat system to flexibly adjust command relationships and processes according to changes in combat missions and battlefield environments. While maintaining a centralized and unified strategic intent, it grants greater autonomy to tactical nodes at the system’s periphery, thereby enhancing the system’s flexibility and responsiveness, and better adapting to the rapidly changing challenges of future battlefields. In the future, with the development of technologies such as brain-computer interfaces and quantum communication, the real-time nature, accuracy, and flexibility of joint operations command and control will reach new heights.

In conclusion, with the development of emerging technologies such as information technology and artificial intelligence and their widespread application in the military field, the form of joint operations is undergoing continuous evolution, and the mechanisms for winning joint operations are also undergoing profound changes. This not only reshapes traditional operational concepts and methods but also poses new and higher requirements for the development of future joint operational capabilities. Therefore, we must maintain strategic clarity and innovative vitality, closely monitor global military development trends, conduct in-depth research on the mechanisms for winning joint operations, and continuously promote innovation in joint operational theory and practice to lay a solid foundation for winning informationized and intelligent warfare.

現代國語：

把握聯合作戰制勝機理內在演進

■李玉焱楊飛龍李忠智

寫在前面

聯合作戰作為現代戰爭的基本作戰形式，其制勝機理隨著軍事技術的進步和戰爭形態的演變而不斷發展。從冷兵器時代的方陣協同到熱兵器時代的步炮配合，從機械化戰爭時代的諸軍兵種合同作戰到信息化戰爭時代的多域聯合作戰，每一次軍事革命都帶來了作戰制勝機理的根本性變革。

當前，以人工智能、大數據、雲計算、物聯網等為代表的新興技術正以前所未有的速度推動戰爭形態向信息化智能化方向加速演進，聯合作戰的內涵和外延不斷拓展，制勝機理也呈現出一系列新的發展趨勢。深入研究聯合作戰制勝機理的發展趨勢，基於多視角分析框架，從作戰時間、作戰空間、作戰力量、作戰行動和作戰指控五個維度，系統探討聯合作戰制勝機理的歷史演進軌跡和未來發展方向，對於我們准確把握未來戰爭形態變化、科學確立軍事力量建設方向、有效提升聯合作戰能力，具有至關重要的意義。

從作戰時間視角看：由按階推進向瞬時破敵發展

時間是戰爭的基本要素之一，作戰時間的運用藝術是聯合作戰制勝的關鍵所在。在機械化戰爭時代，受限於情報獲取手段、指揮控制能力和武器裝備性能，聯合作戰行動組織實施通常遵循嚴格的時間限制，按照偵察預警、火力准備、前沿突破、縱深攻擊、鞏固防御的階段劃分依次展開，各軍兵種力量在各階段根據預定計劃遂行作戰任務。這種作戰模式下，作戰節奏相對緩慢，時間利用效率不高，往往需要數天甚至數月才能完成一個戰役階段。隨著信息技術和精確制導武器的發展，現代聯合作戰的時間維度制勝機理正在向“瞬時破敵”方向轉變。作戰行動節奏大大加快，作戰階段劃分日益模糊，傳統的按階推進模式逐漸被實時感知、實時決策、實時行動的“秒殺”式作戰所取代。信息的實時共享和快速流動使得作戰指揮決策周期大幅縮短，實現了“發現即摧毀”的作戰效果。精確制導武器的廣泛應用大大提高了火力打擊的速度和精度，使得作戰力量能夠在瞬間對關鍵目標實施毀滅性打擊。未來，隨著人工智能技術的發展和應用，作戰決策和行動的速度將進一步提升，聯合作戰的瞬時性特征將更加凸顯。

從作戰空間視角看：由有形戰場向無形空間拓展

作戰空間是聯合作戰力量活動的舞台，其形態和范圍的不斷變化直接影響著聯合作戰的制勝機理。在工業時代的戰爭中，聯合作戰的空間主要局限於陸地、海洋和空中等有形物理空間。作戰行動主要圍繞著奪取和控制地理要點、交通線和戰略要地展開，作戰力量的運用和作戰效果的評估也主要基於有形空間范圍。進入信息化時代，聯合作戰空間正在發生革命性變化，除了傳統的陸、海、空、天等有形物理空間外，信息空間、網電空間、心理空間等無形空間日益成為聯合作戰的重要戰場，甚至在某種程度上決定著作戰的勝負。信息空間的爭奪已成為聯合作戰的首要環節，網電空間的斗爭也日趨激烈，心理空間的較量更是層出不窮，現代聯合作戰的戰場空間已經呈現出“有形空間與無形空間交融、物理域與信息域並重”的鮮明特征。未來，隨著量子技術、生物技術、人工智能等新興技術的發展，聯合作戰空間還將進一步拓展，可能會出現量子空間、生物空間等新的作戰領域，聯合作戰的制勝機理也將隨之發生更深層次的變革。

從作戰力量視角看：由人裝結合向人機協作轉變

作戰力量是聯合作戰的物質基礎，其構成和運用方式直接關系到聯合作戰的勝負。在機械化戰爭時代，聯合作戰力量的構成主要是以人員為主體、以武器裝備為工具的人裝結合模式，作戰力量的效能主要取決於人員的數量、素質和武器裝備的性能、數量，以及人與裝備的結合程度。各國軍隊都強調通過嚴格的訓練提高人與裝備的結合水平，以充分發揮武器裝備的作戰效能。隨著人工智能、機器人技術、大數據等新興技術的發展，現代聯合作戰力量的構成和運用方式正在發生深刻變化，人機協作正成為聯合作戰力量制勝的新邏輯。無人機、無人艦艇、無人戰車、無人潛航器等無人裝備已經成為聯合作戰力量的重要組成部分，它們能夠在高危環境下遂行偵察、監視、打擊、干擾等任務，大大提高了作戰力量的生存能力和作戰效能。人工智能技術的應用也使得武器裝備具備了一定的自主行動能力，能夠與人自主協同完成復雜任務，機器智能不僅改變了作戰力量的構成形式，也改變了其運用方式。未來，隨著人機融合技術的持續進步，人與機器的界限會日益模糊，人機協作也將達到更高水平。

從作戰行動視角看：由分域配合向跨域融合深化

作戰行動是聯合作戰的具體實踐，其組織形式和實施方式將直接影響聯合作戰的整體效能。在傳統的聯合作戰中，受限於指揮控制能力和各軍兵種之間的協同機制，各軍兵種力量僅能在各自作戰領域內遂行任務，並通過預先制定的協同計劃進行有限的配合。這種分域配合的模式很容易出現協同失調、行動脫節等問題。進入信息時代，隨著全域感知能力的提升和指揮控制手段的完善，聯合作戰行動正逐步向跨域融合的方向發展。跨域融合強調打破各作戰領域之間的界限，實現作戰力量在陸、海、空、天、電、網等多域空間的無縫銜接和深度融合，形成整體聯動的作戰效果。各域作戰力量能夠實時共享戰場信息，動態調整作戰行動，快速跨越地理空間和領域界限，在多個域內同時展開行動，通過多域信息的融合共享，實現各域作戰行動的高度協同和精確配合，形成疊加增效的整體作戰效果。未來，隨著信息技術的不斷發展，聯合作戰行動的跨域融合程度將進一步加深，成為聯合作戰制勝的關鍵所在。

從作戰指控視角看：由中央輻射向彈性邊緣演進

作戰指揮控制是聯合作戰的“大腦”和“神經中樞”，其模式選擇和效能發揮將直接決定聯合作戰行動的成敗。在機械化戰爭時代，由於指控技術手段有限，聯合作戰指控通常采取中央輻射、層級樹狀的組織模式。這種模式以最高指揮機構為中心，通過逐級向下傳遞命令和向上反饋信息的方式實施作戰指揮控制，具有行動集中統一的顯著優勢，但也存在指揮層級多、信息傳遞慢、應變能力差等不足。隨著信息網絡技術和人工智能技術的發展，現代聯合作戰指控正在向彈性邊緣的方向發展演變。模塊化、可重組的指揮體系結構，使整個作戰體系能夠根據作戰任務和戰場環境的變化，靈活調整指揮關系和指揮流程，在保持戰略意圖集中統一的前提下，賦予體系邊緣的戰術節點更大的自主決策權，進而提高了作戰體系的靈活性和應變能力，能夠更好地適應未來戰場局勢瞬息萬變的挑戰。未來，隨著腦機接口、量子通信等技術的發展，聯合作戰指控的實時性、准確性和靈活性還將達到新的高度。

總之，隨著信息技術、人工智能等新興技術的發展及其在軍事領域的廣泛應用，聯合作戰形態正在發生持續演變，聯合作戰制勝機理也隨之發生深刻變革。這不僅重塑了傳統的作戰理念和作戰方式，也對未來聯合作戰能力建設提出了新的更高要求。對此，我們必須保持戰略清醒和創新活力，密切關注世界軍事發展趨勢，深入研究聯合作戰制勝機理，不斷推動聯合作戰理論和實踐創新，為打贏信息化智能化戰爭奠定堅實基礎。

中國原創軍事資源：

http://www.81.cn/ll_208543/16848385973.html

#cyber #warfare, #Information Support Force, #informatization, #intelligent warfare, #intellligentization, #mosaic #warfare, #消耗戰, #網路戰爭, #耗散, #耗散戰爭, 消耗戰, 耗散

Analyzing the Chinese Military New Changes in Winning Methods of Intelligent Warfare

01/18/2026 admin Leave a comment

分析中國軍隊在情報戰制勝方式上的新變化

現代英語：

From war of attrition to war of dissipation—

Analyzing the New Changes in the Winning Methods of Intelligent Warfare

President Xi Jinping pointed out that the core of studying combat issues is to understand the characteristics, laws, and winning mechanisms of modern warfare. From the clash of bronze swords to the roar of tank engines and the saturation attack of unmanned “swarms,” each leap in the form of warfare has profoundly changed the way wars are won. In the long era of cold weapons, firearms, and mechanized warfare, wars of attrition were waged by offsetting the deficit of national wealth and resources to exhaust the opponent’s will to resist. However, the new military revolution, led by the information technology revolution and accelerating towards the intelligent era, is pushing the way wars are won to a completely new dimension—wars of attrition. This transforms the traditional method of warfare, which is mainly based on the consumption of materials and energy, into a comprehensive method of warfare that integrates the consumption of materials, the offsetting of energy, and information confrontation.

The war of attrition is an ironclad rule of traditional warfare.

In the long period before and during the industrial age, wars were primarily based on the struggle for material and energy resources, and the balance of power often tilted toward the side that could withstand greater material and energy losses.

War of attrition is a primary method of victory in traditional warfare. In cold weapon warfare, the focus of confrontation lies in the number of troops, physical endurance, metal weapons, and food reserves. Victory often depends on who has a larger troop size and a stronger logistical chain. For example, the siege warfare commonly seen in ancient times was essentially a war of attrition between the defender’s material reserves and the attacker’s manpower and equipment. In firearms warfare, the use of gunpowder did not reduce the attrition of war; on the contrary, it pushed it to new heights. The dense charges of line infantry in the Napoleonic Wars and the brutal trench warfare of the Battle of Verdun and the Battle of the Somme in World War I all exemplify the essence of war of attrition: “trading space for steel and flesh.” In mechanized warfare, the advent of platforms such as tanks, airplanes, and aircraft carriers pushed the scale of material and energy consumption to its peak. In World War II, the Battle of Kursk on the Eastern Front and the brutal Battle of Iwo Jima in the Pacific were the ultimate clash between national industrial capacity and the military’s ability to withstand casualties.

The war of attrition is essentially a contest of material and energy resources. It’s a contest of size and reserves, involving static or slowly accumulating factors such as population size, resource reserves, industrial capacity, and troop strength. Its primary objective is to destroy the enemy’s manpower, war materials, and deprive them of territory and resources; in essence, it’s a contest of material and energy resources between the opposing sides. Clausewitz’s assertion that “war is an act of violence that compels the enemy to submit to our will” is based on the underlying logic of violent attrition. The winning mechanism of a war of attrition is that victory belongs to the side that can more sustainably convert material resources into battlefield lethality and can withstand greater losses.

The war of attrition has revealed significant historical limitations in practice. From the long-term experience of traditional warfare, the fundamental limitations of attrition warfare manifest in the enormous loss of life and material wealth, the prohibitively high costs to society, and the waste of vast amounts of energy and resources on non-critical targets, indiscriminate artillery bombardment, and large-scale but inefficient assaults. When the strength of both sides is nearly equal and their will is firm, the outcome is difficult to predict, leading to repeated back-and-forth battles and easily resulting in a protracted quagmire like that of the Western Front in World War I. Faced with increasingly networked and information-based modern warfare systems, the attrition model relying on large-scale firepower coverage is insufficient for accurately striking the opponent’s key nodes and functional connections, resulting in diminishing returns.

The information technology revolution gave rise to the prototype of dissipation warfare

The information technology revolution in the second half of the 20th century injected disruptive variables into the form of warfare. Information began to surpass matter and energy, becoming the core element of victory, and information warfare took center stage in history.

The focus of information warfare has shifted. The Gulf War is considered a milestone in information warfare, where multinational forces, leveraging reconnaissance aircraft, early warning aircraft, electronic warfare systems, precision-guided weapons, and C4ISR systems, achieved overwhelming information superiority, realizing “one-way transparency” on the battlefield. The focus of this war was no longer on completely annihilating the opponent’s massive ground forces, but rather on systematically destroying their command and control systems, air defense systems, communication hubs, and logistical supply lines, leading to the rapid collapse of the opponent’s overall combat capability and plunging them into a chaotic state of disorganized warfare and command failure. This marks the beginning of a shift in the focus of warfare from “hard destruction” in the physical domain to “system disruption” and functional paralysis in the information domain.

The methods of winning in information warfare are changing. Information warfare alters the way and objectives of material and energy utilization through information superiority. The winning strategy is no longer simply about “consuming” the opponent’s materials and energy, but rather about guiding the flow of materials and energy through efficient information flow, precisely targeting the “critical chains” of the enemy’s operational system. This aims to achieve maximum chaos, disorder, functional collapse, and overall effectiveness reduction in the enemy system with minimal material and energy input. Therefore, information warfare is beginning to pursue “entropy increase,” or increased disorder, in the enemy’s operational system, causing it to move from order to disorder. This indicates that dissipative warfare, reflecting the complex systemic confrontation of intelligent warfare, is beginning to emerge.

Dissipation warfare is a typical form of intelligent warfare.

With the rapid development of intelligent technology and its widespread application in the military, intelligent warfare is becoming a new form of warfare after information warfare, and dissipation warfare is becoming a typical mode of intelligent warfare.

Dissipation warfare has adapted to the demands of the modern world security landscape. In the era of intelligent technology, technologies and applications such as broadband networks, big data, cloud computing, brain-computer interfaces, intelligent chips, and deep learning are rapidly developing. Connections between nations and ethnic groups are becoming more extensive, non-traditional security threats are emerging and intertwining with traditional security threats, the subjects and scope of intelligent warfare are constantly expanding, and the time and space of warfare are continuously extending. Warfare systems are shifting from relatively closed to more open, forming higher-level and broader-ranging confrontations. Dissipation warfare, a winning strategy in the intelligent era, is becoming increasingly prominent.

Dissipation warfare reflects the historical development of methods for winning wars. Dissipation warfare has always existed, but before the emergence of intelligent warfare, due to technological limitations, it remained in a relatively rudimentary and simple form, with combat primarily manifesting as a confrontation between one of the elements: matter, energy, or information. Cold weapon warfare was mainly characterized by a material-centric, human-centered confrontation; firearms and mechanized warfare were mainly characterized by an energy-centric, platform-centered confrontation; and information warfare was mainly characterized by an information-centric, network-based confrontation. In the intelligent era, intelligent technology highly unifies the cognitive, decision-making, and operational advantages in adversarial confrontation. Essentially, it unifies matter, energy, and information, forming an intelligent warfare form dominated by intelligent elements and centered on intelligent algorithms through intelligent empowerment, energy aggregation, energy drive, and energy release. Its typical form is dissipation warfare, reflecting the complex systemic confrontation of intelligent warfare.

Dissipation warfare embodies the resilience of complex warfare systems. From the perspective of its winning mechanism, to gain an advantage in a confrontation, it is necessary to construct a rapid “perception, decision-making, action, and assessment” dissipation warfare closed loop based on the principles of “negative entropy infusion, threshold identification, phase transition triggering, and victory control.” This continuously increases the enemy’s entropy value in a dynamic hybrid game, causing the enemy to lose its overall combat capability. From the perspective of its winning path, dissipation warfare emphasizes the comprehensive use of material attrition, energy counter-attack, and information confrontation. Internally, it “establishes order,” achieving logical concentration, immediate enrichment, complementary advantages, and integrated superiority to form comprehensive combat power. Externally, it “increases entropy” through the continuous operation of military, political, economic, technological, cultural, and diplomatic components until the accumulated effectiveness reaches a certain level, forming a “fluctuation,” achieving a sudden change in combat power and the emergence of system effectiveness. In terms of its basic characteristics, dissipative warfare is characterized by comprehensive confrontation and competition, multiple subjects across domains, complex and diverse forms, integrated and concentrated forces, and the cumulative emergence of effectiveness. The core of the confrontation has shifted from the destruction of the physical domain and the control of the information domain to a game of disrupting and maintaining the inherent “orderliness” of the complex system of intelligent warfare.

Dissipation warfare encompasses various forms of intelligent warfare. Beyond the traditional attrition warfare across land, sea, air, space, cyberspace, and electronic domains, it also includes forms of struggle employed by one or more nations against their adversaries in multiple social domains. These include political isolation and encirclement, economic and financial blockades, disruption of technological supply chains, cultural strategic exports, authoritative media campaigns to seize the initiative in discourse, creation of trending events to guide public perception, AI-assisted social media information cocoons, and the use of proxies to establish multilateral battlefields. The diverse forms of dissipation warfare allow it to be conducted both in wartime and peacetime. The principle of “victorious armies first secure victory and then seek battle,” as taught in Sun Tzu’s *Art of War*, takes on new meaning in the context of war preparations in the intelligent age.

The shift in winning strategies from war of attrition to war of dissipation

Dissipative warfare manifests itself in the comprehensive confrontation across multiple domains, including the physical and information domains, in the intelligent era. It embodies a high degree of unity among political contests, economic competition, military offense and defense, cultural conflicts, and diplomatic checks and balances, reflecting the openness, complexity, and emergent nature of intelligent warfare systems.

The evolution from attrition warfare to dissipation warfare represents a comprehensive and profound transformation. The basis for victory has shifted from relying on resource reserves such as population, mineral deposits, and industrial bases to relying on information superiority, intelligent algorithm superiority, network structure superiority, and the ability to dynamically control energy and information flows. The target has shifted from focusing on destroying physical entities such as soldiers, tanks, and factories to focusing on dismantling the “function” and “order” of the war system. The pursuit of effectiveness has shifted from the absolute destruction and annihilation of manpower to the pursuit of highly efficient “asymmetric paralysis,” that is, inducing maximum chaos and incompetence in the enemy’s combat system at the lowest possible cost, aiming to “paralyze” rather than “destroy.” The focus of war has shifted from confrontation primarily in the physical domains of land, sea, and air to a comprehensive game involving multiple domains, including the physical and information domains. While confrontation in the physical domain still exists, it is often determined by advantages in higher-dimensional domains.

The evolution from attrition warfare to dissipation warfare reflects a shift in the decisive advantage. In the era of intelligent warfare, victory will no longer simply belong to the side with the largest steel army, but will inevitably belong to the side that can more efficiently “establish order” and “induce entropy”—that is, the side that can maintain a highly ordered and efficient operation of its own war system while precisely and intelligently dismantling the order of the enemy’s system, forcing it into irreversible “entropy increase” and chaos. To gain a decisive advantage in war, it is necessary to adapt to the openness, complexity, and emergent nature of intelligent warfare systems, shifting from the extensive consumption and application of single materials, energy, and information to using intelligent advantages to dominate the dissipation of the war system, striving to gain the initiative and advantage in comprehensive multi-domain competition.

The evolution from attrition warfare to dissipation warfare is an inevitable trend driven by the tide of technological revolution. Technology is the core combat capability and the most active and revolutionary factor in military development. Currently, intelligent technology is developing rapidly. Only by proactively embracing the wave of intelligence and firmly grasping the key to victory in the precise understanding, intelligent control, and efficient dissipation of the complex system of warfare can we remain invincible in the ever-changing landscape of future global competition and the profound transformation of warfare.

現代國語：

從消耗戰到耗散戰——

試析智能化戰爭制勝方式新變革

習主席指出，研究作戰問題，核心是要把現代戰爭的特點規律和制勝機理搞清楚。從青銅劍的碰撞到坦克發動機的轟鳴再到無人“蜂群”的飽和攻擊，戰爭形態的每一次躍遷都深刻改變著戰爭制勝方式。在漫長的冷兵器、熱兵器和機械化戰爭時代，消耗戰以國家財富資源的對沖抵消來耗盡對手的抵抗意志。然而，以信息技術革命為先導，並加速向智能化時代邁進的新軍事革命，正將戰爭制勝方式推向全新的維度——耗散戰，即將傳統的以物質、能量消耗為主，轉變為集物質對耗、能量對沖和信息對抗綜合一體的戰爭方式。

消耗戰是傳統戰爭形態的鐵律

在工業時代及其之前的漫長歲月裡，戰爭主要是基於物質與能量要素的對抗，勝負的天平往往向能夠承受更大物質與能量損耗的一方傾斜。

消耗戰是傳統戰爭形態的主要制勝方式。冷兵器戰爭，對抗重心在於兵員數量、體能耐力、金屬兵器與糧秣儲備的比拼，戰爭勝負往往取決於誰的兵員數量規模大，誰的後勤鏈條更牢固。如古代比較多見的圍城戰本質就是守城方物資儲備與攻城方兵力器械的消耗戰；熱兵器戰爭，火藥的運用並未削弱戰爭消耗，反而將其推至新高度。拿破侖戰爭線列步兵的密集沖鋒，第一次世界大戰的凡爾登、索姆河戰役戰壕對峙的殘酷絞殺，無不體現著“以鋼鐵和血肉換取空間”的消耗戰本質；機械化戰爭，坦克、飛機、航母等平台的登場，將物質與能量的消耗規模推向巔峰。第二次世界大戰中，蘇德戰場的庫爾斯克坦克大會戰、太平洋戰場慘烈的硫磺島爭奪戰，都是國家工業產能與軍隊承受傷亡能力的終極對撞。

消耗戰實質是基於物質與能量要素的比拼。消耗戰比拼的是體量和存量，是人口基數、資源儲備、工業產能、兵力規模等靜態或可緩慢累積的要素，主要目標是摧毀敵方有生力量、戰爭物資、剝奪其領土和資源，實質上是對抗雙方物質與能量要素的比拼。克勞塞維茨“戰爭是迫使敵人服從我們意志的一種暴力行為”的論斷，底層邏輯正是暴力消耗。消耗戰的制勝機理是：勝利屬於能更持久地將物質資源轉化為戰場殺傷力，並能承受更大損失的一方。

消耗戰在實踐中暴露出重大歷史局限性。從傳統戰爭的長期實踐看，消耗戰的根本局限性體現為巨大的生命、物質財富損失，社會難以承受的高昂成本，以及大量能量與資源被浪費在非關鍵目標或盲目炮擊、大規模但低效的沖鋒等無效對抗上。當對抗雙方實力接近且意志堅定時，勝負難分，反復拉鋸，極易陷入如第一次世界大戰西線戰場般的長期消耗泥潭。面對日益網絡化、信息化的現代作戰體系，依靠大規模火力覆蓋的消耗模式，難以精准打擊對手關鍵節點與功能連接，效果事倍功半。

信息技術革命催生耗散戰雛形

20世紀下半葉的信息技術革命，為戰爭形態注入了顛覆性變量，信息開始超越物質與能量，成為核心制勝要素，信息化戰爭形態登上歷史舞台。

信息化戰爭的重心發生轉移。海灣戰爭被視為信息化戰爭的裡程碑，多國部隊憑借偵察機、預警機、電子戰系統、精確制導武器和C4ISR系統，形成壓倒性信息優勢，實現了戰場“單向透明”。這場戰爭的重點不再是徹底殲滅對手龐大的地面部隊，而是轉向系統性摧毀其指揮控制系統、防空體系、通信樞紐和後勤補給線，導致對手整體作戰能力迅速瓦解，陷入各自為戰、指揮失靈的混亂狀態。這標志著戰爭重心開始從物理域的“硬摧毀”，向信息域的“體系破擊”和功能癱瘓轉移。

信息化戰爭的制勝方式發生變化。信息化戰爭通過信息優勢改變物質、能量運用的方式與目標。制勝方式不再是單純追求“消耗”對手的物質與能量，而是通過高效的信息流引導物質流與能量流，精確作用於敵作戰體系的“關鍵鏈”，以最小的物質與能量投入，達成敵方體系最大程度的混亂失序、功能瓦解和整體效能塌縮。由此可見，信息化戰爭開始追求敵方作戰體系的“熵增”即混亂度增加，使其從有序走向無序，表明反映智能化戰爭復雜體系對抗的耗散戰已經初露端倪。

耗散戰是智能化戰爭的典型方式

隨著智能化技術快速發展及其在軍事上的廣泛應用，智能化戰爭正成為信息化戰爭後的新戰爭形態，而耗散戰則成為智能化戰爭的典型方式。

耗散戰適應了世界安全形勢的時代要求。進入智能化時代，寬網絡、大數據、雲計算、腦機連接、智能芯片、深度學習等智能技術及其應用快速發展，各國家、民族之間的聯系更加廣泛，非傳統安全威脅興起並與傳統安全威脅交織，智能化戰爭主體和范疇不斷拓展，戰爭時間與空間不斷外延，戰爭體系從相對封閉走向更加開放，形成更高層次和更大范圍的對抗，耗散戰這一智能化時代的戰爭制勝方式日益凸顯。

耗散戰反映了戰爭制勝方式的歷史發展。耗散戰實際上始終存在，只不過在智能化戰爭形態出現之前，由於技術的制約，一直處於較為低級的形式和簡單狀態，戰爭對抗只能突出體現為物質、能量和信息某一種要素間的對抗。冷兵器戰爭主要表現為以物質要素為主導的以人體為中心的對抗，熱兵器和機械化戰爭主要表現為以能量要素為主導的以平台為中心的對抗，信息化戰爭主要表現為以信息要素為主導的以網絡信息體系為中心的對抗。進入智能時代，智能化技術將敵我對抗中的認知優勢、決策優勢和行動優勢高度統一起來，實質是將物質、能量和信息三者高度統一，通過以智賦能、以智聚能、以智驅能、以智釋能，形成了以智能要素為主導的、以智能算法為中心的智能化戰爭形態，其典型方式即為反映智能化戰爭復雜體系對抗的耗散戰。

耗散戰體現了戰爭復雜體系的韌性比拼。從制勝機理看，要取得對抗優勢，必須以“負熵灌注、閾值認定、相變觸發、勝勢控制”為基本原理，構建自身快速“感知、決策、行動、評估”耗散戰閉環，在動態混合博弈中持續增加敵方熵值，致敵喪失整體作戰能力。從制勝路徑看，耗散戰強調綜合運用物質對耗、能量對沖、信息對抗等形式，對內“制序”，達成邏輯集中、即時富聚，優勢互補、一體聚優，形成綜合戰力；對外“致熵”，通過軍事、政治、經濟、科技、文化、外交等組分系統持續發揮作用，至效能累積達到某一程度形成“漲落”，實現戰力突變和體系效能湧現。從基本特征看，耗散戰表現為對抗綜合博弈、主體跨域多元、形式復雜多樣、力量一體富聚、效能累積湧現，對抗的核心從物理域的摧毀、信息域的掌控，躍升為對智能化戰爭復雜體系內在“有序性”的破壞與維持的博弈。

耗散戰涵蓋了智能化戰爭的多種形式。除了戰爭對抗雙方在傳統的陸、海、空、天、網、電等空間的消耗對抗，耗散戰更包括了一國或者多國對作戰對手在多類社會域所采取的政治孤立圍困、經貿金融封鎖、科技產業斷鏈、文化戰略輸出、權威媒體造勢搶佔話語主動、制造熱點事件導控大眾認知、AI助力社交媒體編織信息繭房、利用代理人開設多邊戰場等斗爭形式。耗散戰的多樣化呈現形式使其在戰時和平時均可進行，《孫子兵法》講的“勝兵先勝而後求戰”，在智能化時代的戰爭准備中被賦予新的涵義。

從消耗戰到耗散戰的制勝方式之變

耗散戰表現在智能時代中物理域、信息域等多域的綜合對抗，體現出政治較量、經濟比拼、軍事攻防、文化沖突和外交制衡等形式的高度統一，反映了智能化戰爭體系所具有的開放性、復雜性和湧現性。

從消耗戰到耗散戰的演進是一次全方位深層次的變革。制勝基礎從依賴人口、礦藏、工業基礎等資源存量的比拼，轉向依賴信息優勢、智能算法優勢、網絡結構優勢以及對能量流、信息流的動態調控能力；作用對象從聚焦摧毀士兵、坦克、工廠等物質實體，轉向聚焦瓦解戰爭體系的“功能”與“有序性”；效能追求從對有生力量的絕對摧毀與殲滅，轉向追求高效能的“非對稱癱瘓”，即以己方最小代價，引發敵方作戰體系的最大混亂與失能，追求“打癱”而非“打爛”；戰爭重心從主要在陸地、海洋、天空等物理域的對抗，轉向物理域、信息域等多域的綜合博弈。物理域的對抗雖然依舊存在，但往往由更高維域的優勢所決定。

從消耗戰到耗散戰的演進反映了制勝優勢的變化。智能化戰爭時代，勝利將不再簡單歸屬於擁有最龐大鋼鐵洪流的一方，而必然歸屬於能更高效地“制序”與“致熵”的一方——即能夠維系己方戰爭體系高度有序、高效運轉，同時精准智能地瓦解敵方體系有序性，迫使其陷入不可逆“熵增”和混亂的一方。要贏得戰爭制勝優勢，必須適應智能化戰爭體系的開放性、復雜性和湧現性要求，從單一物質、能量和信息的粗放式消耗和運用轉變到以智能優勢主導戰爭體系的耗散，力爭在多領域的綜合博弈中贏得主動和優勢。

從消耗戰向耗散戰的演進是科技革命洪流裹挾下的必然趨勢。科技是核心戰斗力，是軍事發展中最活躍、最具革命性的因素。當前，智能化科技迅猛發展，只有主動擁抱智能化浪潮，將制勝之鑰牢牢掌握在對戰爭復雜體系有序性的精確認知、智能調控與高效耗散之中，才能在未來世界博弈的風雲變幻與戰爭方式的深刻變革中立於不敗之地。

來源：中國軍網-解放軍報作者：王榮輝責任編輯：王韻
2025-09-10 06:xx

中國原創軍事資源：http://www.81.cn/yw_208727/1640888718.html

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

Functional Orientation of the Modern Combat System with Chinese Characteristics

01/12/2026 admin Leave a comment

中國特色現代作戰體系的功能定位

2018年08月14日 xx:xx　来源：解放军报

現代英語：

Functional Orientation of the Modern Combat System with Chinese Characteristics

　　Key Points

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zhang Qianyi

現代國語：

中國特色現代作戰體系的功能取向

要點提示

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

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

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

抓住時代機遇，以機械化信息化智能化融合發展為歷史方位

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

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

突出體係對抗，以打造聯合作戰和全域作戰能力為核心指標

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

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

著眼現實威脅，以形成對敵非對稱作戰優勢為戰略指向

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

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

推進軍民融合，以國家戰略體系支撐打贏新時代人民戰爭為根本要求

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

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

（作者單位：軍事科學院戰爭研究院）

張謙一

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

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

Chinese Military Intelligence Drives Accelerated Development of Cyberspace Warfare

01/12/2026 admin Leave a comment

中國軍事情報推動網絡空間戰爭加速發展

現代英語：

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

Military intelligence is driving the accelerated development of cyberspace operations.

■ Respected soldiers Zhou Dewang Huang Anwei

Three key technologies support the intelligentization of cyberspace weapons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intelligent command information systems are changing traditional combat command methods.

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

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

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

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

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

■ Yang Jian, Zhao Lu

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

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

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

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

現代國語：

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

军事智能化牵引网络空间作战加速发展

■敬兵周德旺皇安伟

三大技术支撑网络空间武器智能化

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

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

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

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

网控武器的智能化趋势愈加凸显

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

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

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

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

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

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

智能化指挥信息系统改变传统作战指挥方式

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

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

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

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

未来战场斗勇更需斗“智”

■杨建　赵璐

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

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

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

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

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

#Artificial #Intelligence, #intelligent warfare, #intellligentization, Chinese Artificial Intelligence, Chinese Military Intelligentization, Intelligent Warfare

Analyzing Chinese Military’s New Changes in Ways to Win Intelligent Warfare

01/12/2026 admin Leave a comment

解析中國軍隊智戰打贏方式新變化

現代英語：

●From war of attrition to war of dissipation—

An Analysis of the New Changes in the Ways to Win in Intelligent Warfare

■Wang Ronghui

President Xi Jinping pointed out that the core of studying warfare is to understand the characteristics, laws, and winning mechanisms of modern warfare. From the clash of bronze swords to the roar of tank engines and the saturation attacks of unmanned “swarms,” each leap in the form of warfare has profoundly changed the way wars are won. In the long era of cold weapons, firearms, and mechanized warfare, attrition warfare used the offsetting of national wealth and resources to exhaust the opponent’s will to resist. However, the new military revolution, led by the information technology revolution and accelerating towards the intelligent era, is pushing the way wars are won to a completely new dimension—dissipation warfare, which transforms the traditional method of war, which is mainly based on the consumption of materials and energy, into a comprehensive method of war that integrates the offsetting of materials, the offsetting of energy, and the confrontation of information.

The war of attrition is an iron law of traditional warfare.

In the long years before and during the Industrial Age, wars were primarily based on the struggle for material and energy resources, and the balance of power often tipped in favor of the side that could withstand greater material and energy losses.

The war of attrition is a major winning tactic in traditional warfare. In cold weapon warfare, the focus of confrontation lies in the number of soldiers, their physical endurance, and the competition of metal weapons and food reserves. The outcome of the war often depends on the size of the army and the strength of the logistical chain. For example, the siege warfare that was common in ancient times was essentially a war of attrition between the defender’s supplies and the attacker’s manpower and equipment. In firearms warfare, the use of gunpowder did not reduce the attrition of war; on the contrary, it pushed it to a new level. The dense charges of line infantry in the Napoleonic Wars, and the brutal trench warfare of Verdun and the Somme in World War I, all exemplified the nature of attrition warfare—trading space for steel and flesh. Mechanized warfare, with the advent of tanks, airplanes, and aircraft carriers, pushed the scale of material and energy consumption to its peak. In World War II, the Battle of Kursk on the Soviet-German front and the brutal Battle of Iwo Jima in the Pacific were the ultimate clashes between a nation’s industrial capacity and its military’s ability to withstand casualties.

The war of attrition is essentially a contest of material and energy resources. It’s a contest of size and reserves—static or slowly accumulating factors such as population size, resource reserves, industrial capacity, and troop strength. Its primary objective is to destroy the enemy’s manpower, war materials, and seize their territory and resources; essentially, it’s a contest of material and energy resources between the opposing sides. Klausewitz’s assertion that “war is a violent act that forces the enemy to submit to our will” is fundamentally based on the logic of violent attrition. The winning mechanism of a war of attrition is that victory belongs to the side that can more sustainably convert material resources into battlefield lethality and can withstand greater losses.

The war of attrition has revealed significant historical limitations in practice. From the long-term experience of traditional warfare, the fundamental limitations of the war of attrition manifest in the enormous loss of life and material wealth, the unbearable high costs to society, and the waste of vast amounts of energy and resources on non-critical targets, indiscriminate bombardment, and large-scale but inefficient charges. When both sides are evenly matched in strength and determined, the outcome is difficult to predict, leading to repeated back-and-forth battles and easily resulting in a protracted quagmire of attrition, as seen on the Western Front of World War I. Faced with increasingly networked and information-based modern warfare systems, the attrition model relying on large-scale firepower coverage is insufficient for accurately targeting the opponent’s key nodes and functional connections, resulting in diminishing returns.

The information technology revolution gave rise to the prototype of dissipative warfare

The information technology revolution in the second half of the 20th century injected a disruptive variable into the form of warfare. Information began to surpass matter and energy, becoming the core element of victory, and information warfare took center stage in history.

The focus of information warfare has shifted. The Gulf War is considered a milestone in information warfare, where multinational forces, relying on reconnaissance aircraft, early warning aircraft, electronic warfare systems, precision-guided weapons, and C4ISR systems, achieved overwhelming information superiority, realizing “one-way transparency” on the battlefield. The focus of this war was no longer on the complete annihilation of the opponent’s massive ground forces, but rather on the systematic destruction of its command and control systems, air defense systems, communication hubs, and logistical supply lines, leading to the rapid collapse of the opponent’s overall combat capability and plunging them into a chaotic state of fragmented operations and command failure. This marks a shift in the focus of warfare from “hard destruction” in the physical domain to “system disruption” and functional paralysis in the information domain.

The methods of winning in informationized warfare have changed. Informationized warfare alters the way and objectives of material and energy utilization through information superiority. The winning strategy is no longer simply about “consuming” the opponent’s materials and energy, but rather about guiding the flow of materials and energy through efficient information flow, precisely targeting the “key links” of the enemy’s operational system. This aims to achieve maximum chaos, disorder, functional collapse, and overall effectiveness reduction in the enemy system with minimal material and energy input. Therefore, informationized warfare is beginning to pursue “entropy increase,” or increased disorder, in the enemy’s operational system, causing it to move from order to disorder. This indicates that dissipative warfare, reflecting the complex system confrontation of intelligent warfare, is beginning to emerge.

Dissipation warfare is a typical form of intelligent warfare.

Dissipation warfare has adapted to the demands of the modern world security landscape. In the era of intelligence, the rapid development and application of intelligent technologies such as broadband networks, big data, cloud computing, brain-computer interfaces, intelligent chips, and deep learning have broadened connections between countries and nations. Non-traditional security threats have emerged and intertwined with traditional security threats, leading to a continuous expansion of the subject and scope of intelligent warfare. The time and space of warfare are constantly extending, and the warfare system is shifting from relatively closed to more open, forming a higher-level and broader-ranging confrontation. Dissipation warfare, as a winning strategy in the intelligent era, is becoming increasingly prominent.

Dissipation warfare reflects the historical development of methods for winning wars. Dissipation warfare has always existed, but before the advent of intelligent warfare, due to technological constraints, it remained in a relatively rudimentary and simple form, where the confrontation could only be manifested as a confrontation between one of the elements of matter, energy, or information. Cold weapon warfare was primarily a confrontation centered on the human body and dominated by material elements; firearms and mechanized warfare was primarily a confrontation centered on platforms and dominated by energy elements; and information warfare is primarily a confrontation centered on network information systems and dominated by information elements. Entering the intelligent era, intelligent technology highly unifies the cognitive, decision-making, and action advantages in the confrontation between enemies and ourselves. In essence, it highly unifies matter, energy, and information. By empowering, gathering, driving, and releasing energy with intelligence, it forms an intelligent warfare form dominated by intelligent elements and centered on intelligent algorithms. Its typical form is dissipation warfare, which reflects the complex system confrontation of intelligent warfare.

Dissipation warfare embodies the resilience of complex warfare systems. From the perspective of the winning mechanism, to gain a competitive advantage, it is necessary to construct a closed loop of dissipation warfare that enables rapid “perception, decision-making, action, and evaluation” based on the fundamental principles of “negative entropy infusion, threshold determination, phase transition triggering, and victory control.” This continuously increases the enemy’s entropy value in a dynamic hybrid game, causing the enemy to lose its overall combat capability. From the perspective of the path to victory, dissipation warfare emphasizes the comprehensive use of material attrition, energy confrontation, and information confrontation. Internally, it “establishes order” to achieve logical concentration, immediate accumulation, complementary advantages, and integrated strengths to form comprehensive combat power. Externally, it “increases entropy” by continuously exerting its effects through military, political, economic, technological, cultural, and diplomatic components until the effectiveness accumulates to a certain level, resulting in “rise and fall” and achieving a sudden change in combat power and the emergence of systemic effectiveness. In terms of its basic characteristics, dissipative warfare is characterized by comprehensive confrontation and competition, multiple subjects across domains, complex and diverse forms, integrated and concentrated forces, and the emergence of accumulated effectiveness. The core of the confrontation has evolved from the destruction of the physical domain and the control of the information domain to a game of disrupting and maintaining the “orderliness” inherent in the complex system of intelligent warfare.

Dissipation warfare encompasses various forms of intelligent warfare. Beyond the traditional attrition warfare across land, sea, air, space, cyberspace, and electronic domains, dissipation warfare also includes various forms of conflict employed by one or more countries against their adversaries in multiple social spheres. These include political isolation and encirclement, economic and financial blockades, disruption of technological supply chains, cultural strategic export, authoritative media campaigns to seize the initiative in discourse, manipulation of public opinion through trending events, AI-assisted social media information warfare, and the use of proxies to establish multilateral battlefields. The diverse forms of dissipation warfare allow it to be conducted in both war and peacetime. Sun Tzu’s Art of War principle, “Victorious armies first secure victory and then seek battle,” takes on new meaning in the context of war preparation in the intelligent age.

The shift in winning strategies from war of attrition to war of dissipation

The evolution from a war of attrition to a war of dissipation represents a comprehensive and profound transformation. The basis for victory has shifted from relying on the stock of resources such as population, mineral deposits, and industrial base to relying on information superiority, intelligent algorithm superiority, network structure superiority, and the ability to dynamically control the flow of energy and information. The target of action has shifted from focusing on destroying physical entities such as soldiers, tanks, and factories to focusing on dismantling the “function” and “order” of the war system. The pursuit of effectiveness has shifted from the absolute destruction and annihilation of manpower to the pursuit of highly efficient “asymmetric paralysis,” that is, inducing the greatest chaos and incompetence of the enemy’s combat system at the lowest cost on one’s own side, pursuing “paralysis” rather than “destruction.” The focus of war has shifted from confrontation mainly in the physical domains such as land, sea, and air to a comprehensive game in multiple domains such as the physical domain and the information domain. While the physical domain still exists, it is often determined by the advantages of higher-dimensional domains.

The evolution from war of attrition to war of dissipation reflects a change in the decisive advantage. In the era of intelligent warfare, victory will no longer simply belong to the side with the largest steel torrent, but will inevitably belong to the side that can more efficiently “establish order” and “induce entropy”—that is, the side that can maintain a highly ordered and efficient operation of its own war system, while precisely and intelligently dismantling the order of the enemy’s system, forcing it into irreversible “entropy increase” and chaos. To gain a decisive advantage in war, we must adapt to the openness, complexity, and emergence of intelligent warfare systems, shifting from the extensive consumption and utilization of single materials, energy, and information to a war system where intelligent advantages dominate dissipation, and striving to gain the initiative and advantage in comprehensive multi-domain games.

The evolution from war of attrition to war of dissipation is an inevitable trend driven by the tide of technological revolution. Technology is the core combat capability and the most active and revolutionary factor in military development. Currently, intelligent technology is developing rapidly. Only by proactively embracing the wave of intelligence and firmly grasping the key to victory in the accurate understanding, intelligent control, and efficient dissipation of the complex system of warfare can we remain invincible in the ever-changing landscape of future global competition and the profound transformation of warfare.

現代國語：

●從消耗戰到耗散戰——

試析智能化戰爭制勝方式新變革

■王榮輝

閱讀提示

消耗戰是傳統戰爭形態的鐵律

在工業時代及其之前的漫長歲月裡，戰爭主要是基於物質與能量要素的對抗，勝負的天平往往向能夠承受更大物質與能量損耗的一方傾斜。

信息技術革命催生耗散戰雛形

20世紀下半葉的信息技術革命，為戰爭形態注入了顛覆性變量，信息開始超越物質與能量，成為核心制勝要素，信息化戰爭形態登上歷史舞台。

耗散戰是智能化戰爭的典型方式

隨著智能化技術快速發展及其在軍事上的廣泛應用，智能化戰爭正成為信息化戰爭後的新戰爭形態，而耗散戰則成為智能化戰爭的典型方式。

從消耗戰到耗散戰的制勝方式之變

中國原創軍事資源：http://www.mod.gov.cn/gfbw/jmsd/16408788821.html

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

Chinese Military Development Trends & Governance Strategies of Weaponizing Artificial Intelligence

01/12/2026 admin Leave a comment

中國軍事發展趨勢與人工智能武器化治理策略

現代英語：

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

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

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

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

Current trend of weaponization of artificial intelligence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Major countries are actively developing military applications of artificial intelligence.

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

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

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

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

War and conflict have spurred the weaponization of artificial intelligence.

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

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

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

Security risks arising from the weaponization of artificial intelligence

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

It intensifies the arms race and disrupts the strategic balance.

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

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

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

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

Empowering operational processes increases the risk of conflict.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lowering the threshold for dissemination leads to misuse and abuse.

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

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

Governance Path of Artificial Intelligence Weaponization Security Risks

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

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

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

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

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

Scientifically formulate laws and ethical guidelines for artificial intelligence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

現代國語：

朱啟超
《人民論壇》（2025年02月05日第 02版）

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

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

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

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

當前人工智能武器化的發展趨勢

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

人工智能武器化是軍事變革的必然趨勢。

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

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

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

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

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

主要國家紛紛佈局人工智能軍事應用。

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

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

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

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

戰爭衝突刺激人工智能武器化進程。

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

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

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

人工智能武器化帶來的安全風險

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

加劇軍備競賽，打破戰略平衡。

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

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

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

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

賦能作戰流程，加大衝突風險。

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

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

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

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

戰爭問責困難，增加附帶傷亡。

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

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

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

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

降低擴散門檻，導致誤用濫用。

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

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

人工智能武器化安全風險的治理路徑

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

高度重視國際層面戰略溝通。

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

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

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

科學制定人工智能法律和倫理規約。

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

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

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

務實參與人工智能安全治理國際合作。

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

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

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

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

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

【註釋】

①Katz B. Analytic edge: Leveraging emerging technologies to

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

Strategic and International Studies, 2020.

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

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

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

aijan’s Drones Owned the Battlefield in

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

Washington Post, November 11, 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kathleen Hicks Keynote Address: The Urgency to Innovate (As

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

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

to-innov/.

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

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

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

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

09.

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

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

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

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

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

#Chinese Military Joint Oprations, #cross-domain collaborative operations, #cyber #warfare, #Information Support Force, #informatization, #intelligent warfare, #intellligentization, #中國 #太空 #戰爭, #中國太空軍, Chinese Military Intelligentization, Intelligent Warfare, Joint Domain, Single Domain

Understand Chinese Military Single-Domain & Multi-Domain Joint Operations

08/20/2025 admin Leave a comment

了解中國軍事單域和多域聯合作戰

現代英語：

Joint operations are the basic form of combat in modern warfare. They emphasize the strength of more than two services and arms and other participating forces, and jointly implement operations in multi-domain space under unified command. “Single domain” and “multidomain” interdependence and interaction in joint operations are a pair of important military categories. Grasping the relationship between single domain and multi-domain is the core content and key to solving the “internal interface” problem in the construction and application of joint combat forces. The relationship between the two should be viewed dialectically and correctly handled, and the winning mechanism of joint operations should be continuously enriched to promote joint operations. Really achieve cross-domain integration, energy gathering and efficiency improvement.

“Single domain” is the constituent element and development basis of “multi-domain”

Joint operations emphasize the formation of advantageous multi-domains based on advantageous single domains, and place higher demands on the coupling relationship between each single domain that makes up the multi-domain. The development of a single domain can provide a solid foundation for the development of multiple domains and create prerequisites for achieving cross-domain integration.

In terms of historical process, single domain to multi-domain is the process of domain expansion. Throughout human history, the wars of each era have applied the techniques of their own era, imprinted the imprint of their own era, and developed with the time and space of the war. War in the agricultural era, with cold weapons as the main military equipment, battlefield fighting is mainly limited to land and offshore waters. It is a lower-level “full contact” war, and the combat domain is relatively single, making early operations “loose” Joint characteristics.

Entering the industrial era, with the invention and use of steam engines and internal combustion engines, air combat weapons represented by combat aircraft appeared on the battlefield. The combat space broke through the limitations of land and sea areas, forming a three-dimensional battlefield between land, sea and air. The war turned “semi-contact”, making joint operations take on “cooperative” joint characteristics. Entering the information age, the combat space breaks through the three-dimensional geographical space and forms a multi-domain integration of land, sea, air, space, electricity, network, and cognitive fields, making joint operations present multi-domain “integrated” characteristics. With the development of single domain to multi-domain, single-domain control rights such as land control, sea control, air control, heaven control, and information control have continued to appear, and the subsequent importance of single-domain control has continued to increase, promoting the connotation of multi-domain control. Expanding and changing, the competition for comprehensive control has become the first priority in the confrontation between ourselves and the enemy.

In terms of development form, single domain to multi-domain is a process of clustering into a network. Restricted by technical conditions and other constraints, combat activities before the information age, whether in terms of battlefield time, battlefield space, or the deployment and use of combat forces, have clear sections between single domains and clear levels of action at all levels, showing a strong Sequential and progressive, showing a single-domain chain development form.

Entering the information age, under the full “adhesion” of the network system, the multi-domain force formation develops from “combination” to “convergence”, forming an elastic structure with spatial dispersion and deployment, time coordination, and multi-dimensional energy release. According to the battlefield situation and changes in the situation, combat activities use the network information system as a “link” to connect the “links” of the combat single domain into a “network” shape, forming the focus of similar strong points and complementary advantages, and realizing each single domain “shape and spirit gathering” and “gathering fingers into fists”, The transition from single-domain chain to multi-domain network was achieved.

In terms of performance index, single domain to multi-domain is a process of energy aggregation and efficiency. Both opposing sides in the war tried to exert their overall combat power in order to achieve combat victory. However, due to the clear boundaries and loose connections of each single domain in the past, improving the overall combat power can only be achieved through the linearity “superposition” of each combat domain. With the development of information technology and intelligent technology, especially the widespread application of information systems in the military, the network information system realizes the command and control of each single domain force and can seamlessly link each combat domain. Each combat force maximizes The advantages of spatial multidimensionality and power diversity have been realized, and the strength and strength of each single domain and each level have been realized The high degree of integration, multi-dimensional cohesion, overall linkage and integrated energy release in terms of means and actions has achieved the effect of complementary advantages, synergy and cohesion, which is conducive to achieving a comprehensive advantage or local overwhelming advantage over the enemy.

“Multi-domain” is the direction-dominant and powerful dominance of “single-domain”

The essence of the winning mechanism of joint operations lies in cross-domain integration to achieve excellence and efficiency, which requires that single domain and multi-domain must be functionally “unified in the same direction”. “Multi-domain” stipulates the status and role of each single domain in combat. Each single domain must start from the overall functional needs of joint operations, focus on providing the ultimate contribution rate to the combat system, and achieve synchronous cross-domain maneuvering, cross-domain coordination, and cross-domain strike, to achieve system advantages in overall confrontation. Currently, the multi-domain dominates and dominates the single-domain in the direction of forming a resultant force with the system mainly from the following aspects.

Transition of multidomain operational requirements to hybrid war threats. At present, conventional threats are expanding and unconventional threats are becoming new and present threats, with the boundaries between regular and irregular battlefields tending to be blurred, between combatants and non-combatants and between physical and virtual dimensions. Joint operations are still the basic form of operations, but specific combat styles show a trend towards combining multiple styles. Various threats from traditional or non-traditional, formal or informal, high-intensity or low-intensity exist on land, sea, air, space, electricity, network, cognition and other multi-domains. These threats add a new dimension to the concept of war. Therefore, it is necessary not only to do a good job in the fight against a single threat, but also to develop the ability to integrate into multi-domain operations to deal with hybrid warfare.

The focus of multi-domain operations shifts to the network information system. Several informatization local wars that have broken out in recent years have shown that no war, no alliance, no alliance, no victory, the network information system that condenses various single-domain combat elements has become the focus of operations, and the combat command information system that gathers the combat power of the network information system has become the main basis for military operations “nerve center” and has become the key point for opponents to attack. The degree of integration of command and information systems is getting higher and higher, and the command systems of each single domain must converge and move closer to the overall command system, so as to achieve system integration of various services and combat units and deep coupling of various combat elements. In line with this, the information domain, the cognitive domain, and the electromagnetic domain, as emerging fields of warfare, have increased in their core status and importance, and have increasingly become the core operational domains for opposing sides to compete for control, becoming capable of causing enemy “blind, incapacitated, and mentally retarded” key operational domains. Therefore, each single domain must strengthen its ability to organically integrate into the network information system within the framework of a unified standard system and achieve interconnection and interoperability between each single domain, so as to ensure that it provides basic support in multi-domain precision warfare and thus wins overall advantages.

Transformation of multi-domain combat forces into joint combat units. Integrated joint operations have the characteristics of platform operations, system support and tactical operations, and strategic support. Strategic-level planning, campaign-level command, and tactical-level operations will become the norm in future wars. Large-scale corps operations may become increasingly rare and will be replaced by joint battles more often on multi-domain battlefields. The joint combat unit will bring together various single-domain combat forces and cover various combat elements. The level of the joint is reflected in the tactical level, presenting an independent combat capability that includes early warning and reconnaissance, information support, combat command, multi-domain attack and defense, combat support and other elements. Joint tactical unit form. Each “single-domain combat force” has a closer coupling relationship, and its own characteristics and advantages will become more prominent.

Accelerate the expansion of “single-domain advantages” to “multi-domain advantages”

For the dialectical unity of a single domain and a multi-domain, we must not only see the unity of a multi-domain, but also respect the independence of a single domain; we must neither completely oppose the two, nor erase the connection between them. In view of the actual situation of combat opponents, combat environment, own strength, etc., and taking into account various political, economic, technological, cultural and other factors, we should accelerate the expansion of “single-domain advantage” to “multi-domain advantage”, so as to form an information advantage, decision-making advantage and operational advantage against the enemy.

First, we must consolidate and expand the advantages of single domain.“ Metcalfe’s law ” tells us that increasing a network entity is capable of producing nonlinear exponential convergence of the combat power of the system. Multi-domain operations are deeply integrated system operations. As the basic element of multi-domain existence, the strength of each single domain’s construction will definitely affect the effectiveness of multi-domain integration. The essence of forming a multi-domain advantage is to deeply aggregate the advantages of each single domain. It is necessary to continuously strengthen the construction of single domain capabilities to form a single domain advantage and limit the opponent’s strength advantage to the limit. In fact, consolidating and expanding the advantages of single domains is not only to enhance single domain performance, but also to serve the purpose of multi-domain convergence. Single-domain construction requires strengthening top-level design, formulating standards and specifications, and striving to overcome conflicts caused by different combat construction concepts formed by the unique combat styles and combat culture of different services. At the same time, it is necessary to coordinate all military construction resources and focus on the development of multi-domain combat weapon platforms to meet the overall needs of joint operations, rather than just the needs of each single domain itself.

Second, we must promote the achievement of cross-domain synergy. Cross-domain synergy emphasizes breaking the boundaries between services and arms and integrating combat forces across services, arms and institutions. Based on the network information system, the combat forces in each domain are distributed in a wide area, and the multiple domains are linked as a whole to complement each other’s advantages and increase efficiency, and quickly gather energy step by step, promoting the expansion of single-domain advantages into multi-domain integration advantages and system advantages, and forming a concentrated energy strike against important enemy targets. In “joint operations”, combat forces in various fields must not only have the ability to independently perform a variety of combat missions, but also need to use their own cross-domain perception, target recognition and strike capabilities to support or even directly participate in other combat domain operations.

3. “Flexible mobile combat application is required!”. The winning mechanism of joint operations lies in the rapid and continuous integration of multi-domain combat forces to form multiple advantages and immediate advantages in specific time windows, forcing the enemy into passivity, disadvantage and dilemma. For the use of single-domain and multi-domain forces, such as the use of fingers and fists, whether it is “pointing points with hands” or “clenching fingers into fists”, or even the mutual transformation and use in combat, we must adhere to seeking truth from facts and comprehensively consider the efficiency of combat effects. Scientifically make decisions based on factors such as efficiency and contribution to the victory of war, and effectively use troops according to circumstances, location, and situation. If the single-domain combat force can solve the problem well, it is no longer necessary to use multi-domain combat forces, thereby improving operational effectiveness.

現代國語：

聯合作戰是現代戰爭的基本作戰形式，強調兩個以上軍兵種力量及其他參戰力量，在統一指揮下於多域空間共同實施作戰。聯合作戰中的「單域」與「多域」相互依存、相互作用，是一對重要的軍事範疇。掌握單域與多域的關係，是解決聯合作戰力量建設與運用之「內接口」問題的核心內容與關鍵所在，應辯證看待並正確處理二者關係，不斷豐富聯合作戰制勝機理，推動聯合作戰真正實現跨域融合、聚能增效。

「單域」是「多域」的構成要素與發展基礎

聯合作戰強調以優勢單域為基礎構成優勢多域，對組成多域的各單域之間的耦合關係提出了更高要求。單域的發展才能為多域的發展提供堅實的基礎，為實現跨域融合創造前提條件。

從歷史進程來看，單域到多域是領域拓展的過程。縱觀人類歷史，每個時代的戰爭都運用所在時代的技術，印刻著所在時代的烙印，並隨著戰爭時間和空間的發展而發展。農業時代的戰爭，以冷兵器為主要軍事裝備，戰場廝殺主要局限在陸域及近海海域，屬於較低級的「全接觸式」戰爭，作戰域較為單一，使得早期的作戰呈現出「鬆散性」聯合特徵。

進入工業時代，隨著蒸汽機和內燃機的發明與使用，以作戰飛機為代表的空戰武器出現在戰場，作戰空間突破陸域和海域的局限，形成陸海空三維立體戰場，戰爭轉向“半接觸式”，使得聯合作戰呈現出“協同性”聯合特徵。進入資訊時代，作戰空間突破三維地理空間，形成陸、海、空、天、電、網、認知領域等多域一體，使得聯合作戰呈現多域「一體化」聯合特徵。伴隨著單域向多域發展，制陸權、制海權、制空權、製天權、制資訊權等單域制權不斷出現，且後續單域制權的重要性不斷提升，推動著多域制權內涵的拓展變化，對綜合製權的爭奪成為敵我對抗的首要。

從發展形態來看，單域到多域是聚鏈成網的過程。受技術條件等製約，資訊時代之前的作戰活動，不論是在戰場時間、戰場空間，還是在作戰力量布勢運用等方面，各單域間條塊分明，各級行動層次分明，表現出強烈的順序性和漸進性，呈現出單域鏈條式發展形態。

進入資訊時代，在網路系統的充分“粘合”下，多域力量編成由“組合”發展為“融合”，形成空間分散部署、時間協調一致、能量釋放多維一體的彈性結構。根據戰場態勢和情況變化，作戰活動以網路資訊體系為“紐帶”，將作戰單域的“形散神聚”聯結成“網絡”狀，形成同類強點聚焦、優勢互補，實現了各單域“形散神聚”和“聚指成拳”，實現了由單域鏈條式向多域網絡式的轉變。

從效能指數來看，單域到多域是聚能增效的過程。戰爭敵對雙方都力圖發揮整體作戰威力以求得作戰勝利，但由於以往各單域邊界清晰、聯繫較為鬆散，提高整體戰力只能透過各作戰域的線性「疊加」來實現。隨著資訊化技術和智慧化技術的發展，特別是資訊系統在軍事上的廣泛應用，網路資訊體系實現了對各單域力量的指揮調控，並能無縫連結各作戰域，各作戰力量最大限度地發揮空間多維性和力量多元性優勢，實現了各單域各層級在力量、手段和行動等方面的高度融合、多維聚力、整體聯動和集成釋能，達成了優勢互補、協同一致、內聚融合的效果，有利於實現對敵全面優勢或局部壓倒性優勢。

「多域」是「單域」的方向主導與強力支配

聯合作戰制勝機理本質在於跨域融合實現聚優增效，要求單域與多域在功能上必須「同向統一」。多域規定了各單域在作戰中的地位與作用，各單域必須從聯合作戰整體功能需要出發，著眼為作戰體系提供極限貢獻率，實現同步跨域機動、跨域協同、跨域打擊，達成整體對抗中的體系優勢。目前，多域主要從以下方面主導並支配單域朝向與體系形成合力的方向發展。

多域作戰需求轉變為混合戰爭威脅。目前，常規性威脅不斷拓展，非常規威脅成為新的現實威脅，正規戰場與非正規戰場之間的界線趨於模糊，戰鬥人員與非戰鬥人員之間的界線趨於模糊，物理維度與虛擬維度之間的界線趨於模糊。聯合作戰仍是基本作戰形式，但具體的作戰樣式呈現出向多種樣式結合方向發展的趨勢，來自於傳統或非傳統、正規或非正規、高強度或低強度的各種威脅存在於陸、海、空、天、電、網、認知等多域中。這些威脅為戰爭概念增添了新的內涵。因此，既要做好針對某單一威脅的鬥爭，更要發展出具有融入多域作戰應對混合戰爭的能力。

多域作戰重心轉移到網路資訊體系。近年來爆發的幾場資訊化局部戰爭表明，無戰不聯、無聯不勝，凝聚各單域作戰要素的網路資訊體系成為作戰重心，匯聚網路資訊體系戰力的作戰指揮資訊系統，成為軍隊作戰主要依託的“神經中樞”，成為對手打擊的要害。指揮資訊系統的一體化程度越來越高，各單域的指揮系統必然要向整體指揮體系匯聚和靠攏，從而實現各軍種、各作戰單位的系統集成以及各作戰要素的深度耦合。與之相適應，資訊域、認知域、電磁域作為戰爭的新興領域，其核心地位和重要性不斷增強，日益成為敵對雙方爭奪制權的核心作戰域，成為能夠致敵「眼盲、失能、智障」的關鍵作戰域。所以，各單域必須在統一的標準體系框架內，加強自身有機融入網路資訊體系的能力，達成各單域間的互聯互通互通，才能確保在多域精確戰中提供基礎支撐，進而贏得整體優勢。

多域作戰力量轉型為聯合作戰單元。一體化聯合作戰具有平台作戰、體系支撐與戰術行動、戰略保障的特點，戰略級規劃、戰役級指揮、戰術級行動將成為未來戰爭的常態。大規模兵團作戰可能愈發少見，代之的將是聯合戰鬥更多地出現在多域戰場。聯合戰鬥單元將匯集各單域作戰力量，涵蓋各作戰要素，聯合的層級體現在戰術級，呈現出一個包括預警偵察、資訊保障、作戰指揮、多域攻防、作戰保障等多要素的可獨立作戰的聯合戰術單元形態。各單域作戰力量耦合關係更加緊密，自身特色優勢將更加突出。

加速推動「單域優勢」向「多域優勢」拓展

單域與多域辯證統一，我們既要看到多域的統一性，又要尊重單域的獨立性；既不能把二者完全地對立起來，又不可抹殺它們之間的聯繫。應針對作戰對手、作戰環境、自身實力等實際情況，綜合考慮政治、經濟、技術、文化等各種因素，加速推動「單域優勢」向「多域優勢」拓展，形成對敵的資訊優勢、決策優勢與行動優勢。

一要鞏固拓展單域優勢。「梅特卡夫定律」告訴我們，增加網路實體能夠產生對體系戰鬥力的非線性指數聚能。多域作戰是深度融合的體係作戰，各單域作為多域存在的基礎要素，其建設的強度必將影響多域融合的效能。形成多域優勢實質是深度聚合各單域優勢，必須不斷加強單域能力建構形成單域優勢，限制對手力量優勢極限發揮。事實上，鞏固和拓展單域優勢不僅是為了增強單域效能，更是為了實現多域融合而服務。單域建設要加強頂層設計，制定標準規範，努力克服因不同軍種特有作戰樣式與戰鬥文化形成的不同作戰建設理念而帶來的矛盾衝突。同時，要統籌好各項軍隊建設資源，注重研發多域作戰武器平台，滿足聯合作戰整體需求，而非僅是各單域自身需要。

二要促進實現跨域協同。跨域協同強調打破軍兵種間界限，進行跨軍種、跨兵種、跨建制的作戰力量融合。基於網路資訊體系，各域作戰力量廣域分佈，多域整體連動，優勢互補增效，快速逐級聚能，推動將單域優勢擴展為多域融合優勢和體系優勢，形成對敵重要目標的聚能打擊。在聯合作戰中各域作戰力量不僅要具備獨立遂行多種作戰任務的能力，更需要利用自身的跨域感知、目標識別和打擊能力，能夠支援甚至直接參與其他作戰域行動。

三要靈活機動作戰運用。聯合作戰的致勝機制在於透過多域作戰力量快速且持續地整合，在特定時間窗口形成多重優勢和即時優勢，迫敵陷入被動、劣勢和困境。對於單域和多域力量的運用，猶如指頭與拳頭的使用，究竟是“指針點穴”還是“攥指成拳”，甚至是作戰中相互轉化運用，都需堅持實事求是，綜合考慮作戰效果效率效益，以及對戰爭制勝的貢獻率等因素科學決斷，切實做到因情用兵、因地用兵。如果單域作戰力量能很好解決問題，就不必再使用多域作戰力量，進而提升作戰效益。

王榮輝　鄧仕峰

中國軍網國防部網 2022年1月20日星期四

中國原創軍事資源：http://www.81.cn/jfjbmap/content/2022-01/20/content_307852888.htm

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

Military Intelligence Drives Accelerated Development of Chinese Army Cyberspace Operations

08/20/2025 admin Leave a comment

軍事情報推動中國軍隊網路空間作戰加速發展

現代英語：

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

Military intelligence leads to accelerated development of cyberspace operations

■Respect the soldiers Zhou Dewang and Huang Anwei

Three major technologies support the intelligence of cyberspace weapons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intelligent command information system changes traditional combat command methods

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

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

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

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

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

■Yang Jian and Zhao Lu

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

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

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

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

現代國語：

資料來源：中國軍網綜合作者：敬兵周德旺皇安偉等責任編輯：胡雪珂

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

軍事智慧化牽引網路空間作戰加速發展

■敬兵週德旺皇安偉

三大技術支撐網路空間武器智慧化

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

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

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

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

網控武器的智慧化趨勢愈加凸顯

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

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

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

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

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

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

智慧化指揮資訊系統改變傳統作戰指揮方式

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

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

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

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

未來戰場鬥勇更需鬥“智”

■楊建　趙璐

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

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

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

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

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

#Artificial #Intelligence, #Information Support Force, #informatization, #intelligent warfare, #intellligentization, China's Informatization - 中國信息化, Chinese Artificial Intelligence, Chinese Military Informatization, Chinese Military Intelligentization, Information Support Force, Intelligent Warfare

China Advancing Digital Intelligence of Defence Mobilization – Informatization to Intelligentization

08/20/2025 admin Leave a comment

中國推進國防動員數位化智能化－從資訊化走向智慧化

現代英語：

With the accelerated evolution of the new round of scientific and technological revolution, military revolution and industrial revolution, the form of war has made great strides towards intelligence, and the field of national defense mobilization has undergone profound changes. In-depth analysis of the new characteristics of national defense mobilization in the intelligent era, exploration of intelligent national defense mobilization methods, and promotion of digital intelligence of national defense mobilization are urgent practical issues facing national defense mobilization work.

Digital intelligence technology is widely used in social production and life, and the target areas, means, training exercises, etc. of national defense mobilization have also undergone profound changes, showing many new characteristics. First, the targets of national defense mobilization have expanded from traditional fields to emerging areas of intelligence. Currently, the world’s major military powers have stepped up efforts to tap and utilize the country’s smart resources. The U.S. military has launched a flagship project for the application of artificial intelligence technology “Project Mavin”, and many U.S. private technology companies such as Parantil and Amazon have participated in research and development. It is worth noting that as the role of digital intelligence technology in seizing and maintaining multi-domain competitive advantages becomes increasingly prominent, the global battle for artificial intelligence talents is intensifying, and defense mobilization is focusing on advantageous universities and key institutions engaged in artificial intelligence research. The second is the in-depth transformation of defense mobilization methods from multi-chain decentralization to intelligent dynamic matching. Through the use of intelligent means such as large models, the docking of national defense mobilization potential will be automatically matched according to professional mobilization algorithm rules. The efficiency of the transformation of national defense mobilization potential will be greatly improved. The docking of supply and demand will be changed from “offline to online”, and the transportation of mobilization materials will be handed over. It will be quickly transported to the front through intelligent dispatch, which can be achieved “direct access from the factory to the battlefield”. Under the integration of the “intelligent charging platform”, the mobilization and command method that integrates network, information and intelligence, and integrates air, space and earth allows “command chain” and “mobilization chain” to be accurately connected, agile and efficient, and can achieve plan generation “one-click” and test evaluation “Modelization”, command control “visualization”, comprehensive management “platformization”. Third, defense mobilization training has developed in depth from simple and inefficient to digital and intellectual empowerment. By using augmented reality and virtual reality technologies to construct a practical simulation confrontation environment, it can not only enhance the sense of technology, interactivity, and fun of teaching and training, but also help enhance the practicality of training, allowing trainees to “immersive” Improve training effectiveness and speed up training progress. For example, foreign military forces use interactive virtual courses in the metaverse to help soldiers master equipment maintenance and repair skills, and use augmented reality equipment to assist in the repair of some equipment. At the same time, the training and evaluation system constructed using digital twin technology will minimize the factors of human interference, squeeze the training water, provide real and objective evaluation conclusions for the training level of trainees, and promote military training from empirical management to scientific management.

To promote the digital intelligence of national defense mobilization, we must aim to win future wars, adhere to innovation-driven and technological victory, and gather superior resources in all aspects. 1. “We must focus on gathering excellence in wisdom and building new areas and new quality forces!”. Find out the high-end digital intelligence potential of national defense mobilization, tap out high-end talents, high-tech and other new resources in new fields and new fields hidden in the public and enterprises, deepen cooperation with artificial intelligence specialized new enterprises and related scientific research institutes and universities, and update them in a timely manner Potential catalog opens up new space for high-end potential support. Focusing on the expansion of support and support objects into multi-dimensional battlefields, focusing on the joint combat system “to make up for weaknesses” and multi-dimensional space “to make up for blindness”, relying on digital and intellectual potential resources to build a strong new domain and new quality defense mobilization team to provide strong support for the joint combat system. Second, we must focus on digital intelligence empowerment and improve efficient institutional mechanisms. Improve the military demand reporting and docking mechanism, unify the military demand indicator system, build a “clearly” demand reporting catalog list for both military and civilian parties, and consolidate the data foundation for collaboration and linkage. Improve the potential information system to realize functions such as intelligent matching of demand and potential, real-time statistics of stock and consumption, and form a close collaboration model between supply and demand that is data-driven, accurately matched, and trusted to interact. Third, we must focus on intellectual and brain assistance and build a strong command and coordination platform. Open up data barriers between systems to achieve information sharing, data interaction, and intelligent office. Accelerate the construction of a national defense mobilization command platform that integrates and connects combat command systems, connects grassroots defense mobilization units, and horizontally connects different types of mobilization units, using “big data + big model + cloud platform” technology to establish a relationship between “command chain” and “implementation chain” A human-machine collaborative decision-making model that presents situations, handles needs, assists planning, and regulates actions Improving the quality and effectiveness of defence mobilization command. Fourth, we must focus on outsmarting the future and accelerating technological innovation and transformation. Improve the mechanism to support joint military-civilian scientific and technological innovation, expand participation channels for local scientific and technological enterprises, universities and institutes, and achieve two-way promotion and efficient integration of new quality productivity and new quality combat effectiveness. Improve the agile response and rapid transformation mechanism of advanced technology, accelerate the development of new combat capabilities, and enhance the victory contribution rate of digital intelligence in national defense mobilization.

現代國語：

吳子穆

隨著新一輪科技革命、軍事革命和產業革命的加速演進，戰爭形態朝向智慧化闊步邁進，國防動員領域發生深刻變化。深入研究智慧化時代防衛動員的新特點，探討智慧化國防動員辦法，推進國防動員數智化，是國防動員工作面臨的緊迫現實課題。

數智技術在社會生產生活中廣泛應用，國防動員的對象領域、手段方法、訓練演練等也隨之發生深刻改變，呈現諸多新的特點。一是國防動員對象由傳統領域向智慧新興領域深入擴展。當前，世界主要軍事強國均加強了對國家智慧資源的挖掘利用。美軍啟動了人工智慧技術應用旗艦項目“梅文計畫”，帕蘭蒂爾、亞馬遜等多家美國民間科技企業參與研發。值得注意的是，隨著數智技術對奪取並維持多域競爭優勢的作用愈發凸顯，全球人工智慧人才爭奪戰愈演愈烈，國防動員正在向優勢高校和從事人工智慧研究的重點院所聚焦。二是國防動員手段由多鏈分散向智慧動態匹配深入轉變。通過大模型等智慧化手段的運用，國防動員潛力對接將按專業的動員算法規則進行自動匹配，國防動員潛力轉化的效率將大大提升，供需對接將由“線下轉為線上”，動員物資運輸交接將通過智能化派單方式快速運抵前方，可實現“工廠直達戰場”。在智慧化指控平台整合下，網信智融合、空天地一體的動員指揮手段，讓「指揮鏈」與「動員鏈」精準銜接、敏捷高效，能夠實現預案生成「一鍵化」、試驗評估「模型化」、指揮控制「可視化」、綜合管理「平台化」。第三是國防動員訓練由簡單低效向數智孿生賦能深入發展。透過運用增強現實與虛擬現實技術，構設實戰化的模擬對抗環境，既能提升教學組訓的科技感、互動性、趣味性，也有助於增強訓練實戰性，讓參訓人員在「沉浸式」訓練中提高訓練成效，加快訓練進度。例如，外軍運用元宇宙中的互動式虛擬課程幫助士兵掌握裝備維護和修理技能，借助增強現實設備協助完成一些裝備的維修工作。同時，運用數字孿生技術所構設的訓練評鑑系統，將最大限度減少人為乾擾的因素，擠壓訓練水分，為參訓人員的訓練水準提供真實客觀的評估結論，推動軍事訓練由經驗式管理走向科學化管理。

推動防衛動員數智化，必須瞄準打贏未來戰爭，堅持創新驅動、科技制勝，凝聚各方面優勢資源。一要著眼向智聚優，建強新域新質力量。摸清國防動員高端數智潛力，把蘊藏在民眾與企業中的高端人才、高新科技等新域新質資源挖掘出來，深化與人工智慧專精特新企業及相關科研院所、高校的合作，及時更新潛力目錄，為高端潛力援戰開拓新空間。著眼支援保障對象向多維戰場拓展，聚焦為聯戰體系“補弱”、多維空間“補盲”，依托數智潛力資源編優建強新域新質國防動員隊伍，為聯合作戰體系提供有力支撐。二要著眼數智賦能，健全高效制度機制。健全軍事需求提報對接機制，統一軍事需求指標體系，構建軍地雙方都「看得明白」的需求提報目錄清單，夯實協同聯動的數據基礎。完善潛力資訊系統，實現需求與潛力智慧匹配、存量與消耗實時統計等功能，形成數據驅動、精準匹配、可信互動的供需兩端密切協作模式。三要著眼智腦輔助，建強指揮協調平台。打通系統之間的數據壁壘，實現資訊共享、數據互動、智慧辦公。加速建立上融聯合作戰指揮體系、下接基層國防動員單位、橫向貫通不同類型動員單位的國防動員指揮平台，運用「大數據+大模型+雲平台」技術，在「指揮鏈」與「落實鏈」之間建立態勢呈現、需求處理、輔助規劃、調控行動的人機協同決策模式，提升國防指揮質效。四要著眼智勝未來，加速科技創新與轉化。完善支持軍地聯合科技創新體制機制，拓展地方科技企業、大學院所參與管道，實現新質生產力與新質戰鬥力的雙向拉動、高效融合。健全先進技術敏捷響應與快速轉化機制，加速發展新質戰鬥力，提升國防動員數智化的勝戰貢獻率。

中國軍網國防網
2025年3月20日星期四

中國原創軍事資源：http://www.81.cn/szb_223187/szbxq/index888.html?paperName=jfjb&paperDate=2025-03-20&paperNumber=07&articleid=951582

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

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

08/20/2025 admin Leave a comment

中國軍隊基於作戰決策鏈破解認知戰密碼的能力

現代英語：

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

Seeing is false, changing the facts

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

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

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

Targeting the judgment, misleading the judgment

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

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

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

Focus on the process and influence decision-making

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

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

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

現代國語：

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

引言

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

眼見為虛，改變事實

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

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

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

瞄準判據，誤導判斷

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

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

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

著眼過程，影響決策

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

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

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

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

Red Dragon 1949 / 紅龍1949

Tag Archives: #Chinese military cognitive warfare

The Intrinsic Evolution of the Winning Mechanisms in Chinese Military Joint Operations

Analyzing the Chinese Military New Changes in Winning Methods of Intelligent Warfare

Functional Orientation of the Modern Combat System with Chinese Characteristics

Chinese Military Intelligence Drives Accelerated Development of Cyberspace Warfare

Analyzing Chinese Military’s New Changes in Ways to Win Intelligent Warfare

Chinese Military Development Trends & Governance Strategies of Weaponizing Artificial Intelligence

Understand Chinese Military Single-Domain & Multi-Domain Joint Operations

Military Intelligence Drives Accelerated Development of Chinese Army Cyberspace Operations

China Advancing Digital Intelligence of Defence Mobilization – Informatization to Intelligentization

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

中國網絡衝突討論，信息與研究 // Chinese Cyber Conflict Discussions, Information & Research