General Qiao Liang: Confident Cyber Leadership Wins the future “network space war” //
喬亮將軍：充滿信心的網絡領導贏得了未來的“網絡太空戰爭”
For nearly half a century, electronic technology and information technology have developed at an impressive speed, and thus have completely changed the style of modern warfare. Although people are accustomed to the sorting of land, sea and air when they talk about the dimensions of war, from the military technical level, the “network warfare” capability of “electronic warfare” and “cyber warfare” has no doubt that it has come to the fore. Become the first combat power. Who can dominate the electronic warfare, who can dominate the battlefield. It is a pity that this conclusion has not yet been universally accepted by the military.
Carving a sword for a sword is a portrayal of the evolution of people’s understanding and the development of things. Today, when this round of military revolution is marked by electronic technology and chip technology, as the technology matures and the potential approaches the limit and comes to an end, the soldiers of most countries have a small tube and a smaller chip. It is possible to change the style of war and not yet fully prepared for the spirit and knowledge. This is an irony for human beings living in the age of information, especially those armed with informatized weapons.
The individual representation of the appearance of the world makes people intuitively divide the whole world into parts to understand and understand. Even though electronic technology and information technology have long integrated the whole world into the grid space and welded into a “domain”, people are still accustomed to split it into different “domain” blocks. For example, many soldiers who are ignorant of traditional thinking take the battle space into five major dimensions: land, sea, air, sky, and electricity, and think that they will fight in these five dimensions. The grid space battlefield, in their view, is only one of them. Even in the concept of joint operations, which attempted to bring the five-dimensional space into one, the space and space warfare is only one of the combat areas and combat styles. It is completely unknown that the world has been “informed.” Such lag thinking can’t keep up with the pace of technological leap: the boat is far from the lake, but the sword sinks to the bottom of the lake. Those who can win and win in the future battlefield must be the army that observes and thinks, operates and controls all battlefields as a whole. Only in this way can we find the key to open the door to victory: who can control the grid space, who can control the battlefield; who can prevail in the space war, who is the winner of the war. This is the general trend that modern warfare can not be reversed today.
Electronic warfare (which has evolved into information warfare or cyberspace warfare today) is a prerequisite for all modern battles, battles and even wars. In contrast, air supremacy, sea power, and even land and power, have handed over the first battle of the future battlefield to the power of the grid. Moreover, the struggle for the right to heaven is itself part of the power of the network. In Deng Shiping’s words, modern warfare, “there is no air superiority, and no one can beat it.” Yes, in the future war, there is no power to make electricity in the net, and nothing can be beaten.
Today, it is proposed to use the “air-sea battle” concept to contain China’s US military. It is a military machine that is almost fully informatized. Therefore, the US military knows that informatization is its strength and its shortcomings. Short and short, whoever has the advantage of space and space warfare, who can restrain the US military. Some people may ask, is it from a military point of view that the space warfare is so important that people think it is more important than firepower? Yes, this is the author’s answer. Because when your opponent has been fully dimensioned, it will either be better than the opponent’s network space warfare, or defeat the war first, and then the firepower war will only destroy the opponents who are still unwilling to admit defeat. The process of physical digestion.
Why is the space warfare so important? In fact, all of our main rivals have their strengths in all-dimensional informationization, and all their shortcomings are over-informatization. The shortcoming of informationization is that there is no chip-free, thus forming chip dependence. The chip makes the weapon platform ammunition stronger, but it is also extremely fragile. An electromagnetic pulse bomb can destroy all electronic components within its explosive coverage. This kind of scene makes the opponent who is armed with the chip to the teeth very scared. For us, what we fear the opponents should be our priority to focus on development.
If you play against a full-dimensional informatization opponent, the opponent is most worried about: one is attacked by the network, and the other is destroyed by the sky-based system. Because this will make the hardware advantages of all weapon platforms meaningless. Although our opponents also have this ability, once both sides use this ability to smash opponents, it means that the two sides will return to World War II. At that time, who has the advantage of population, who has the advantage of resources, who has the advantage of manufacturing, who has the advantage of war.
Seeing this clearly helps us to get rid of some kind of paradox: the more we understand the military system of our opponents, the more we worry about the gap in our military system. The more we recognize the gap, the more we want to learn to catch up with our opponents. The result is what the opponent has, I There is also something to be. In the end, I forced myself to a dead end with the strength of the opponent and the length of the opponent. How can this road lead us to “can fight, win and win”? Ancient and modern Chinese and foreign, whereever wins, all of them are short of my enemy, even if it is hard, it is the longest attack of my enemy. There is a winner who wins the enemy with the enemy. Moreover, winning the war in the future cannot be achieved at all costs. For China, there should be a requirement that is as important as victory. Weapons and equipment development and operational plan development must consider how to reduce costs. Never have anything for the opponent, we must have something. You can’t do it with the Dragon King, and you can’t become a local tyrant. You can’t compare it with the Dragon King. Today, we have some cognitive defects on how to win the overall war of local war under informatization conditions. We always consciously and unconsciously think that playing high-tech wars is a high-cost war, and we always want to compare costs with our competitors. And fight costs.
In fact, we can completely change the way of thinking, that is to take the low-cost route. There are no heavy aircraft carriers, there is no X37, there is no global fast strike system, the opponent does not care. It only cares if you can destroy its satellite system and lick its network system. After all, the tools and means of attacking satellite weapons and electromagnetic pulse bombs are not very expensive and scarce, and their effects will be low-cost and high-yield. We can’t help but fall into the arms race with our opponents because we are worried about the gap between ourselves and our opponents.
The Americans said in the “air-sea battle” concept that “we will drag China into the competition with us in this way, so that the Chinese will put more energy into the production of such missiles such as Dongfeng 21D. Then use a lot of bait and deception to force the Chinese to consume these weapons in a meaningful direction.” In this regard, someone in the country wrote an article reminding us that “we must prevent falling into the trap of the United States.” This is not wrong in itself, but it still belongs to only know one, and I don’t know the other. It is important to know that after such articles come out, it is very likely that our understanding will produce new deviations, because there are “trap traps (ie double traps)” in the above-mentioned American discourse. First, it attempts to lure the Chinese army into the trap of an arms race. If you compete with the US military, you will spend a lot of money and resources to follow the US military and not to surpass; secondly, if you realize that this is a trap and give up the competition, you will immediately fall into another trap: since giving up the arms race Waste martial arts. For China, if we are not willing to compete with our opponents and we are not willing to squander martial arts, what should we do? The conclusion is that we can only go our own way.
To develop our own strengths and develop the things that are most beneficial to me, it is best to use my strength and defeat the enemy. At least it must be my long, the enemy’s long. I can’t do it with my short enemy, and the enemy’s long enemy will not do the same. With the enemy’s long attacking enemy, you will never win.
Take a look at the main design of the “Air-Sea Battle”: the opening is to hit your space-based system, let you blind; then hit the “reconnaissance war”, let you call you; then come to officially start a regular battle with you.
Under such circumstances, what should we do? It is a passive move, the soldiers will block, the water will cover the earth, or will it be my strength, in exchange for low-cost means, in exchange for the opponent’s high-value goal? Of course, the latter. To do this, we must first have three capabilities:
The first is satellite anti-missile capability. This ability will lead to a serious reliance on informatized opponents, making them blind, defamatory, and dumb, so that they can only return to the level of World War II to compete with conventional forces.
The second is the ability to remotely play. You must ensure that you have the ability to sink high-priced targets like aircraft carriers. If such a high-priced target is sunk, it will seriously undermine the confidence of investors around the world against the opponent, so that the capital does not dare to invest in it again, resulting in a serious war financing dilemma for the opponent. This is the national weakness of the opponent’s combat planners who are not aware of it. The confidence of the sinking aircraft carrier in global investors will be a huge blow, which will interrupt the opponent’s global capital chain.
The third is that there must be a network space combat capability. Especially the ability to attack any network system of the opponent. If China and the powerful opponents are really fighting, you must demonstrate your ability and determination to attack and smash all of the grid system from the very beginning. This is a necessary way to contain war by deterrence.
The reason is always easier said than done. How to get the power of the network in the future war, or to offset the advantage of the opponent’s network warfare? It is necessary to make yourself technological progress. But what is more necessary is the progress of thinking. The long history of evolution proves that human beings are not always in a state of thought progress in the coordinate system of time. Degradation will happen from time to time. The degradation of thinking is sad, but consciously pull the pair back to the “old battlefield”, that is, to offset the opponent’s informational combat capability, so that the opponent’s technical advantage is lost, and thus with us to return to a certain historical stage of combat, At that time, it is a feasible idea to give full play to my own advantages.
(The author is a professor at the National Defense University)
Original Mandarin Chinese:
近半個世紀以來，電子技術、信息技術以令人瞠目的速度迅猛發展，並因此全面改變了現代戰爭的風貌。儘管人們在談論戰爭的維度時，習慣於陸海空天電的排序，但從軍事技術層面講，“電子戰”“網絡戰”所構成的“網電空間戰”能力，卻毫無疑問已後來居上，成為第一戰鬥力。誰能主導電子戰，誰就能主宰戰場。可惜的是，這一結論至今還未能被各國軍隊普遍接受。
刻舟求劍，是對人們的認識滯後於事物的演變和發展的形象寫照。時至今日，當以電子技術和芯片技術為標誌的這一輪軍事革命，因技術日臻成熟，潛力逼近極限而漸近尾聲時，大多數國家的軍人對一個小小的電子管和更小的芯片就能改變戰爭的風貌，還沒做好充分接納的精神和知識準備。這對生活在信息化時代的人類，特別是掌握著信息化武器的軍隊來說，不能不說是一種諷刺。
世界外觀所呈現的個體性表徵，使人們憑直覺把整個世界區分成各個部分去認知和理解。即便電子技術、信息技術早已把整個世界都納入了網電空間而焊接成了一“域”，人們仍然習慣於將其切分成不同的“域”塊。如不少囿於傳統思維的軍人，就想當然地把作戰空間切分成陸、海、空、天、電五大維度，並以為自己將在這五種維度下作戰。而網電空間戰場，在他們看來，只不過是其中的一維。甚至在聯合作戰這一試圖把五維空間打通成一體的概念中，網電空間戰也只是其中一種作戰領域和作戰樣式而已，全然不懂大千世界已然被“信息化”了。這樣的滯後思維不可能跟上技術飛躍的步伐：舟已遠離湖面，劍卻沉在了湖底。能在未來戰場上穩操勝券者，一定是把全部戰場作為一個整體觀察和思考、操作並控制的軍隊。只有如此，才能找到打開胜利之門的鑰匙：誰能控製網電空間，誰就能控制戰場;誰能在網電空間戰中佔上風，誰就是戰爭的贏家。這是現代戰爭發展到今天誰也無法逆轉的大趨勢。
電子戰(今日已衍化成為信息戰或網電空間戰)是一切現代戰鬥、戰役乃至戰爭的前提。與此相比，制空權、制海權，甚至制陸權與製天權，都已向製網電權拱手交出了未來戰場的第一制權。何況制天權的爭奪本身就是製網電權的一部分。套用鄧小平的一句話說，現代戰爭，“沒有製空權，什麼仗都打不下來”。是的，未來戰爭，沒有製網電權，什麼仗都打不下來。
今天，提出要用“空海一體戰”構想遏制中國的美軍，是一架幾乎全面信息化了的軍事機器。因此，美軍深知信息化是其所長，亦是其所短。短就短在誰具備網電空間戰優勢，誰就能製約美軍。有人會問，難道從軍事角度講，網電空間戰真的那麼重要，以至於讓人認為比火力硬殺傷更重要嗎?是的，這正是筆者的回答。因為當你的對手已全維信息化後，它要么先勝於與對手的網電空間戰，要么先敗於此戰，其後的火力戰，只是對還不肯認輸的對手進行從心理摧毀到物理消解的過程。
為什麼網電空間戰如此重要?實際上，我們的主要對手其全部的長處就在於全維信息化，而其全部的短處也在於過度信息化。信息化的短處就是無一處無芯片，從而形成芯片依賴。芯片讓武器平台彈藥如虎添翼變得強大，而其自身卻也極端脆弱。一枚電磁脈衝炸彈，就可以讓在它爆炸覆蓋範圍內的所有電子元件被毀失能。這種場景讓用芯片武裝到牙齒的對手很恐懼。而對我們來說，讓對手恐懼的東西，就應該是我們要優先側重發展的武器。
如果跟全維信息化對手交手，對手最擔心的是：一被網攻癱瘓網絡，二被天戰摧毀天基系統。因為這將使其一切武器平台的硬件優勢都變得沒有意義。儘管我們的對手同樣也有這種能力，但一旦雙方都動用這種能力將對手癱瘓，那就意味著，對陣雙方將一起退回二戰水平。那時，誰具有人口優勢，誰有資源優勢，誰有製造業優勢，誰就有戰爭優勢。
看清這一點，有助於我們擺脫某種悖論：越了解對手的軍事系統，就越擔心自身軍事系統存在的差距，越承認差距，就越想學習追趕對手，結果就是對手有什麼，我就也要有什麼。最終把自己逼上一條以對手之長，攻對手之長的死路。這條路怎麼可能把我們引向“能打仗，打勝仗”?古今中外，凡勝仗，無一不是以我之長攻敵之短，即便是硬仗也是以我之長攻敵之長，未見有以敵之長攻敵之長而取勝者。何況，取勝於未來戰爭，不能以不惜一切代價獲勝為目的。對於中國來說，還應該有一個與勝利同樣重要的要求，武器裝備發展，作戰方案製定，都要考慮如何降低成本。決不能對手有什麼，我們就一定要有什麼。乞丐跟龍王爺比寶不行，變成土豪了，也不能跟龍王爺比寶。今天，我們對如何打贏信息化條件下局部戰爭的整體想法是存在某種認知缺陷的，總是自覺不自覺地以為打高技術戰爭就是打高成本戰爭，總想和對手一樣去比成本、拼成本。
實際上，我們完全可以換一種思路，那就是走低成本路線。有沒有重型航母，有沒有X37，有沒有全球快速打擊系統，對手並不在乎。它只在乎你能不能摧毀它的衛星系統，癱瘓它的網絡系統。畢竟，攻擊衛星武器和電磁脈衝炸彈的工具和手段都不是很昂貴、很稀缺，而其效果將是低成本、高收益。我們斷不能因為擔心自己與對手的差距，就不由自主地陷入跟對手的軍備競賽中。
美國人在“空海一體戰”構想中說，“我們要通過這個方式，把中國拖入到與我們的競賽，讓中國人把更多的精力都投入到東風21D等諸如此類導彈的生產中去，然後用大量的誘餌和欺騙迫使中國人大量地把這些武器消耗到沒有意義的方向”。對此，國內有人寫了一篇文章，提醒“我們要防止掉入美國陷阱”，這本身沒有錯，但仍然屬於只知其一，不知其二。要知道，此類文章出來以後，很有可能導致我們的認識產生新的偏差，因為上述美國人的話語中存在“陷阱的陷阱(即雙重陷阱)”。首先，它企圖將中國軍隊引誘到軍備競賽的陷阱中來。如果你跟美軍進行競賽，你就會耗費大量財力物力尾隨美軍而不得超越;其次，如果你意識到這是陷阱而放棄競賽，你又立刻就會掉入另一個陷阱：由於放棄軍備競賽而自廢武功。對中國來說，如果我們既不願意跟對手競賽，又不願意自廢武功，那我們應該怎麼辦?結論是，我們只能走自己的路。
發展我們自己之長，發展對我最有利的東西，最好以我之長，克敵之短。起碼也要以我之長，克敵之長。以我之短克敵之長不行，以敵之長克敵之長同樣也不行。以敵之長攻敵之長，你將永無勝算。
看看“空海一體戰”最主要的設計：開場就是打擊你的天基系統，讓你致盲;接著打“偵察戰”，讓你致聾;然後才來跟你正式開打常規戰。
這種情形下，我們怎麼辦?是被動接招，兵來將擋，水來土掩?還是揚我所長，以低成本手段，換取對手高價值目標?當然是後者。為此，我們必須先具備三種能力：
第一種是衛星反導能力。這種能力將一擊致癱嚴重依賴信息化的對手，使其致盲、致聾、致啞，從而只能與你一道退回二戰水平去比拼常規戰力。
第二種是遠程精打能力。必須確保你有能力擊沉類似航母這樣的高價目標。這樣的高價目標如果被擊沉，將沉重地打擊全世界投資人對對手的信心，使資本不敢再投向它，造成對手嚴重的戰爭融資困境。這是對手的作戰計劃人員沒有意識到的國家軟肋。擊沉航母對全球投資人的信心將是一個巨大的打擊，從而將打斷對手的全球資本循環鏈。
第三種是必須有網電空間作戰能力。特別是對對手的任何網絡系統攻擊的能力。如果中國和遠比自己強大的對手真的發生戰爭，你必須從一開始就展示你有攻擊並癱瘓其全部網電系統的能力和決心，這是用威懾遏制戰爭的必要方式。
道理，總是說起來容易做起來難。如何在未來戰爭中拿到製網電權，或者對沖掉對手的網電戰優勢?讓自己獲得技術進步是必須的。但更必須的，是思維的進步。漫長的進化史證明，人類在時間的坐標系上，並不總是處於思維進步狀態。退化，會不時發生。思維的退化是可悲的，但有意識地把對手拉回“舊戰場”，即對沖掉對手的信息化作戰能力，讓對手的技術優勢盡失，從而與我們一道退回某一歷史階段的作戰水平，屆時，盡情發揮我自身優勢，則不失為一種可行的思路。
（作者係國防大學教授）
Original Referring URL: http://www.81.cn/jkhc/2014-12/
