Tag Archives: #Cognitive Domain Operations Warfare

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

Chinese Military Perspectives on the Evolution of the Winning Mechanisms in Intelligent Warfare

01/26/2026 admin Leave a comment

中國軍方對智慧戰爭制勝機制演變的看法

現代英語：

A Perspective on the Evolution of the Winning Mechanism in Intelligent Warfare

Military theorists often say that victory smiles on those who can foresee changes in the nature of war, not on those who wait for changes to occur before adapting. In recent years, disruptive technologies, represented by artificial intelligence, have developed rapidly and are widely applied in the military field, accelerating the evolution of warfare towards intelligence. Correspondingly, our understanding of warfare is also changing. Only by promptly identifying, proactively responding to, and actively adapting to changes can we remain invincible in future wars.

From “using strength to defeat weakness” to “using wisdom to overcome clumsiness”

The principle of “the strong prevailing over the weak” is a relatively universal law of war. Even in cases where the weak defeat the strong, victory often requires establishing a numerical advantage over the enemy in a specific location and at a specific time. In the era of intelligent warfare, intellectual superiority contributes far more to combat effectiveness than any other factor.

In intelligent warfare, human intelligence permeates the operational domain and is integrated into weapon systems. Multi-dimensional, multi-domain intelligent combat platforms of various types can rapidly couple combat forces, construct combat systems according to mission requirements, autonomously conduct coordinated operations, and quickly return to a state of readiness after mission completion, exhibiting a trend towards intelligent autonomy. The side with higher and stronger intelligence can better develop and utilize the mechanism of “using intelligence to overcome clumsiness,” even designing warfare, dominating the course of the war, and achieving ultimate victory. It should also be recognized that the era of intelligent warfare may have multiple development stages from low to high. Positioning oneself at a higher stage while attacking the opponent at a lower stage is also an application of the “intelligence-based victory” mechanism.

From “Destroying Force” to “Destroying Cognition”

As warfare rapidly evolves towards intelligence, the battlespace is gradually expanding from the physical and information domains to the cognitive domain, extending from the tangible battlefield to the intangible battlefield. The cognitive space, constituted by human mental and psychological activities, has become a new battlespace. Unlike traditional warfare, which primarily aims to eliminate the enemy’s manpower, intelligent warfare will place greater emphasis on weakening the enemy’s morale, undermining their will, and destroying their cognition.

By intelligently analyzing an opponent’s personality preferences, psychological characteristics, and decision-making habits, deterrent information can be tailored to their specific needs. Leveraging cutting-edge technologies such as artificial intelligence, this powerful force can be presented to the opponent in a realistic manner, causing anxiety, suspicion, and panic to fester within them, ultimately leading to their defeat. Big data, hailed as “the new oil,” not only enriches intelligence sources but also serves as a crucial weapon in influencing an opponent’s perception. By processing and deliberately “leaking” big data to the opponent, new “fog of war” can be created, plunging them into a state of cognitive confusion. In intelligent warfare, the struggle and game surrounding psychological warfare will be more intense, and the side with cognitive advantage will have an early advantage and be more likely to take the initiative and seize the initiative.

From “human-centered” to “human-machine collaboration”

In traditional warfare, the organization and deployment of military forces are primarily human-based. However, with the widespread application of intelligent technology, the proportion of unmanned equipment is constantly increasing. In intelligent warfare, combat missions will be completed through human-machine collaboration, achieving organic integration and complementary advantages. Foreign militaries’ third “offset strategy” prioritizes human-machine collaboration as a key technology for development, and their previously proposed concepts such as “loyal wingman” aim to explore the realization of manned/unmanned cooperative warfare. It is foreseeable that human-machine collaboration will play a crucial role in future warfare.

Utilizing unmanned reconnaissance capabilities for three-dimensional, multi-dimensional battlefield situational awareness can provide real-time intelligence support to manned combat forces; unmanned platforms carrying relay payloads can provide continuous communication relay support to manned combat forces; unmanned combat forces penetrating deep into the front lines can attract enemy attacks, forcing them to reveal their positions, providing target guidance and fire support for manned combat forces; and unmanned transport equipment can provide logistical support to the front lines, improving logistical efficiency, reducing transportation costs, and minimizing unnecessary casualties. With the assistance of artificial intelligence, manned and unmanned combat forces will achieve a scientific division of labor and rational combination in terms of quantity, scale, and function, thereby maximizing overall effectiveness.

From “the big eat the small” to “the fast eat the slow”

In traditional warfare, it is often necessary to compensate for shortcomings in equipment performance by increasing the number of troops. “The key to military intelligence is speed.” The rapid development of military intelligence has greatly improved the speed of information transmission and the accuracy of weapon strikes, significantly reducing the time for reconnaissance and early warning, intelligence processing, command and decision-making, fire strikes, and damage assessment, accelerating the OODA kill chain cycle, and making “detect and destroy” possible.

Hypersonic missiles, laser weapons, microwave weapons, electromagnetic pulse weapons, and other new rapid-kill weapons are pushing the pace of warfare to the level of “instant kill.” In the Gulf War, the OODA loop loop took three days; in the Iraq War, the loop time was reduced to less than 10 minutes; and in the Syrian War, the loop was almost real-time. In intelligent warfare, using integrated reconnaissance and strike unmanned platforms to rapidly and precisely eliminate high-value targets such as the enemy’s core command posts and high-ranking commanders will severely damage the enemy before they can even react, potentially even paralyzing them. It is evident that victory does not necessarily favor the side with the largest military force; the side that acts swiftly and precisely is more likely to gain the upper hand on the battlefield. Statistics show that artificial intelligence’s reaction time to battlefield changes is more than 400 times faster than that of humans. Faced with the ever-changing battlefield situation, people will increasingly favor leveraging AI technology to achieve adaptive planning and autonomous decision-making in command and control systems, shifting the command and control model from “humans on the loop” to “humans outside the loop,” thereby reducing the burden on commanders while improving operational efficiency and the success rate of mission execution.

From “Winning Through Integration” to “Winning Through Clustering”

Traditional equipment development philosophy involves investing heavily in the research and development of highly integrated, sophisticated weapon platforms, aiming to achieve a decisive victory over the enemy in war through generational and performance advantages. However, developing and deploying multifunctional high-end platforms not only requires significant time and resources, but also presents the risk of incompatibility when integrating multiple hardware and software modules into a single weapon platform. The destruction of such a platform would result in substantial losses. The military application of disruptive technologies such as artificial intelligence has spurred the rapid development of unmanned swarms. Unmanned swarms possess advantages such as large scale, low overall cost, and decentralization. Unmanned platforms coordinate and cooperate with each other, enabling them to make autonomous decisions and execute combat missions in an organized manner. Even if some unmanned platforms are destroyed, the overall combat effectiveness remains unaffected. Foreign militaries’ operational concepts such as “decision-centric warfare” and “mosaic warfare” focus on utilizing unmanned swarms to accomplish combat missions. In intelligent warfare, by distributing functions such as reconnaissance and surveillance, information communication, command and control, and firepower strikes among a large number of single-function unmanned combat units, a highly robust and flexible “kill net” is constructed. The combination of these units can then be adjusted according to mission requirements, resulting in powerful swarm intelligence that creates significant uncertainty for the adversary, trapping them in the OODA loop’s decision-making process and preventing them from making effective decisions. Furthermore, the sheer number of unmanned swarms allows the adversary’s detection, tracking, and interception capabilities to quickly reach saturation. Unable to destroy all the unmanned platforms in the swarm, the adversary is forced to face the predicament of ineffective defenses.

From “Military Dominance” to “Diverse and Hybrid”

Traditional warfare primarily relies on violence to subjugate the enemy, typically characterized by high intensity and a clear distinction between peacetime and wartime. However, as military conflict expands into new domains such as space, cyberspace, and artificial intelligence, and as the roles of economic, cultural, diplomatic, and legal means in warfare become increasingly prominent, intelligent warfare will unfold in multiple areas, particularly in the “gray zone,” employing a multi-pronged approach. The intensity of warfare may decrease, and the lines between peacetime and wartime will become more blurred. Whether it was the drone attack on Saudi oil fields in 2019 that caused half of its oil production to stop, or the cyberattack on the largest oil pipeline in the United States in 2021 that caused widespread oil shortages, the far-reaching impact of various new attack methods should not be underestimated.

As intelligent technologies develop and mature, attacks using a variety of methods against adversaries’ industrial, transportation, financial, communications, energy, and medical facilities and networks will become more common. The threshold for intelligent warfare will decrease, and participants may launch hybrid wars that integrate economic, diplomatic, cyber, media, psychological, and legal warfare without prior declaration, leaving adversaries exhausted.

From “Live-fire Testing” to “Experimental Exercises”

Under traditional conditions, due to the lack of scientific simulation and evaluation tools, the true capabilities of an army can only be tested in actual combat. Under intelligent conditions, virtual reality technology can be used to create highly realistic and immersive virtual scenarios based on real battlefield environments and mission contexts. These scenarios can not only reproduce objective elements such as weapons and equipment in terms of sound, appearance, and performance, but also simulate various severe weather conditions such as heavy fog, heavy rain, and blizzards, visually displaying battlefield terrain, meteorological, hydrological, electromagnetic, and nuclear/chemical information, closely approximating the true state of the battlefield.

By setting up hypothetical enemies in a virtual environment based on the characteristics of real-world adversaries and conducting intelligent simulations of possible battle scenarios, officers and soldiers can “experience” war multiple times in virtual reality before the official start of combat. This allows them to gain a thorough understanding of equipment performance, the pace of war, and the enemy and friendly forces, making them more adept at performing real-world missions. Before the outbreak of the Iraq War, the US military secretly developed a computer game simulating the combat environment of Baghdad. Among personnel deployed to Iraq, those trained in the game had a survival rate as high as 90%. As the data collected in reality becomes richer and more complete, the construction of virtual battlefields will become more realistic, the prediction of the battlefield situation will become more accurate, and the comprehensive evaluation of exercises will become more credible. Both sides will strive to know the outcome of the war in advance through intelligent simulations, which may lead to situations where the enemy can be subdued without fighting or with only a small battle.

現代國語：

透視智能化戰爭制勝機理嬗變

■謝愷　張東潤　梁小平

引言

軍事理論家們常說，勝利往往向那些能預見戰爭特性變化的人微笑，而不是向那些等待變化發生後才去適應的人微笑。近年來，以人工智能為代表的顛覆性技術發展迅猛，並廣泛應用於軍事領域，使戰爭形態加速向智能化演變，與之相應的戰爭觀也正在發生嬗變。及時發現變化，主動應對變化，積極適應變化，才能夠在未來戰爭中立於不敗之地。

從“以強打弱”到“以智制拙”

“強勝弱敗”是帶有一定普遍性的戰爭制勝規律。即使是那些以弱勝強的戰例，往往也須在局部和特定時段形成對敵的力量優勢才能真正取勝。智能化戰爭時代，智力優勢對戰斗力的貢獻率遠高於其他要素。

在智能化戰爭對抗中，人的智能廣泛滲透到作戰領域、移植到武器系統，全域多維、各種類型的智能化作戰平台能夠快速耦合作戰力量，根據任務需求構建作戰體系，自主實施協同作戰，任務結束迅速回歸待戰狀態，呈現智能自主趨勢。智能水平更高更強的一方，能夠更好地開發和運用“以智制拙”機理，甚至據此設計戰爭、主導戰局發展，取得最終勝利。還要看到，智能化戰爭時代很可能存在由低到高的多個發展階段，盡可能讓自己處於高級階段，攻擊對手使其處於低維度的階段，也是以高打低“智勝”機理的運用。

從“消滅力量”到“摧毀認知”

隨著戰爭形態加速向智能化演進，作戰空間逐漸由物理域、信息域拓展至認知域，以有形戰場擴展到無形戰場，由人的精神和心理活動構成的認知空間已成為新的作戰空間。與傳統戰爭中以消滅敵人有生力量為主要目的不同，智能化戰爭將更加注重削弱敵方的士氣，瓦解敵方的意志，摧毀敵方的認知。

通過智能分析對手的性格偏好、心理特征、決策習慣，可有針對性地“量身定制”威懾信息，利用智能化等前沿技術優勢，以形象逼真的方式向對手展現強大實力，使焦慮、猜疑、恐慌等情緒在其內部不斷發酵，最終導致其不攻自破。被譽為“新石油”的大數據在豐富情報來源的同時，也成為作用於對手認知的重要“武器”。通過對大數據進行加工處理，並刻意“洩露”給對手，將給其制造新的“戰爭迷霧”，使其陷入認知迷茫的境地。在智能化戰爭中，圍繞攻心奪志所展開的斗爭博弈將更加激烈，而佔據認知優勢的一方將比對方先勝一籌，更加容易掌握主動、先機。

從“以人為主”到“人機協同”

在傳統戰爭中，軍事力量的組織與運用均以人為主。隨著智能技術的廣泛應用，無人裝備的比例不斷提高。在智能化戰爭中，作戰任務將由人機協同完成，兩者將實現有機融合、優勢互補。外軍提出的第三次“抵消戰略”將人機協作等作為重點發展的關鍵技術，其先後提出的“忠誠僚機”等概念也旨在探索實現有人/無人協同作戰。可以預見，人機協同將在未來戰爭中發揮重要作用。

利用無人偵察力量開展立體多維的戰場態勢感知，可為有人作戰力量實時提供情報支援；利用無人平台攜帶中繼載荷，可為有人作戰力量持續提供通信中繼支援；利用無人作戰力量深入前方戰場，可吸引敵方攻擊，迫敵暴露位置，為有人作戰力量提供目標引導和火力支援；利用無人運輸裝備為前線提供物資補給，可提高後勤保障效率，降低運輸成本，減少非必要的人員傷亡。在人工智能的輔助下，有人作戰力量與無人作戰力量將在數量規模、功能作用等方面實現科學分工與合理搭配，從而使整體效能實現最大化。

從“以大吃小”到“以快吃慢”

在傳統戰爭中，往往需要通過增加兵力數量來彌補在裝備性能等方面的短板。“兵之情主速”，軍事智能化的飛速發展大大提升了信息傳遞速度和武器打擊精度，大幅縮減了偵察預警、情報處理、指揮決策、火力打擊、毀傷評估的時間，加速OODA殺傷鏈循環，使“發現即摧毀”成為可能。

高超聲速導彈、激光武器、微波武器、電磁脈沖武器等新型快速殺傷武器進一步將戰爭節奏推向“秒殺”。在海灣戰爭中，OODA環的回路時間需要3天；在伊拉克戰爭中，回路時間已縮短至10分鐘以內；而在敘利亞戰爭中，回路已幾乎實現了近實時。在智能化戰爭中，利用察打一體無人平台對敵方的核心指揮所、高層指揮官等高價值目標進行快速定點清除，將使對方還來不及反應就遭受重創，甚至面臨癱瘓的險境。可見勝利並不一定眷顧軍力規模龐大的一方，行動迅速而精准的一方將更有可能贏得戰場先機。據統計，人工智能應對戰場變化所需的反應時間比人類快400倍以上。面對瞬息萬變的戰場態勢，人們將更傾向於借助人工智能技術實現指控系統的自適應規劃和自主決策，使指控模式由“人在環路上”轉變為“人在環路外”，從而在減輕指揮人員負擔的同時，提高作戰效率和執行任務的成功率。

從“集成制勝”到“集群制勝”

傳統的裝備發展理念是將大量資金投入到高度集成的高精尖武器平台研發中，以期在戰爭中憑借代際優勢和性能優勢實現對敵方的降維打擊。然而，開發部署多功能高端平台不僅需要耗費大量的時間和經費，當把多個軟硬件模塊集成到單一武器平台時，還可能出現相互之間不兼容的情況。一旦該平台被毀，將造成重大損失。人工智能等顛覆性技術的軍事應用促使無人集群得到快速發展。無人集群具有數量規模大、綜合成本低、去中心化等優勢，無人平台之間相互協調、分工合作，可自主決策並有組織地執行作戰任務，即使部分無人平台被毀，也不影響整體作戰效能。外軍提出的“決策中心戰”“馬賽克戰”等作戰概念，即著眼利用無人集群完成作戰任務。在智能化戰爭中，通過將偵察監視、信息通聯、指揮控制、火力打擊等功能分散到大量功能單一的無人作戰單元中，構建高魯棒性、高彈性的“殺傷網”，然後根據任務需要對組合方式進行調整，將使其湧現出強大的群體智能，給對手制造極大的不確定性，進而把對手困在OODA環的判斷環節，無法做出有效決策。此外，由於無人集群數量龐大，可使對手的探測、跟蹤、攔截能力迅速達到飽和，對手因無法摧毀集群中的所有無人平台，而不得不面臨防御工事失效的困境。

從“軍事主導”到“多元混合”

傳統戰爭主要依靠暴力手段使敵方屈服於己方意志，通常具有較強的戰爭烈度，平時與戰時界限分明。隨著軍事斗爭領域向太空、網絡、智能等新型領域不斷拓展，以及經濟、文化、外交、法律等手段在戰爭中的作用不斷凸顯，智能化戰爭將在“灰色地帶”為代表的多個領域以“多管齊下”的形式展開。戰爭烈度可能會有所減弱，平戰界限將更加模糊。無論是2019年沙特油田因遭到無人機襲擊而導致其一半石油停產，還是2021年美國最大輸油管道因遭遇網絡攻擊而導致大面積油料短缺，各類新型攻擊手段所帶來的深遠影響均不可小覷。

隨著智能化技術的發展成熟，綜合運用多種手段向對手的工業、交通、金融、通信、能源、醫療等設施和網絡發起的攻擊將更加普遍。智能化戰爭的門檻將呈現下降趨勢，參戰方可能采取不宣而戰的方式發起融合經濟戰、外交戰、網絡戰、輿論戰、心理戰、法律戰等多種樣式的混合戰爭，使對手疲於應付。

從“實戰驗兵”到“實驗演兵”

在傳統條件下，由於缺少科學的模擬仿真與評估工具，因此只有在實戰中才能檢驗出軍隊的真實能力。在智能化條件下，利用虛擬現實技術可基於實際的戰場環境和任務背景創建具有較強立體感和真實感的虛擬場景。該場景不僅可以從聲音、外觀、性能等多個維度對武器裝備等客觀事物進行還原，還能模擬大霧、大雨和暴風雪等各種惡劣天氣，以可視化的形式展現戰場的地形、氣象、水文、電磁、核化等信息，接近戰場的真實狀況。

根據現實中敵方的特征設定虛擬環境中的假想敵，並對戰局的可能走向進行智能模擬仿真，可使官兵在正式開戰前就已在虛擬現實中數次“親歷”戰爭，從而對裝備性能、戰爭節奏、敵我情況都了然於胸，在執行現實任務時將更加游刃有余。在伊拉克戰爭爆發前，美軍曾秘密開發了一款模擬巴格達作戰環境的電腦游戲，在被派遣到伊拉克執行任務的人員中，接受過游戲訓練的人員生存率高達90%。隨著現實中收集到的數據不斷豐富完善，虛擬戰場的搭建將更加逼真，對戰場態勢的走向預測將更加准確，關於演習的綜合評估將更加可信，敵對雙方都力圖通過智能推演即可預先獲知戰爭結果，將可能出現不戰或小戰就“屈人之兵”的情況。

來源：解放軍報作者：謝愷　張東潤　梁小平責任編輯：葉夢圓 2022-04-26 06:xx:xx

中國原創軍事資源：http://www.mod.gov.cn/gfbw/wzll/yw_21840868/4898098286.html

#Chinese #Quantum #technology, #cross-domain collaborative operations, #quantum computing warfare, 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 AI Empowerment: Accelerating the Iterative Upgrade of Cognitive Electronic Warfare

01/25/2026 admin Leave a comment

中國軍事人工智慧賦能：加速認知電子戰迭代升級

現代英語：

In the invisible dimension of war, a silent contest has been raging for a century. From the electromagnetic fog of the Battle of Tsushima to the spectral chaos of modern battlefields, from the rudimentary metal chaff used during World War II to the cognitive electronic warfare systems incorporating artificial intelligence, electronic warfare has undergone a magnificent transformation from a supporting role to a pillar of war. It is now deeply embedded in the “operating system” of modern warfare, rewriting its form and rules. It is invisible and intangible, yet it profoundly controls the lifeline of battlefield operations; it is silent, yet it is enough to determine the life and death of thousands of troops. The balance of future wars will increasingly depend on who can see more clearly, react faster, and control more firmly in this silent yet deadly spectrum.

In modern warfare, the field of electronic warfare is evolving rapidly. The electromagnetic spectrum is considered an important operational domain after land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace, becoming a focal point for both sides to gain comprehensive dominance in joint operations. As warfare accelerates its evolution towards intelligence, cognitive electronic warfare, which integrates artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies, is increasingly demonstrating its autonomous countermeasure advantages, becoming a crucial tool for paralyzing entities in the electromagnetic space.

New Needs of Intelligent Warfare

In informationized and intelligent warfare, information equipment is widely distributed, and unmanned intelligent equipment is deployed, making the battlefield electromagnetic environment increasingly complex. Due to the adoption of cognitive and adaptive technologies, radar and communication equipment are becoming increasingly resistant to interference, rendering traditional electronic countermeasures inadequate. Therefore, it is necessary to leverage artificial intelligence and machine learning to endow electronic warfare systems with the ability to self-identify threats, extract threat source signals in real time, quickly organize and analyze them, determine the threat level and weaknesses of the signals, and promptly and effectively counteract them.

The need for precise perception. In modern warfare, to increase battlefield “transparency,” both sides extensively utilize electronic information equipment. Simultaneously, unmanned equipment and “swarm” systems are widely employed. On a battlefield filled with numerous information devices and massive amounts of electromagnetic signals, a single electronic warfare device may simultaneously receive radiation from dozens or even hundreds of other electronic devices, making signal identification extremely difficult. This necessitates that electronic warfare systems break through existing technological limitations, integrate big data analysis and deep learning technologies, enhance their perception capabilities, and comprehensively identify various electromagnetic radiation targets on the battlefield.

The need for intelligent countermeasures. Driven by emerging technologies, agile radar, frequency-hopping radios, and other equipment have been deployed extensively on the battlefield. These devices form a closed loop between transmission and reception, and can autonomously adjust their operating modes, transmission parameters, and waveform selection according to the environment, possessing autonomous interference avoidance capabilities. Traditional electronic warfare equipment, based on existing experience and pre-set interference rule libraries, has rigid functions and poor flexibility, making it unable to cope with emerging adaptive electronic targets. This necessitates that electronic warfare systems integrate intelligent algorithms to become “smarter,” possessing adaptive countermeasure capabilities of “using intelligence against intelligence.”

The need to disrupt networked systems. The winning mechanism of modern combat systems, when mapped onto the information domain, has spurred the networked operation of radar and communication systems. The aim is to eliminate the global loss of control caused by interference with a single device or part of the link through information fusion and redundant design, leveraging the resilience of the network system. Faced with networked information systems, electronic warfare systems need to embed intelligent countermeasure analysis and reasoning technologies, possessing the ability to effectively identify networked information systems in order to discover key nodes and critical parts, and implement targeted, integrated hardware and software attacks.

A New Transformation Driven by Digital Intelligence

Cognitive electronic warfare can be considered a combination of electronic warfare and artificial intelligence. It is a new generation of electronic warfare systems with autonomous perception, intelligent decision-making, and adaptive jamming capabilities, representing a major upgrade to traditional electronic warfare.

The shift from human to machine cognition. Advances in modern electronic technology have enabled electronic information equipment to offer diverse functions and multiple modes. Traditional electronic warfare systems rely on manually analyzed threat databases for countermeasures, which are only effective against known signal patterns and become significantly less effective against unknown threats. Cognitive electronic warfare systems, through autonomous interactive swarm learning and intelligent algorithms, can quickly intercept and identify signal patterns, analyze changing patterns, make autonomous decisions based on changes in the electromagnetic environment, optimize interference signal waveforms, and autonomously complete the operational cycle of “observation-judgment-decision-action.”

The focus is shifting from precision-driven to data-driven. Electronic warfare systems rely on the measurement and sensing of electronic signals as their fundamental premise. However, with the rise of new technologies, the sensitivity and resolution of these systems are approaching their limits, hindering their development and upgrades. Recognizing that electronic warfare systems can break through traditional models by utilizing big data analytics and mining large datasets can not only efficiently intercept and accurately identify unknown signals, but also predict the timing of frequency changes, mode adjustments, and power conversions. This allows for the correlation analysis of the electronic target’s operational patterns, enabling proactive adjustments to jamming strategies, rules, and parameters to conduct targeted electronic attacks.

The focus has shifted from jamming single targets to disrupting networked targets. Driven by network technology, new-generation radar and communication equipment are beginning to network, using system advantages to compensate for the shortcomings of single points. Traditional electronic warfare jamming relies on human experience and knowledge, lacking sufficient self-learning capabilities. It is mainly used to jam point and chain-like electronic targets, and cannot effectively jam networked targets. Cognitive electronic warfare systems utilize deep learning technology to perceive the network structure and operating modes of new networked systems such as radar and communication. Based on logical reasoning, it can identify nodes, hubs, and key links in the networked system, thereby implementing precise jamming and making it possible to disrupt the system.

New forms of structural reshaping

Cognitive electronic warfare systems, based on the traditional open-loop structure, introduce behavioral learning processes and reshape the modular architecture, enabling them to evaluate the effectiveness of interference and optimize interference strategies based on interference feedback, thus completing a closed loop of “reconnaissance-interference-evaluation” countermeasures.

Reconnaissance and Sensing Module. Reconnaissance and sensing is the primary link in electronic warfare and a crucial prerequisite for the successful implementation of cognitive electronic warfare. This module utilizes deep learning and feature learning techniques to continuously learn from the surrounding environment through constant interaction with the battlefield electromagnetic environment. It performs parameter measurement and sorting of signals, analyzes and extracts characteristic data of target threat signals with the support of prior knowledge, assesses behavioral intent, determines the threat level, and transmits the data to the decision-making and effectiveness evaluation module.

Decision-Making Module. The decision-making module is the core of the cognitive electronic warfare system, primarily responsible for generating interference strategies and optimizing interference waveforms. Based on the analysis and identification results of reconnaissance and perception, the feedback effect of interference assessment, and a dynamic knowledge base, this module uses machine learning algorithms to predict threat characteristics, generates countermeasures through reasoning from past experience, rapidly formulates attack strategies and optimizes interference waveforms, automatically allocates interference resources, and ultimately completes autonomous attacks on target signals.

Effectiveness assessment module. Effectiveness assessment is key to the closed-loop operation of cognitive electronic warfare systems, playing a crucial role in linking all modules. This module analyzes the target’s response to the jamming measures based on feedback information after the signals sensed by reconnaissance are jammed. It calculates and assesses the degree of jamming or damage to the target online, and then feeds the results back to the decision-making module to help adjust jamming strategies and optimize waveforms.

The dynamic knowledge base module primarily provides basic information and data support, including a threat target base, an interference rule base, and a prior knowledge base. This module provides prior information such as models, parameters, and data for reconnaissance and perception, decision-making, and performance evaluation. It utilizes feedback information for cognitive learning, accumulates learning results into experience, and updates the knowledge graph, knowledge rules, and reasoning models in the knowledge base, achieving real-time updates to the knowledge base.

New applications that enhance efficiency

With further breakthroughs in algorithm models and learning reasoning technologies, information-based and intelligent warfare will lead to more mature and sophisticated cognitive electronic warfare systems. Their role in empowering and enhancing efficiency will become more prominent, their application scenarios will become more diverse, and they will become an indispensable weapon on the battlefield.

Precision energy release for strike operations. Under informationized and intelligent conditions, the battlefield situation is presented in real time, command and decision-making are timely and efficient, and combat operations are controlled in real time, enabling precision operations to move from scenario conception to the real battlefield. At the same time, with the connection of cyber information facilities, the combat system has a higher degree of coupling and stronger resilience, becoming an important support for the implementation of joint operations. The cognitive electronic warfare system possesses high-precision perception capabilities and strong directional jamming capabilities. Through its distributed deployment across a wide battlefield, it can work in conjunction with troop assaults and fire strikes, under the unified command of joint operations commanders, to conduct precise attacks on key nodes and important links of the combat system. This includes precise targeting, precise frequency coverage, and precise and consistent modulation patterns, thereby blinding and degrading the effectiveness of enemy early warning detection and command and control systems, and facilitating the implementation of system disruption operations.

Networked Collaborative Swarm Warfare. In future warfare, unmanned swarms such as drones, unmanned vehicles, and unmanned boats will be the main force in combat, making the construction of a low-cost, highly redundant force system crucial for victory. Facing unmanned combat systems like “swarms,” ”wolf packs,” and “fish schools,” cognitive electronic warfare systems possess a natural advantage in evolving into unmanned electronic warfare swarms. Based on networked collaborative technologies, reconnaissance and jamming payloads are deployed on unmanned swarm platforms. Information and data exchange between platforms is achieved through information links. With the support of intelligent algorithms, cognitive electronic warfare systems can optimize the combination of jamming functions and dynamically allocate resources based on the battlefield electromagnetic situation. Based on autonomous collaborative guidance and centralized control, they can conduct swarm-to-swarm electronic attacks.

Electronic warfare and cyber warfare are two fundamentally different modes of combat. Electronic warfare focuses on low-level confrontation at the physical and signal layers, while cyber warfare focuses on high-level confrontation at the logical and information layers. However, with information networks covering the electromagnetic spectrum, the convergence of electronic and cyber warfare has become increasingly possible. Breakthroughs in wireless access and encryption technologies have enabled cognitive electronic warfare systems to infiltrate network infrastructure, achieving seamless integration of cyber and electronic space situational awareness and mission decision-making. By combining autonomous learning, pattern evaluation, and algorithmic prediction, a closed-loop system integrating cyber and electronic space perception, evaluation, decision-making, and feedback can be established, enabling integrated cyber and electronic warfare offense and defense.

現代國語：

在戰爭的無形維度中，一場無聲的較量已持續了一個世紀。從馬海戰的電磁迷霧到現代戰場的光譜混亂，從二戰時期簡陋的金屬箔條到融合人工智慧的認知電子戰系統，電子戰經歷了從輔助角色到戰爭支柱的華麗蛻變。如今，它已深深融入現代戰爭的“操作系統”，改寫了戰爭的形式和規則。它無形無質，卻深刻地掌控著戰場行動的生命線；它悄無聲息，卻足以決定成千上萬士兵的生死。未來戰爭的勝負將越來越取決於誰能更清晰地洞察、更快地反應、更牢固地掌控這片無聲卻致命的頻譜。

在現代戰爭中，電子戰領域正快速發展。電磁頻譜被視為繼陸地、海洋、空中、太空和網路空間之後的重要作戰領域，成為交戰雙方在聯合作戰中爭奪全面優勢的關鍵所在。隨著戰爭加速朝向智慧化演進，融合人工智慧和機器學習技術的認知電子戰正日益展現其自主對抗優勢，成為癱瘓電磁空間目標的關鍵工具。

智慧戰爭的新需求

在資訊化和智慧化戰爭中，資訊裝備廣泛分佈，無人智慧裝備也投入使用，使得戰場電磁環境日益複雜。由於認知和自適應技術的應用，雷達和通訊裝備的抗干擾能力不斷增強，傳統的電子對抗手段已難以應對。因此，必須利用人工智慧和機器學習技術，賦予電子戰系統自主識別威脅、即時提取威脅源訊號、快速整理分析、判斷威脅等級和訊號弱點並及時有效對抗的能力。

精準感知的需求。在現代戰爭中，為了提高戰場“透明度”，交戰雙方廣泛使用電子資訊裝備。同時，無人裝備和「集群」系統也被廣泛應用。在充斥著大量資訊設備和海量電磁訊號的戰場上，單一電子戰設備可能同時接收來自數十甚至數百個其他電子設備的輻射，使得訊號識別極為困難。這就要求電子戰系統突破現有技術限制，融合大數據分析與深度學習技術，增強感知能力，並全面辨識戰場上各種電磁輻射目標。

智能對抗的需求。在新興技術的推動下，敏捷雷達、跳頻無線電等設備已廣泛部署於戰場。這些設備在收發之間形成閉環，能夠根據環境自主調整工作模式、發射參數和波形選擇，並具備自主抗干擾能力。傳統的電子戰設備基於現有經驗和預設的干擾規則庫，功能僵化，靈活性差，難以應對新興的自適應電子目標。這就要求電子戰系統融合智慧演算法，變得更加“智慧”，具備“以智制智”的自適應對抗能力。

顛覆網路化系統的需求。現代作戰系統的致勝機制，一旦映射到資訊領域，便會推動雷達和通訊系統的網路化運作。其目標是透過資訊融合和冗餘設計，利用網路系統的韌性，消除因單一設備或連結某部分受到干擾而導致的全局失控。面對網路化資訊系統，電子戰系統需要嵌入智慧對抗分析和推理技術，具備有效識別網路化資訊系統的能力，從而發現關鍵節點和重要部件，並實施有針對性的軟硬體一體化攻擊。

數位智慧驅動的新轉型

認知電子戰可以被視為電子戰與人工智慧的結合。它是新一代電子戰系統，具備自主感知、智慧決策和自適應幹擾能力。智慧電子戰系統代表傳統電子戰的重大升級。

認知方式的轉變：從人腦認知轉向機器認知。現代電子技術的進步使得電子資訊設備能夠提供多樣化的功能和多種模式。傳統的電子戰系統依賴人工分析的威脅資料庫進行對抗，而這種方法僅對已知的訊號模式有效，而對未知威脅的對抗效果則顯著降低。認知電子戰系統透過自主互動群體學習和智慧演算法，能夠快速截獲和識別訊號模式，分析變化的模式，根據電磁環境的變化做出自主決策，優化干擾訊號波形，並自主完成「觀察-判斷-決策-行動」的作戰循環。

電子戰的重點正從精度驅動轉向數據驅動。電子戰系統以測量和感知電子訊號為基本前提。然而，隨著新技術的出現，這些系統的靈敏度和解析度正接近極限，阻礙了其發展和升級。認識到電子戰系統可以透過利用大數據分析和挖掘大型資料集來突破傳統模式，不僅可以高效截獲和準確識別未知訊號，還可以預測頻率變化、模式調整和功率轉換的時機。這使得對電子目標的運作模式進行關聯分析成為可能，從而能夠主動調整幹擾策略、規則和參數，並實施有針對性的電子攻擊。

幹擾的重點已從單一目標轉向幹擾網路化目標。在網路技術的驅動下，新一代雷達和通訊設備開始連網，利用系統優勢彌補單點目標的不足。傳統的電子戰幹擾依賴人的經驗和知識，缺乏足夠的自學習能力，主要用於幹擾點狀和鏈狀電子目標，無法有效幹擾網路化目標。認知電子戰系統利用深度學習技術感知雷達、通訊等新型網路化系統的網路結構與運作模式。基於邏輯推理，該系統能夠識別網路系統中的節點、樞紐和關鍵鏈路，從而實現精準幹擾，並有可能破壞系統。

新型結構重塑

認知電子戰系統在傳統開環結構的基礎上，引入行為學習過程並重塑模組化架構，使其能夠評估幹擾效果，並基於乾擾反饋優化干擾策略，從而形成「偵察-幹擾-評估」對抗的閉環。

偵察感知模組。偵察感知是電子戰的核心環節，也是成功實施認知電子戰的關鍵前提。本模組利用深度學習和特徵學習技術，透過與戰場電磁環境的持續交互，不斷學習周圍環境。它對訊號進行參數測量和分類，在先驗知識的支持下分析和提取目標威脅訊號的特徵數據，評估行為意圖，確定威脅等級，並將數據傳輸至決策和效果評估模組。

決策模組。決策模組是認知電子戰系統的核心，主要負責產生幹擾策略和最佳化干擾波形。此模組基於偵察感知的分析識別結果、幹擾評估的回饋效果以及動態知識庫，利用機器學習演算法預測威脅特徵，透過對過往經驗的推理生成對抗措施，快速制定攻擊策略並優化干擾波形，自動分配幹擾資源，最終完成對目標訊號的自主攻擊。

效果評估模組。效果評估是認知電子戰系統閉環運作的關鍵，在連接所有模組中發揮至關重要的作用。此模組在偵察感知到訊號被幹擾後，基於回饋資訊分析目標對幹擾措施的反應，在線上計算和評估目標受到的干擾或損害程度，並將結果回饋給決策模組，以幫助調整幹擾策略和優化波形。

動態知識庫模組主要提供…此模組提供基礎資訊和資料支持，包括威脅目標庫、幹擾規則庫和先驗知識庫。它提供先驗信息，例如用於偵察感知、決策和性能評估的模型、參數和數據。它利用回饋資訊進行認知學習，將學習結果累積為經驗，並更新知識庫中的知識圖譜、知識規則和推理模型，從而實現知識庫的即時更新。

提升效率的新應用

隨著演算法模型和學習推理技術的進一步突破，資訊化和智慧化戰爭將催生更成熟和精密的認知電子戰系統。它們在增強作戰效率方面的作用將更加突出，應用場景將更加多樣化，並將成為戰場上不可或缺的武器。

精確能量釋放用於打擊行動。在資訊化和智慧化條件下，戰場態勢即時呈現，指揮決策及時高效，作戰行動即時控制，使精確打擊行動能夠從場景構思到實際戰場。同時，隨著網路資訊設施的互聯互通，作戰系統具有更高的耦合度和更強的韌性，成為聯合作戰的重要支撐。認知電子戰系統具備高精度感知能力及強大的定向幹擾能力。透過其在廣大戰場上的分散部署，該系統可在聯合作戰指揮官的統一指揮下，與部隊突擊和火力打擊協同作戰，對作戰系統的關鍵節點和重要環節進行精確打擊。這種打擊包括精確目標定位、精確頻率覆蓋以及精確一致的調製模式，從而乾擾和削弱敵方預警和指揮控制系統的效能，並為系統破壞作戰的實施提供便利。

網路協同集群作戰。在未來的戰爭中，無人機、無人車輛、無人艇等無人集群將成為作戰的主力，因此建造低成本、高冗餘度的作戰系統對於取得勝利至關重要。面對「集群」、「狼群」和「魚群」等無人作戰系統，認知電子戰系統在演進為無人電子戰集群方面具有天然優勢。基於網路協同技術，偵察和乾擾載荷部署在無人集群平台上。平台間的資訊和資料交換透過資訊鏈路實現。在智慧演算法的支援下，認知電子戰系統能夠根據戰場電磁態勢優化干擾功能組合併動態分配資源。基於自主協同導引和集中控制，它們可以進行群集間的電子攻擊。

電子戰和網路戰是兩種截然不同的作戰模式。電子戰著重於實體層和訊號層的低層對抗，而網路戰則著重於邏輯層和資訊層的高層對抗。然而，隨著資訊網路覆蓋電磁頻譜，電子戰和網路戰的融合變得越來越可能。無線存取和加密技術的突破使得認知電子戰系統能夠滲透網路基礎設施，實現網路空間和電子空間態勢感知及任務決策的無縫融合。透過結合自主學習、模式評估和演算法預測，可以建立一個整合網路空間和電子空間感知、評估、決策和回饋的閉環系統，從而實現網路戰和電子戰的一體化攻防。

王志勇　楊連山　崔怡然

來源：中國軍網-解放軍報作者：王志勇　楊連山　崔怡然責任編輯：林詩清發布：2026-01-22

中國原創軍事資源：http://www.81.cn/ll_208543/168483878784.html

Chinese Military Use of Cognitive Confrontation within the Combat Domain, Combat Planning

Military Research, Warfare Research, Combat Research | Practical Exploration of Strengthening New Combat Capabilities for China’s Military

01/25/2026 admin Leave a comment

軍事研究、戰爭研究、作戰研究 | 實際探索提升中國軍隊新型作戰能力

現代英語：

The Fourth Plenary Session of the 20th CPC Central Committee clearly proposed “accelerating the development of advanced combat capabilities.” New-type combat capabilities are representative of advanced combat capabilities, and strengthening the practical exploration of new-type combat capability development is an inevitable requirement for accelerating the development of advanced combat capabilities. As a key force for winning future battlefields, new-type combat capabilities are crucial to the course of war, the transformation of development, and the outcome of battles. Therefore, it is imperative to keep pace with changes in technology, warfare, and adversaries, fully unleash and develop new-type combat capabilities, and continuously enhance their contribution to war preparedness and combat.

Grasp the requirements of the times for strengthening the construction of new-type combat capabilities

The development of combat capabilities bears the profound imprint of the times. Strengthening the development of new-type combat capabilities must adapt to the era’s requirements as the form of warfare rapidly evolves towards intelligence, unmanned operation, and beyond-domain capabilities.

The “New” Elements of Power: Unmanned Intelligence. Recent local wars and military operations worldwide demonstrate a continuous increase in the informatization of warfare. Weapons and equipment are showing a clear trend towards long-range precision, intelligence, stealth, and unmanned operation, fundamentally changing the way humans interact with weaponry. The concepts, elements, and methods of winning wars are undergoing significant transformations. Currently, artificial intelligence and unmanned autonomous technologies are rapidly entering the battlefield. Intelligent military systems have significantly improved the unmanned autonomous combat capabilities of military equipment and platforms. The main participants in warfare are shifting from traditional humans to humanoid intelligent unmanned systems. Combat behavior and decision-making are accelerating their shift from “carbon-based” to “silicon-based,” from “cellular” to “intelligent agents,” and evolving from a “human in the loop” to a “human on the loop” and even “human outside the loop” model.

The “New” Nature of Battlefield Space: Multidimensional Integration. Disruptive technologies, exemplified by artificial intelligence, are rapidly expanding the scope and depth of influence of combat forces. The rapid application of technologies such as bio-interdisciplinary research, neuromorphic science, and human-machine interfaces is driving the deep penetration and integration of intelligent network systems with human social activities. New methods and situations, such as “deepfakes” and “information cocoons,” are emerging in large numbers, and hybrid games involving cognitive competition in the social domain are evolving into new arenas of struggle. The space of military struggle is expanding from traditional geographical space to the deep sea, outer space, electromagnetic, cyber, and cognitive domains, advancing the entire battlefield space to a highly three-dimensional, multi-dimensional, and highly integrated state. These battlefield space domains are interconnected, mutually supportive, and mutually restrictive, jointly propelling combat towards complex intelligence.

The “New” Aspect of Combat Formation: Dynamic Reconfiguration. Combat formation reflects the combination of personnel and weaponry, the relationships between combat units, and between different units, determining the role and effectiveness of new-type combat capabilities. Looking towards the real-time optimization of joint forces and firepower in future operations, new-type combat capabilities will rely on intelligent network information systems, shifting from static configuration to dynamic reconfiguration, from “building blocks” to “solving a Rubik’s Cube.” Each combat element will be functionally decoupled as needed, and then cross-domain integration will connect heterogeneous functional elements and unit modules to construct a resilient distributed “kill network,” enabling wide-area configuration, cross-domain networking, and multi-domain aggregation of combat units and basic modules. This dynamic formation requires the support of network information systems and the coordinated cooperation of new-type combat capabilities, connecting heterogeneous functional elements and unit modules throughout the entire combat system through cross-domain integration.

Focus on key aspects of strengthening new combat capabilities

The key difference between new-type combat capabilities and traditional combat capabilities lies in the new quality of combat capabilities. The construction of new-type combat capabilities should take the new quality as an important starting point, empower combat capability elements and transform combat capability generation models through technological innovation, thereby promoting the leap in combat capabilities.

Intelligent algorithms are key to victory. New combat capabilities, exemplified by intelligent weaponry, place greater emphasis on gaining strategic control in combat. The competition between opposing sides hinges on the level of intelligent cognition and the superiority of their algorithms. Intelligent algorithms can be seamlessly integrated into the decision-making and command chains at every stage of the kill chain—observation, location, tracking, judgment, decision-making, strike, and assessment—achieving “victory before battle.” Data mining algorithms, such as deep learning and self-learning, can rapidly integrate various types of battlefield data, deeply correlate and analyze valuable intelligence, and help combat personnel predict the battlefield situation more quickly and effectively. Intelligent game theory and decision-making algorithms, such as reinforcement learning, can autonomously engage in combat in virtual environments, rapidly and fully explore the war decision-making space, help commanders identify and anchor decision points, and more efficiently create and generate action plans, thus assisting in combat planning. For the command and control of numerous unmanned equipment and platforms, autonomous control algorithms, such as autonomous planning and collaborative algorithms, can dynamically combine combat resources according to mission objectives and capability requirements, forming human-machine hybrid formations to efficiently execute combat missions.

The system is highly interconnected. Combat power generation is a complete system formed by the development and internal movement of the various elements constituting combat power, as well as the interconnections and interactions between different elements and subsystems. The characteristics of system confrontation, hybrid game, and cross-domain competition are more prominent in informationized and intelligent combat operations. The dispersed battlefield sensors, combat forces, and weapon platforms become network information nodes based on various information links. Intelligence information, mission instructions, battle situation, and battle results information can all be interactively shared in the battlefield network that is connected across the entire domain. The entire combat operation, while pursuing individual platform indicators, places greater emphasis on the real-time linkage effect of the entire combat system. Through functional coupling and structural emergence, it achieves the goals of “energy aggregation” and “energy enhancement” to achieve the goal of defeating the enemy with overall strength.

Human-machine interaction is gradually advancing. Unmanned equipment, as a crucial element of new combat capabilities and an important supplement to traditional weaponry, is transforming from a battlefield support role to a primary combat role. Broadly speaking, unmanned equipment will expand the combat capabilities of weaponry and gain information and firepower mobility advantages. First, unmanned combat equipment can enrich and improve manned combat systems. Utilizing the advantages of unmanned equipment—less restricted battlefield environment, stronger penetration capabilities, and more diverse missions—it can enhance the scope, accuracy, and timeliness of reconnaissance and intelligence gathering and assessment, as well as increase the density, intensity, and sustainability of firepower strikes. Second, coordinated operations between manned and unmanned forces can achieve a “1+1>2” combat effectiveness. For example, drones can conduct forward reconnaissance and early warning, becoming an extension of manned aircraft perception, leveraging the mobility and firepower advantages of manned aircraft while utilizing the information advantages of drones. Third, unmanned swarm operations can achieve the goal of rapidly depleting enemy resources. Unmanned swarm forces, including drones, unmanned vehicles, unmanned boats, unmanned underwater vehicles, bionic robots, and smart munitions, will conduct autonomous and coordinated unmanned operations. Their nonlinear and emergent characteristics will highlight their advantages in scale, cost, autonomy, and decision-making. They will strike targets such as heavily fortified air defense missile sites deep within enemy territory, greatly depleting the enemy’s reconnaissance, interception, and firepower resources.

Building a scientific framework for enhancing new combat capabilities

Building new combat capabilities is a systemic and arduous battle that requires overcoming difficulties. We must break away from the path dependence of “technology-oriented” approaches and construct a scientific chain of “theoretical interpretation, system construction, training transformation, and resource adaptation.”

Emphasizing “theory first, system support,” these two aspects are crucial foundations for generating new-type combat capabilities. A hierarchical theoretical framework and resilient system architecture are essential to solidify the foundation for new-type combat capabilities to serve actual combat. From the perspective of hierarchical theoretical framework construction, basic theory must focus on the essential mechanisms of new-type combat elements, analyzing the operational characteristics, boundaries of action, and coupling logic of emerging domain elements with traditional elements, and exploring scientific paths for aligning basic theory with practice. Applied theory must closely adhere to actual combat scenarios, constructing application rules based on the typological classification of future combat missions, and expanding the paths for transforming applied theory into tactical practice. The innovative theoretical layer must anticipate the evolution of warfare, combining technological advancements to predict theoretical development directions, providing guidance for the evolution of new-type elements. From the perspective of resilient system architecture design, “system resilience” should be the goal to break down inter-domain barriers, establishing a potential database through the Internet of Things and big data technologies to achieve rapid reorganization and response of new-type resources and troop needs, ensuring that the system resonates with the demands of “war.”

Adhering to the principle of “you fight your way, I fight my way,” we must boldly innovate and explore new models for the construction and application of combat forces. The essence of this approach lies in building “asymmetric advantages.” From the perspective of cultivating asymmetric advantages, we must rely on “operational domain advantage maps” for assessment and construct differentiated force layouts. We must promote the transformation of advantageous elements into core capabilities, build a “strengths against weaknesses” pattern, and ensure the long-term sustainability of these advantages through the establishment of a dynamic monitoring mechanism. From the perspective of innovatively reconstructing operational paths, we must break through the boundaries of traditional operational domains, open up new dimensions of confrontation in unmanned domains, and design modular solutions based on mission requirements, flexibly combining new qualitative elements with traditional forces to avoid path dependence.

Strengthening “realistic training and adversarial drills” is crucial. Realistic training and adversarial drills serve as the intermediaries for transforming new combat capabilities from theory to actual combat. To establish a closed-loop mechanism of “integrated training and combat,” it is necessary to enhance the combat adaptability of new combat capabilities through high-fidelity construction of training scenarios, high-intensity design of adversarial drills, and quantitative modeling of effectiveness evaluation. Regarding the high-fidelity construction of realistic training scenarios, it is essential to actively organize drone units to conduct training in reconnaissance and rescue, airlift, and other subjects. The concept of “environmental complexity gradient” should be introduced to force officers and soldiers to utilize new equipment under extreme conditions. A quantitative evaluation system should be established to assess training effectiveness. Regarding the high-intensity design of adversarial drills, it is necessary to set up adversarial scenarios closely resembling those of a strong enemy, set adversarial intensity thresholds, and establish a closed-loop improvement mechanism to promote iterative upgrades of combat capabilities.

The principle is “not seeking ownership, but utilizing.” This is a crucial path for generating new combat capabilities. Its core lies in the innovative generation model of the “resource pooling” theory. This requires breaking the binding relationship between “resource possession” and “capability generation” through cross-domain resource integration and dynamic resource allocation. From the perspective of cross-domain resource integration, “resource pooling” is the core, integrating local technology, talent, and equipment resources to build a military-civilian integrated resource support network. From the perspective of dynamic resource allocation, a classified and graded management system is constructed, categorizing new resources according to their operational value into core, support, and auxiliary categories, clarifying the deployment process for new equipment, and ensuring that resource benefits are transformed into actual combat capabilities.

現代國語：

加強新質戰斗力建設實踐探索

■王璐穎李滔

引言

黨的二十屆四中全會鮮明提出“加快先進戰斗力建設”。新質戰斗力是先進戰斗力的代表，加強新質戰斗力建設實踐探索是加快先進戰斗力建設的必然要求。新質戰斗力作為制勝未來戰場的關鍵力量，關乎戰爭走向、關乎建設轉型、關乎作戰勝負，必須緊跟科技之變、戰爭之變、對手之變，充分解放和發展新質戰斗力，不斷提升新質戰斗力對備戰打仗的貢獻率。

把握加強新質戰斗力建設時代要求

戰斗力建設有著深刻的時代烙印，加強新質戰斗力建設要順應戰爭形態加速向智能化、無人化、超域化演進的時代要求。

力量要素之“新”：無人智能。從世界近幾場局部戰爭和軍事行動看，戰爭信息化程度不斷提高，武器裝備遠程精確化、智能化、隱身化、無人化趨勢明顯，正在改變人與武器裝備的結合方式，戰爭制勝觀念、制勝要素、制勝方式發生重大變化。當前，人工智能技術和無人自主技術快速走向戰場，智能化軍事系統顯著提高了軍事裝備和平台的無人自主作戰能力，戰爭主要參與者從傳統的人向類人智能無人系統的跨越，作戰行為與決策加速從“碳基”向“硅基”轉移，從“細胞體”向“智能體”讓渡，從“人在環中”向“人在環上”乃至“人在環外”的模式演進。

戰場空間之“新”：多維融合。以人工智能為代表的顛覆性技術，正加速擴展作戰力量的作用領域、影響深度。生物交叉、類腦科學和人機接口等技術的快速應用，促使智能化網絡體系與人類社會活動深度滲透、高度融合。“深度偽造”“信息繭房”等新手段、新情況大量產生，社會域的認知爭奪等混合博弈，正演變為新的角力場。軍事斗爭空間從傳統地理空間，不斷向深海、外太空、電磁、網絡、認知等領域拓展，整個戰場空間進階到高立體、全維度、大融合。這些戰場空間領域之間既相互聯系、相互支撐，又相互制約，共同推動作戰向復雜智能的方向發展。

作戰編組之“新”：動態重構。作戰編組是人與武器裝備結合、作戰單元之間、部隊與部隊之間關系的體現，決定著新質戰斗力的作用發揮和效能釋放。著眼未來聯合作戰兵力火力的即時聚優，新質戰斗力將依托智能化網絡信息體系的支撐，由靜態搭配向動態重構轉變，由“拼積木”向“擰魔方”轉變，各作戰要素根據需要進行功能解耦，再通過跨域融合將異構的功能要素和單元模塊聯結在一起，構建具有良好韌性的分布式“殺傷網”，以實現作戰單元和基本模塊的廣域配置、跨域組網和多域聚合。這種動態編組更需要網絡信息體系的支撐和新質戰斗力的協同配合，通過跨域融合將整個作戰體系中異構的功能要素和單元模塊聯結在一起。

扭住加強新質戰斗力建設重要抓手

新質戰斗力區別於傳統戰斗力的關鍵在於戰斗力呈現的新質態，新質戰斗力建設要以新質態為重要抓手，通過科技創新賦能戰斗力要素、變革戰斗力生成模式，從而推動戰斗力躍遷。

智能算法制勝。以智能化武器裝備為代表的新質戰斗力更加重視追求作戰制智權，敵我雙方比拼的是智能認知水平的高下、算法的優劣。在觀察、定位、跟蹤、判斷、決策、打擊和評估等殺傷鏈的各個環節，智能算法都可以及時融入決策鏈、指揮鏈，實現“未戰而先勝”。以深度學習、自學習為代表的數據挖掘算法，能夠對戰場收集的各類數據快速整合，深度關聯分析有價值的情報信息，幫助作戰人員更快更好預測戰場態勢。以強化學習為代表的智能博弈和決策算法，能夠在虛擬環境中自主博弈對抗，快速充分探索戰爭決策空間，幫助指揮員發現和錨定決策點，更加高效地創造生成行動方案，輔助作戰籌劃。針對大量無人裝備和平台的指揮控制，自主規劃與協同算法等自主控制算法，能夠根據任務目標和能力需求對作戰資源進行動態組合，形成人機混合編組，高效執行作戰任務。

體系高度關聯。戰斗力生成，是由構成戰斗力的各要素自身發展、內在運動，以及不同要素和分系統之間相互聯系、相互作用而形成的完整體系。信息化智能化作戰行動的體系對抗、混合博弈、超域競爭等特征更加突出，分散配置的戰場傳感器、作戰力量和武器平台基於各種信息鏈路成為網絡信息節點，情報信息、任務指令、戰況態勢和戰果信息均可在全域聯通的戰場網絡中交互共享，整個作戰行動在追求單個平台單項指標的基礎上，更強調整個作戰體系的實時聯動效應，通過功能耦合和結構湧現，達到“聚能”和“增能”的目的，以整體力量達到克敵制勝的目的。

人機互動漸進。無人裝備作為新質戰斗力的重要抓手和傳統武器裝備的重要補充，正從過去戰場配屬角色向主戰角色轉變。從廣義角度看，無人裝備將以拓展武器裝備作戰能力獲得信息、火力機動優勢。首先，無人作戰裝備可充實完善有人作戰體系。利用無人裝備戰場環境限制小、突防能力強、執行任務多的優勢，提升己方偵察情報和評估工作范圍、精度和時效性，提升火力打擊密度、強度和持續性。其次，有人與無人力量協同作戰能夠發揮“1+1＞2”的作戰效能。例如，無人機可前出偵察預警，成為有人機感知的延伸，發揮有人機機動和火力優勢，發揮無人機信息優勢。再次，無人集群作戰能夠實現快速消耗敵方資源目的。無人機、無人車、無人艇、無人潛航器、仿生機器人、智能彈藥等無人集群力量實施無人自主協同作戰，將發揮其非線性、湧現性等特征所凸顯的規模優勢、成本優勢、自主優勢、決策優勢，打擊敵方縱深地域嚴密設防的防空導彈陣地等目標，極大消耗敵方偵察攔截和火力抗擊資源。

構建加強新質戰斗力建設科學鏈路

新質戰斗力建設是一場向難攻堅的系統性硬仗，要破除“技術導向”的路徑依賴，構建“理論闡釋—體系建構—訓練轉化—資源適配”的科學鏈路。

突出“理論先行，體系支撐”。理論先行與體系支撐是新質戰斗力生成的兩個重要基礎。要以理論體系層級化建構與體系架構韌性化設計，夯實新質戰斗力服務實戰基礎。從理論體系層級化建構看，基礎理論必須聚焦新質作戰要素的本質機理，剖析新興領域要素的作戰特性、作用邊界及與傳統要素的耦合邏輯，探索基礎理論對接實踐的科學路徑。應用理論必須緊扣實戰場景，基於未來作戰任務的類型化劃分構建運用規則，拓展應用理論轉化為戰術實踐的路徑。創新理論層須前瞻戰爭形態演進，結合技術預見理論發展方向，為新質要素演化提供指引。從體系架構的韌性化設計看，要以“體系韌性”為目標打破域際壁壘，通過物聯網、大數據技術建立潛力數據庫，實現新質資源與部隊需求的快速重組響應，確保體系與“戰”的需求同頻共振。

堅持“你打你的，我打我的”。大膽創新探索新型作戰力量建設和運用模式，“你打你的，我打我的”，本質在於建構“非對稱優勢”。從非對稱優勢的培育看，要依托“作戰域優勢圖譜”開展評估，構築差異化力量布局。要推動優勢要素向核心能力轉化，構建“以長擊短”格局，通過建立動態監測機制，確保優勢長存。從作戰路徑創新性重構看，須突破傳統作戰域邊界，在無人域開辟對抗新維度，還要基於任務需求設計模塊化方案，靈活組合新質要素與傳統力量，避免路徑依賴。

加強“實案化訓練，對抗性演練”。實案化訓練和對抗性演練是新質戰斗力從理論向實戰的轉化中介。要構成“戰訓一體化”的閉環機制，須通過訓練場景的高保真建構、對抗演練的高強度設計與效能評估的量化模型化，提升新質戰斗力的實戰適配性。從實案化訓練的高保真建構看，要積極組織無人機分隊開展偵察救援、空中投送等課目訓練，要引入“環境復雜度梯度”理念，倒逼官兵在極限條件下運用新質裝備。要建立量化評估體系，評估訓練成效；從對抗性演練的高強度設計看，要設置貼近強敵的對抗場景，設定對抗強度閾值，建立閉環改進機制，推動戰斗力迭代升級。

做到“不求所有，但為所用”。“不求所有，但為所用”是新質戰斗力生成的重要路徑，其內核在於“資源池化”理論的生成模式創新，須通過資源整合的跨域化建構與資源運用的動態化調度，打破“資源佔有”與“能力生成”的綁定關系。從資源整合的跨域化建構看，以“資源池化”為核心，整合地方技術、人才、裝備資源，構建軍地一體的資源支撐網絡。從資源運用的動態化調度看，構建分類分級管理體系，將新質資源按作戰價值分為核心、支撐、輔助類，明確新質裝備的調用流程，確保資源效益轉化為實戰能力。

來源：中國軍網-解放軍報作者：王璐穎李滔責任編輯：孫悅

2025-12-04 0xx:xx

中國原創軍事資源：http://www.81.cn/ll_2085843/16842852875.html

#Chinese #Quantum #technology, #Chinese Military Joint Oprations, China Cyber Dilemma in the 21st Century, China's Informatization - 中國信息化, China's Military Organization - Intelligence, Chinese Hacker Methodology 中國黑客, 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

Reshaping the PLA’s force Structure to Ensure Winning Future Battlefields

01/25/2026 admin Leave a comment

重塑解放軍部隊結構，確保贏得未來戰場

現代英語：

The reason why outstanding professional athletes can maximize their physical capabilities compared to ordinary people lies in the fact that long-term scientific training strengthens their bones, removes excess fat and bulges their muscles, and achieves a perfect proportion and coordination of the body’s functional elements. Similarly, those armies that can dominate the battlefield and fully exert their combat effectiveness are all powerful forces that have achieved an optimized combination of military force systems in their respective eras.

“Military tactics are ever-changing, just as water has no fixed shape.” Since its inception, the People’s Liberation Army has continuously innovated its force structure in response to changes in the situation and tasks and the needs of actual military struggles. In particular, the several major streamlining and reorganizations since the reform and opening up have promoted the continuous optimization of the PLA’s size, structure, and force composition, effectively liberating and developing its combat capabilities.

“Standard systems cannot meet the demands of change, and one approach cannot address all situations.” Faced with the rapidly evolving nature of warfare in the world today and the new requirements for the expansion of the PLA’s missions and tasks, the shortcomings and weaknesses in the PLA’s force structure have once again become prominent. Problems such as excessive size and scale, imbalance in major proportions, insufficient proportion of new combat capabilities, and low degree of modularization and integration of troops have become bottlenecks affecting and restricting the improvement of the PLA’s combat capabilities and its ability to win future battlefields.

In matters of the world, “what must be seized is the momentum, and what must not be missed is the opportunity.” Only by assessing the situation and seizing the moment can one “easily gain advantage.” The world today faces unprecedented changes. The rapid development of global technological and military revolutions has historically converged with the deepening of my country’s efforts to strengthen its military. Changes in warfare, technology, and the overall landscape of struggle are profoundly impacting national security and military strategy. The historical responsibility of reshaping and rebuilding the PLA’s force structure, and constructing a modern military force system with Chinese characteristics capable of winning informationized wars and effectively fulfilling its missions, has been placed before the People’s Liberation Army.

The system determines the structure and function. The composition of the military’s force system determines the size of the military’s energy and the form, scale, and effect of releasing that energy in the appropriate time and space. The Party Central Committee, the Central Military Commission, and President Xi Jinping, after careful consideration and decisive decision-making, comprehensively launched reforms to the size, structure, and force composition of the military, undertaking a holistic and revolutionary reshaping of the PLA’s force system. This strategic deployment is a crucial step in rationally allocating and optimizing the PLA’s force system, gaining the initiative in future fierce military competition by “strengthening its muscles and bones.”

“One part planning, nine parts implementation”—the restructuring of the PLA’s force system has been rapidly and steadily unfolding. The total number of officers has decreased, with a batch of civilian personnel or soldiers in brand-new uniforms filling the original officer positions, thus optimizing the officer-to-soldier ratio. The number of active-duty personnel in regimental-level and above organs has been significantly reduced, resulting in a marked optimization of the ratio between organs and troops, and between combat and non-combat units. Despite the reduction in the overall size of the military, the number of personnel in combat units has increased rather than decreased, making the “muscle” stronger. The size of the army has been reduced, with traditional branches and outdated equipment units being repurposed for new combat forces, optimizing the structure of the services and increasing the proportion of new combat capabilities, making the “skeleton” stronger. With a more streamlined size, more scientific organization, and more optimized layout, the PLA is continuously transforming from a quantity-oriented to a quality- and efficiency-oriented force, and from a labor-intensive to a technology-intensive force. The organization of troops is developing towards being more robust, integrated, multi-functional, and flexible, and a joint combat force system with elite combat forces as its main body has been basically formed.

The reshaping of the force structure has unlocked the full potential for combat effectiveness, enabling the PLA to take solid steps toward achieving the Party’s goal of building a strong military under the new circumstances. This provides a stronger guarantee for effectively safeguarding my country’s sovereignty, security, and development interests, and for making greater contributions to maintaining world peace and stability.

With sails hoisted high, the People’s Liberation Army embarks on a journey across vast oceans. Reborn and transformed, the People’s Liberation Army will surely achieve new leaps forward on the path to building a strong military with Chinese characteristics and stride towards an even more glorious future!

現代國語：

優秀專業運動員與一般人相比，之所以能把人體機能發揮到極限，關鍵在於長期的科學訓練強壯了骨骼，去除了多餘的贅肉與脂肪，實現了人體機能要素群的完美比例與配合。同樣道理，那些能夠笑傲疆場充分發揮出戰鬥力能效的軍隊，無不是在其所處時代實現了軍事力量體系優化組合的雄師勁旅。

「兵無常勢，水無常形。」人民軍隊自誕生以來，力量體系構成一直隨著形勢任務的變化和現實軍事鬥爭的需要而不斷自我革新。特別是改革開放以來幾次大的精簡整編，推動了我軍規模結構和力量編成的不斷優化，有效解放和發展了戰鬥力。

「常制不可以待變化，一塗不可以應萬方。」面對當今世界戰爭形態加速演變新趨勢、我軍使命任務拓展新要求，我軍力量體系構成方面的不足和短板再次凸顯，規模體量偏大、重大比例關係失衡、新質戰鬥力比重偏小、部隊模組化合成化程度低等問題，成為影響力、制約軍場戰鬥力提升、制約軍場等問題，成為影響力、制約軍場的戰鬥力提升、制約軍場等問題，成為影響力、制約軍場戰鬥力提升、制約軍場等問題，成為影響力、制約軍場等問題，成為影響力、制約軍場等問題，成為影響力、制約軍場戰鬥力提升、制約軍戰的未來。

天下事，“所當乘者勢也，不可失者時也”，審時度勢，乘勢而上，才能“取之易也”。當今世界面臨前所未有之大變局，世界科技革命、軍事革命迅速發展與我國強軍興軍事業的深入推進歷史性地交匯在一起，戰爭之變、科技之變、鬥爭格局之變深刻影響國家安全和軍事戰略全局。實現我軍力量體系的重塑再造，建構能夠打贏資訊化戰爭、有效履行使命任務的中國特色現代軍事力量體系，這一重任歷史性地擺在人民軍隊面前。

體系決定結構和功能，軍隊的力量體系構成，決定了軍隊能量的大小及其在適當的時間和空間內釋放能量的形態、規模與效果。黨中央、中央軍委會和習主席審時度勢、果斷決策，全面啟動軍隊規模結構與力量編成改革，對我軍力量體系進行整體性、革命性重塑。這項戰略部署是對我軍力量體系進行合理編配與優化組合，透過「強肌、壯骨骼」贏得未來激烈軍事競爭主動權的關鍵一環。

“一分部署，九分落實”，我軍力量體系重塑快速而穩健地鋪開。軍官總數減少，一群身穿嶄新制服的文職人員或士兵補充到原軍官崗位上，官兵比例得到優化。團級以上機關現役員額明顯壓縮，機關與部隊比例、作戰部隊與非戰鬥單位比例已明顯優化。在軍隊總規模壓下來以後，作戰部隊人員不減反增，「肌肉」更豐滿了。壓縮陸軍規模，傳統兵種及老舊裝備部隊為新型作戰力量“騰籠換鳥”，軍兵種結構得到優化，新質戰鬥力的比重增加，“骨骼”更加強壯了。規模更精幹、編成更科學、佈局更優化，不斷推動我軍由數量規模型向質量效能型、由人力密集型向科技密集型的轉變，部隊編成向充實、合成、多能、靈活方向發展，以精銳作戰力量為主體的聯合作戰力量體系基本形成。

力量體系的重塑打通了激活戰鬥力的“任督二脈”，我軍向著實現黨在新形勢下的強軍目標邁出了堅實步伐，為有效捍衛我國主權安全發展利益、為維護世界和平穩定作出更大貢獻提供了更加堅強有力的保證。

雲帆已高掛，征程濟滄海。換羽重生的人民軍隊一定能夠在中國特色強軍之路上實現新的跨越、邁向更光輝的未來！

中國軍網國防部網
2018年12月18日星期二

中國原創軍事資源：http://www.81.cn/jfjbmap/content/2018-12/18/content_282834834.htm

#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

Red Dragon 1949 / 紅龍1949

Tag Archives: #Cognitive Domain Operations Warfare

Chinese Military Perspectives on the Evolution of the Winning Mechanisms in Intelligent Warfare

Chinese Military AI Empowerment: Accelerating the Iterative Upgrade of Cognitive Electronic Warfare

Military Research, Warfare Research, Combat Research | Practical Exploration of Strengthening New Combat Capabilities for China’s Military

Reshaping the PLA’s force Structure to Ensure Winning Future Battlefields

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

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