中國浅析伊拉克战争中美军网络中心战 ~ China Analysis of Analysis of the US Central Command Network War During Iraq War

China Analysis of Analysis of the US Central Command Network War During Iraq War

浅析伊拉克战争中美军网络中心战

 

The network center war was first proposed by the US Navy in 1997, initially reflected in the war in Afghanistan, it is the core of the future of US military joint operations.

As early as 1997, the Navy put forward the concept of network-centric warfare. In 2001, the Pentagon upgraded it into the war form of the information age. In 2002, the Bush administration regarded the network center warfare capability as the focus of the military transformation and the core of the future joint operations. In view of the network center war in the war in Afghanistan in the initial results, the US military in the Iraq war to further test the new concept of combat.

· Construction of the US military network centric warfare architecture

in the Iraq war, the US military stressed that network-centric warfare, and the prominence of the role of information, with an agile and efficient digital network structure information gathering, command and control and communications, firepower three systems integration, Shortened the time from the detection of the target, the formation of operational instructions to combat the destruction of the target. The networked combat structure can improve the level of information sharing, enhance situational awareness, speed up command and decision speed, achieve combat coordination, enhance the lethality, viability and responsiveness, thus greatly improving the combat effectiveness and shorten the war process. Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the network structure of the US military network structure and three-tier network structure diagram.

Full-dimensional detection network to seize the information advantage is to give full play to the network center war the first condition. The US military used almost all high-tech means of detection, the establishment of the days, air, sea and land integration of full-dimensional detection network. In addition to the outer space constitutes a huge satellite surveillance network, the air at the same time there are low altitude, hollow, high altitude three reconnaissance aircraft on the Iraqi military positions to scan, the ground also deployed a large number of sensors. It is with the full-dimensional detection network, the US military captured the asymmetric information advantage, and its conversion into asymmetric firepower advantage, arbitrary implementation of the long-range strike, not only makes the Iraqi air force can not fight, ground forces are not large-scale assembly , In a passive position. <A I = 5> flexible allegations In the Gulf War, the message in the chain after a few hours or days after the transfer, the commander to issue an attack command, so the US military even through the reconnaissance found a mobile missile launcher, can not Timely strike. In this Iraq war, the US military used a flexible allegation network to effectively integrate the allegation system, greatly reducing the combat preparation time. Through the network, the commander can at the same time with the subordinate forces at all levels to contact, while commanding scattered in the regional combat forces, the formation of the overall force.

Efficient combat network At present, the US military services are more than half of the equipment to achieve the information, these information equipment on the battlefield constitutes an interconnected, interoperable network environment, different services, deployed in different spaces of various weapons platforms and fire units Equivalent to a node in the network, you can exchange the battlefield information in a timely manner, indicating the target, in accordance with the unified fire plan to implement precision strike, more effective performance. In this battle, DDG-75 “Aegis” destroyers for the “Patriot” missiles to provide early warning information, the platform through the network to achieve an example of interoperability.

In the Iraq war, the US military with the network structure for the first time to achieve a real sense of the land, sea, air and marines combat operations. Soon after the war, the US military to effectively implement the space cooperation, air force in the use of precision guided weapons to combat the implementation of the enemy at the same time, the ground forces to provide effective close support.   Enhanced one-way transparency and situational awareness Since the war, the US military to use the most advanced and most powerful network technology, access to transparent and sustained battlefield charts. US Joint Operations Center is located in Qatar, is the command of the nerve center of war against Iraq. A variety of information after nearly 700 intelligence officers of the analysis, sent to the highest commander on the screen, six display battlefield information on a few minutes to update. Through the display can watch the battlefield situation, such as the movement of Iraqi tanks, deployed in Baghdad’s commando and in the flight section of the “Tomahawk” cruise missiles. <A I = 10> Realize the battlefield real-time Gulf War, the US air raid from the discovery to attack target takes 3 days, if the temporary target is difficult to adjust the air raid plan. In the Kosovo war, this time is shortened to 2h, making a considerable part of the air raid mission can be re-adjusted after the plane lift. Afghanistan war time to further shorten to 19min, the attack real-time greatly improved. In this war, this time control in 10min. The high-speed digital network system enables the US military to make faster and more responsive responses to the rapid changes in the battlefield, and to command and control the coordination of arms and operations efficiently and efficiently, which greatly improves the ability to respond quickly to changes in operational plans.

Try the effect-based operations and fast decisive combat Unlike the Gulf War, the US war in Iraq warn of information warfare using information-based weapons, not only to ensure victory, but also to achieve rapid decisive combat. To this end, the US military rely on the network of combat structure, the pursuit of effect-based operations, the target to combat more selective and targeted. US military straight to the goal of two: First, Saddam Hussein and other senior officials and the main defenders, “beheading action” from beginning to end throughout the war; the second is the Iraqi capital Baghdad, the US military did not like the traditional city war as the first to seize And occupation of the suburbs, and then step by step, layers of advance, but the first to capture the city’s strategic location.

Quickly hit time sensitive targets When time-sensitive targets appear on the battlefield, the time-sensitive targeting team within the Joint Air Combat Center of the Saudi Air Force Base will be able to identify the target in just a few minutes and determine the best attack. On 20 March, two mobile missile launchers in Iraq launched the “Abubel” -100 missile in Kuwaiti territory, which was discovered by the US airborne reconnaissance plane at a temporary US Air Force Base at 40 km from the launch site To fly the aircraft combat mission, the aircraft took off after the bombing of the missile launch vehicle bombing.

The first test of the digitalization of the United States after the Gulf War put forward the “digital network as the center of the war” concept, and at the end of the last century put forward the “digital battlefield and digital forces” concept. In 2001, the fourth machine division became the world’s first digital division, it can share the location and target information, has a unique battlefield access to tactical Internet capabilities, but has not yet been tested. April 13, the US military step 4 division vanguard arrived in Ticritt, to accept the actual test. <A (FBCB2)

The basic components of the system include the computer hardware / software, GPS receiver and communication interface, the main function is the main function of the system is the core of the war, To the commander, squad and individual show enemy position, send and receive combat command and logistical data, improve the battlefield situational awareness, target recognition. FBCB2 can provide e-mail service, connected with the Army’s high-level tactical communications system, allowing combatants to send a large number of news and digital reconnaissance reports to field commanders.

Tactical Internet Tactics The Internet is made up of three main tactical communications systems, namely, airborne radio systems, enhanced location reporting systems and mobile user equipment, including radio, communications satellites, mobile phones, fiber optic cables and switching facilities. Tactical Internet enables seamless connectivity between tactical users, voice, data, image and real-time video transmission, support for text, network management and security, and e-mail services, delivering fast and accurate information and instructions to each Combat unit.

“Global Command and Control System” (GCCS-J) to support the war against Iraq, the US military pre-war with the latest version of GCCS-J6. 0 The global command and control system enhances the intelligence capabilities so that the data from the common operations map can be better synchronized. GCCS-J combines the command and control systems of all arms and arms and correlates the data of unmanned aerial vehicles, terrestrial and satellite sensors to the integrated image and intelligence system, which can assist the commander in analyzing operational intelligence data, Generate target data and plan tasks.   ”Can be deployed joint command and control system” (DJCCS) In this war, the US military for the first time using the DJCCS. The system is a computer information sharing platform, with a video conference, Internet and send and receive e-mail function, the battlefield commander in the state of movement in an unprecedented way to monitor the progress of action, keep abreast of the arms and operations of the situation, the timely release of combat orders.

JFN is a network-centric combat system for the US Navy, consisting of the TES, the Global Command and Control System (GCCS) and the Joint Operations Image Processing System, (JSIPS) to provide real-time information interaction, sensor control, target generation, mission planning and combat damage assessment capabilities, can identify and attack target time from a few hours to 10nin, to combat time-sensitive targets. TES allows the theater command center to receive target information directly from the wu1 man-machine or U-2 reconnaissance platform, and the pilots of the attack aircraft can receive the target indication data from the theater command center. GCCS provides the commander with a command and control network to issue target attack orders. JSIPS for data processing. In the future, JFN will be able to process intelligence data into targeted data more quickly, to achieve the goal of moving all people in the network, sharing common operational charts and requesting fire support.

“Tactical Input System” (TIS) TIS has been installed on the “Nimitz” aircraft carrier, and is expected to deploy to other US Navy aircraft carrier and the main amphibious ship. The system can receive digital images via terrestrial and sea-based airborne sensor platform radio lines, including optoelectronic, infrared and synthetic aperture radar images. Navy intelligence personnel can click on the interface to analyze the image, get important information, mark the potential target. TIS gives the US Navy a complete, end-to-end electronic image that greatly enhances the ability to collect, identify and target targets throughout the battlefield, reducing sensor-to-shooter time. <A (CEC) system April 7, equipped with CEC system, the US Navy “Nimitz” aircraft carrier into the designated waters, which is the first time the actual deployment of the system. CEC system is mainly composed of data distribution system and collaborative combat processor, is a network center war concept more mature a system, will make the sea air defense combat revolution, it will be aircraft carrier battle group formation in the platform (including ships and early warning aircraft ) The target detection system, the command and control system and the weapon system are organically linked to allow the platform to share all the data acquired by the various detection devices in the formation with a very short delay, so that the combat system breaks through the single ship, Within the realization of integration.

Tactical data information chain In the network center war, the tactical data information chain is one of the important means for the US military and allied forces to realize the information superiority, mainly including Link-16 and Link-11. Link-16 can transmit all kinds of tactical data information between command and control system and aircraft, missile and other weapons system platform and between combat units, effectively connect information source, accusation center and weapon system platform to realize battlefield resource sharing. The tactical data information chain using time division multiple access technology, with relative navigation and anti-jamming capability to relay the way of communication, the working frequency band 960MHz-1215MHz, the data rate of 115.2lkbps-238kbps. Link-11 operates at high frequency / UHF band, data rate is 1.8kbps, can be used for real-time exchange of early warning information, air / ground / underwater target data, control instructions and the status of the unit weapons, and has a certain degree of confidentiality , The entire network under the control of the network control station network communication, the use of master-slave polling, can be over-the-horizon transmission.

The analysis of the characteristics of the US military development network center war shows that the concept of network-centric warfare has gradually become a new form of combat for the US military in the 21st century. In the development and application of network-centric warfare concept, the US military showed the following characteristics:

In the Iraq war, the US military uses a variety of detection and communication means to make the entire battlefield transparent, from beginning to end are information-led. This shows that in the future war who can have the advantage in the detection and communication, to seize the right to information, who will be able to achieve greater battlefield initiative.

Pay attention to the digitalization of weapons and equipment, information construction Digital is the basis of network-based warfare, is expected to US military services in 2010-2020 to achieve full digital. Weapon and equipment information is to achieve the network as the center of the joint operations of the core, the US military will be further in the world to take the lead in the information age of information technology.   To strengthen the network center warfare related equipment R & D The US military effective implementation of the network center war relies on in recent years targeted research and development of various related equipment, such as joint fire network, collaborative combat capability, tactical Internet, tactical input system, global command and control system, Data information chain and so on.

(Source: “National Defense Technology” 2003 the first 18)

Original Mandarin Chinese:

中国日报网站消息:网络中心战最早由美国海军于1997年提出,在阿富汗战争中初步体现出优越性,它是美军未来联合作战的核心。

海军早在1997年就提出网络中心战概念,2001年五角大楼将其提升为信息时代的战争形态,2002年布什政府将网络中心战能力视为军队转型的重点和未来联合作战的核心。鉴于网络中心战在阿富汗战争中初见成效,美军在伊拉克战争中进一步检验了这一全新的作战概念。


·美军构建网络化作战结构

在伊拉克战争中,美军强调网络中心战,突出信息的地位和作用,借助灵敏高效的数字化网络结构将信息收集、指挥控制与通信、火力打击三大系统融为一体,缩短了从侦察发现目标、形成作战指令到打击摧毁目标的时间。网络化的作战结构可提高信息共享水平,增强态势感知能力,加快指挥和决策速度,实现作战协同,增强杀伤力、生存能力和响应能力,从而极大地提高作战效能,缩短战争进程。图1和图2分别显示了美军构建的网络中心战的网络结构原理图和三层网络结构图。

全维的探测网 夺取信息优势是充分发挥网络中心战的首要条件。美军动用了几乎所有高技术探测手段,建立了天、空、海、陆一体化全维探测网。除在外层空间构成庞大的卫星监视网外,空中同时有低空、中空、高空三个层次的各种侦察飞机对伊军阵地进行扫描,地面上也部署了大量传感器。正是借助全维的探测网,美军夺取了不对称的信息优势,并将其转化为不对称的火力优势,随心所欲地实施远程打击,不但使得伊拉克空军无法作战,地面部队也不敢大规模集结,陷于被动境地。

灵活的指控网 在海湾战争中,信息在指控链中需经过数小时或数天的传递后,指挥官才能下达攻击命令,因此美军即使通过侦察发现了机动导弹发射车,也无法及时实施打击。这次伊拉克战争中,美军利用灵活的指控网有效整合了指控系统,大大缩短打击准备时间。通过网络,指挥官可以同时与下属各级部队进行联络,同时指挥分散在各地域的作战部队,形成整体合力。

高效的作战网 目前,美军各军种均有一半以上的装备实现了信息化,这些信息化装备在战场上构成互联、互通的网络环境,不同军种、部署在不同空间的各种武器平台和火力单元相当于网络中的一个节点,可以及时交换战场信息,指示目标,按照统一的火力计划实施精确打击,更有效地发挥效能。在这次作战中,DDG-75“宙斯盾”驱逐舰为“爱国者”导弹提供预警信息,是平台通过网络化途径实现互通的一个例证。

·伊拉克战争中网络中心战的具体应用

检验联合作战的协同性 伊拉克战争中,美军借助网络化结构首次实现了真正意义上的陆、海、空和海军陆战队协同作战。开战不久,美军就有效地实施空地协同,空中力量在使用精确制导武器对敌军实施打击的同时,对地面部队提供有效的近距离支援。

增强单向透明度和态势感知能力 自开战以来,美军运用最先进、最强大的网络技术,获取透明持续的战场态势图。美军联合作战中心位于卡塔尔,是指挥对伊作战的神经中枢。各种信息经过近700名情报人员的分析,传送到最高指挥官的显示屏上,6个显示屏上的战场信息几分钟就更新一次。通过显示屏可观察战场情况,如运动中的伊拉克坦克、部署在巴格达的突击队以及处于飞行段的“战斧”巡航导弹。

实现战场实时化 海湾战争中,美军空袭从发现到攻击目标需要3天,若临时发现目标时很难及时调整空袭计划。在科索沃战争中,这一时间缩短到2h,使得相当一部分空袭任务可以在飞机升空后重新调整。阿富汗战争时这一时间进一步缩短到19min,攻击的实时性大大提高。而在这次战争中,这一时间控制在1Omin内。高速数字化网络系统使美军能对战场瞬息变化作出更快、更灵敏的反应,及时高效地指挥、控制与协调各军兵种的行动,大大提高了临时改变作战计划时的快速反应能力。

尝试基于效果的作战和快速决定性作战 与海湾战争不同,此次伊拉克战争美军提出用信息化武器装备打信息化战争,不仅要求确保胜利,而且要求实现快速决定性作战。为此,美军依靠网络化作战结构,追求基于效果的作战,对目标打击更有选择性和针对性。美军直取的目标有两个:一是萨达姆和其他高官以及主要捍卫者,“斩首行动”由始至终贯穿整个战争;二是伊拉克首都巴格达,美军没有像传统的城市战那样首先夺取和占领市郊,然后步步为营,层层推进,而是首先夺取市内的战略要地。

快速打击时间敏感目标 当战场上出现时间敏感目标时,美军在沙特空军基地的联合空中作战中心内的时间敏感瞄准小组只用几分钟时间就可准确识别目标,决定最佳攻击行动。3月20日,伊拉克两辆机动导弹发射车刚向科威特境内发射“阿巴比尔”-100导弹,即被美国空中侦察机发现,在距发射地点40km的一个美空军基地立即临时调整了几架待飞飞机的作战任务,飞机起飞后投掷炸弹将导弹发射车炸毁。

首次检验数字化师 美国在海湾战争后提出了“以数字化网络为中心的战争”概念,并于上世纪末率先提出了“数字化战场和数字化部队”的构想。2001年,第4机步师成为世界上第一支数字化师,它可以共享位置和目标信息,具有独一无二的战场接入战术因特网的能力,但尚未经过实战检验。4月13日,美军第4机步师先头部队到达提克里特,接受实战检验。

·伊拉克战争中网络中心战的部分装备

“21世纪旅及旅以下作战指挥控制系统”(FBCB2) 该系统的基本组件包括计算机硬/软件、GPS接收机和通信接口,主要功能是向指挥官、小分队和单兵显示敌我位置、收发作战命令和后勤数据、提高战场态势感知能力、进行目标识别等。FBCB2可提供电子邮件服务,与陆军的高层战术通信系统相连接,允许作战人员向战地指挥官发送大量消息和数字化侦察报告。

战术互联网 战术互联网由陆军3个主要的战术通信系统,即机载无线电系统、增强型定位报告系统和移动用户设备互联而成,包括无线电、通信卫星、移动电话、光缆和交换设施。战术互联网能够实现战术级用户间的无缝连接,提供语音、数据、图像和实时视频传输,支持文电、网络管理和安全以及电子邮件业务,可快速、准确地将战地情报和指示传递给每个作战单元。

“全球指挥与控制系统”(GCCS -J) 为支持对伊作战,美军战前采用了最新版本的GCCS-J6.0全球指挥和控制系统,提高了情报能力,使通用作战图传来的数据可以更好地同步。 GCCS-J联合了所有军兵种的指挥与控制系统,并使无人机、地面和卫星传感器的数据相互关联并传递到图像与情报综合系统,后者能够帮助指挥官分析作战情报数据、管理和生成目标数据以及规划任务。

“可部署的联合指挥与控制系统”(DJCCS) 在这次战争中,美军首次实战使用了DJCCS。该系统是一个计算机信息共享平台,具有召开电视会议、上网和收发邮件功能,可使战场指挥官在运动状态下以前所未有的方式监控行动进展,随时了解各军兵种作战情况,及时下达作战命令。

“联合火力网”(JFN) JFN是美海军的一个以网络为中心的作战系统,由“战术利用系统”(TES)、“全球指挥与控制系统”(GCCS)和“联合作战图像处理系统”(JSIPS)组成,能够提供实时信息交互、传感器控制、目标产生、任务计划制定以及作战毁伤评估功能,可将识别和攻击目标的时间从数小时减少到10nin,打击时间敏感目标。TES可使战区指挥中心直接从wu1人机或U -2等侦察平台接收目标信息,攻击机的飞行员能从战区指挥中心接收目标指示数据。GCCS为指挥官提供下达目标攻击指令的指挥控制网络。JSIPS进行数据处理。未来,JFN将能更快地把情报数据处理成瞄准数据,用于打击移动目标,最终实现使所有人员都置身于网络中,共享通用作战态势图和请求火力支援。

“战术输入系统”(TIS) TIS已安装在“尼米兹”号航母上,并有望部署到美海军其他航母和主要两栖舰上。该系统可通过陆基和海基机载传感器平台的无线电线路接收数字式图像,包括光电、红外及合成孔径雷达图像。海军情报人员可通过点击界面分析图像,获得重要信息,标记潜在目标。TIS使美海军拥有了完整的、端对端的电子图像,极大地提高在整个战场上搜集、识别和打击目标的能力,减少传感器到射手的时间。

“协同作战能力”(CEC)系统 4月7日,装有CEC系统的美海军“尼米兹”号航母进入指定海域,这是该系统首次实战部署。 CEC系统主要由数据分发系统和协同作战处理器组成,是网络中心战概念比较成熟的一个系统,将使海上防空作战发生革命性变化,它将航母战斗群编队中各平台(包括舰艇和预警机等)所装载的目标探测系统、指挥控制系统和武器系统有机联系起来,允许各平台以极短的延时共享编队内各种探测设备获取的所有数据,使作战系统突破单舰的限制,在编队内实现集成。

战术数据信息链 在网络中心战中,战术数据信息链是美军及盟军实现信息优势的重要手段之一,主要包括Link-16和Link -11。Link-16可在指挥控制系统与飞机、导弹等武器系统平台之间以及在各作战单元之间传输各种战术数据信息,有效连接信息源、指控中心与武器系统平台,实现战场资源共享。该战术数据信息链采用时分多址技术,具有相对导航和抗干扰能力,以中继方式进行通信,工作频段为960MHz-1215MHz,数据速率为115.2lkbps-238kbps。Link-11在高频/特高频频段工作,数据速率为1.8kbps,可用于实时交换预警信息、空中/地面/水下目标数据、控制指令以及各单元武器状况信息,并具有一定的保密能力,整个网络在网络控制站的管制下组网通信,采用主从式轮询,可进行超视距传输。

·美军发展网络中心战的特点

分析表明,网络中心战概念已逐渐成为美军面向21世纪的新型作战形式。在发展和应用网络中心战概念上,美军表现出以下特点:

建立全维的探测网,夺取制信息权 伊拉克战争中,美军运用多种探测和通信手段使整个战场透明化,从始至终都以信息为主导。这说明在未来战争中谁能够在探测和通信上占有优势,夺取制信息权,谁就能够取得更大的战场主动权。

注重武器装备的数字化、信息化建设 数字化是网络中心战的基础,预计美国各军种将在2010-2020年间全面实现数字化。武器装备的信息化是实现以网络为中心的联合作战的核心,美军将进一步在世界上率先建成信息时代的信息化军队。

加强网络中心战相关装备研发 此次美军有效实施网络中心战依赖于近年有针对性地研发各种相关装备,如联合火力网、协同作战能力、战术互联网、战术输入系统、全球指挥与控制系统、数据信息链等。(来源:《国防科技》2003年第18期)

 

美國陸軍網空作戰力量演變與歷史 – US Army cyberspace combat force evolution & history

美國陸軍網空作戰力量演變與歷史 –

US Army cyberspace combat force evolution & history

With the rapid development of the global information grid system of the US military, the conceptual research based on the information technology system is becoming more and more thorough. Finally, the American combat theory establishes the cyberspace as a combat domain with land, sea, air and sky. In this context, the US Army will be the construction of cyberspace as a key factor in promoting the process of modernization of the army, determined to follow the formal militarization of the organization’s standards and structure of high-quality network combat forces. Since the establishment of the Army Network Command in 2010, the US Army has established a comprehensive network of operational forces based on the goal of combating the military forces of cyberspace through new means such as new construction, adjustment, transformation and integration.

The basic organizational structure under the guidance of the concept of network operations

From the 90s of the 20th century, in order to ensure the US military information grid system in the army part of the efficient and safe operation, the US Army under the guidance of the joint army, around the concept of network operations carried out a series of organizational restructuring, the dissolution of the information system commander And has set up the Army Signal Command and the network enterprise technology command and other institutions, and gradually formed based on technology, defense, focusing on the basic network of emergency operations organizational structure.

In 2005, the US Strategic Command issued the “Global Information Grid Collaborative Combat Concept”, which elaborated on the organizational structure of the US Army’s cyberspace forces during this period, dividing the Army’s network operations system into three Level: At the first level, under the command of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command / Army Strategic Command, the Army’s Global Network Operations and Security Center is responsible for situational awareness and command coordination as the only governing body for Army operations, In the US Army Joint Force Network Power System, the agency functions as a global network of operations and security centers. At the second level, the Theater Network Operations and Security Center is the supporting element of the operational headquarters, which is responsible for “guiding network operations, managing and defending the global information grid elements that are part of the Army’s jurisdiction.” The regional network operations and security centers in the theater constitute the third dimension of the Army’s network operations system. In addition, the Army Computer Emergency Response Unit is the disposal of the network emergency response, in the emergency can accept the global network operations task force tactical control, each theater network operations and security center also established a computer emergency response unit.

New Universal Military

Global military clean sweep, do in the public micro-signal “new global military”

Long press the next two-dimensional code can be concerned about

Set up Army Network Command

With the US military for the degree of dependence on cyberspace, control and weaken the threat of the Internet has continued to become the focus of US military tasks, the establishment of an independent network of space operations command of the voice of the growing US military. In 2008, “Yankee deer bomb action” directly under the impetus, the US military decided to end the unit of independent decentralization of the development of network combat capability of the situation, through the withdrawal, transfer, change and other measures to reorganize the relevant institutions, the establishment of a comprehensive network Space operations of the joint command agencies, the US Army network power organization construction has entered a stage of rapid development.

Through the global deployment of decentralized development of the formation of cyberspace combat organization of the backbone. As the awareness of the network operations will have a far-reaching impact on the military field, the US Army in the combat force level into a lot of resources, and gradually establish the backbone of the network operations. For example, the Army launched its first cyber warfare in July 2008, which provides tactical support, brigade combatant support, and strategic support to other service units, joint forces and even cross-agency partners; the Army also operates on cyber operations The upper-level command system to implement the adjustment, so that the relevant action to be appropriate authority to monitor. During this period, the Army’s future network combat forces were integrated in the form of units in the military and joint forces within the combat unit, including from the Defense Information Systems Agency, the global network operations joint contingent, the National Security Agency to the brigade combat team and other Level of strategic and tactical institutions.
The new core coordination agencies, straighten out the headquarters to the unit level of the command relationship. In June 2009, the US Department of Defense announced the establishment of the US Internet Command in the form of a memorandum to consolidate and promote the construction of cyberspace military forces through a dedicated subordinate joint command. At the same time, as a transitional measure for the formation of the Army Force Network Command in the future, the Army decided to retain the organizational structure of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command / Army Strategic Command and rename it as Army Force Network Command. February 2010, the US Army announced on this basis, the formal formation of the Army Network Force Command, its formation and initial construction phase of the work mainly around the three tasks: to achieve cyber space military forces combat, increase the Army network combat power Capacity and scale, the development of the Army network space professionals team. As the previous command system was disrupted, the newly established Army Network Space Operations and Integration Center under the Cyber ​​Command actually played a central role in command control and coordinated synchronization. The agency is similar to the previous Army Global Network Operations and Security Center, but in addition to “providing clear, concise and timely guidance in the implementation of full spectrum cyberspace operations,” the organization is also responsible for “with the Army’s other headquarters, Other units in the same type of institutions, the United States cyberspace joint operations center to share information. ” At the beginning of the establishment of the organization, some members of the cyberspace operations and integration center also joined the US Department of Network Command staff to better promote the unity of command and operation of the joint force and service units.

US Army Network Space Force Organizational Structure, 2005

The transformation of combat forces functions, to promote the traditional ability to network space combat capability development. At the level of the combat force construction, the field signal force as the main body of the network Enterprise Technology Command / 9 signal command to the Army Network Force Command, the Army Intelligence and Security Command of the cyberspace combat forces combat command by the army Network command. Through this organizational adjustment, the Army Network Command for the first time mastered the forefront of the deployment of combat forces, to form a global presence and have the expedition, you can combat commander to provide more comprehensive combat support capabilities. It is noteworthy that the network enterprise technology command and the intelligence and security commander in the Army Network Command as deputy commander, respectively, responsible for different types of network operations mission, the basic formation of the original signal forces in charge of network defense, the original military Intelligence forces in charge of the network attack mode, which will be previously discrete deployment, loosely combined network space related organizations into a complete army network strength. In addition, the Army Network Command in 2011 was also given the task of carrying out information operations, master the first information combat command of the operational command, intelligence and security headquarters under the 780 military intelligence brigade will also be transformed into Army Network Command Direct command of the network brigade.

Continuously optimize the Army cyberspace forces

After the establishment of the Army Network Command, cyber space military forces combat is always the center of its work, which in the Army Network Power Organization continue to optimize the integration process has been highlighted. For the current network operations have been formed, electronic warfare, information operations, military intelligence and even space combat capability, the US Army in the network of military organizational structure design also reflects the integration of a variety of capacity trends. The US Army is also actively promoting the overall military model in the construction of network forces, highlighting the development of the national guards and reserve forces. After years of construction, the US Army network power organization has been basically formed.
Army Network Combat Force Organizational Structure, 2011

Optimize the combat strength of the organizational structure, to adapt to operational support needs. At the headquarters level, in order to further improve the command and implementation of cyberspace operations, the Army approved the Network Command in March 2014 as the headquarters of the Army Force, and designated the 2nd Army as its immediate unit, and the network enterprise technology Command to become the second army direct command of the network combat troops, network enterprise technology command commander of the second group army deputy commander. And the previous year, the network command has been under the guidance of the US Internet Command and Army headquarters began to form a joint force network headquarters, which will be the implementation of the network space combat command command, and have direct support to the combat command of the network combat capability The At the combat forces and theater levels, the network command is trying to improve the global network defense situation through regional network centers. Based on the strength of the original Theater Network Operations and Security Center and Regional Computer Emergency Response Center, these regional cybersecurity centers streamline the operational plan of the network operations, and can play a strong planning, coordination and synchronization function to more effectively support geography Operation of the Combat Command.

To determine the development of the responsible institutions, improve the network to build military theory guidance. As the US Army Network Command merged with the original network operations, information operations and the strength of the signal forces, a large number of signal forces combat theory urgent need to be revised and translated into the network combat theory, in order to achieve a unified operational capability development model, to avoid the concept of guidance On the chaos. In March 2014, the US Training and Command Command, on the basis of the Center for Excellence, integrated other relevant professional elements to form the Army Network Center of Excellence, with the goal of providing guidance, network and signal The full ability of training. The cyberspace promotion office under the Cyber ​​Command is also incorporated into the Network Excellence Center to further enhance the advantages of the Network Excellence Center in summing up lessons learned from the construction of network forces. Through the implementation of the Ordinance to publish the project, the Network Excellence Center tried to merge the original signal and electronic warfare forces regulations, according to the Army “2015 order system” related requirements to develop new cyberspace operations, electronic warfare and signal forces regulations. At present, the Army has completed the revision of the field command FM6-02 “signal force support operations” to guide the signal forces to the network forces for functional transformation; the first release of the field order FM3-38 “network electromagnetic action”, clear “Army in the unified ground action to integrate the overall principles of network electromagnetic activity, tactics and procedures”; as the Army network army building a basic guidance document, field command FM3-12 “cyberspace combat” also basically completed the final approval process, Officially distributed within the Army in 2015. With the above documents as the main body, the Network Excellence Center will continue to improve the publication of dozens of related military ordinances publications, build a complete Army cyber space combat technology, tactics and procedures for the Army network forces to provide comprehensive theoretical guidance.
Army Network Combat Force Organizational Structure, 2015

Integration of cyberspace education and training strength, and promote the regular development of network forces. The US Army will promote the development of formal training as a fundamental way to improve the level of network operations and combat readiness. In the Army Network Center of excellence at the same time, the Army Network School as its affiliated institutions in the original electronic warfare school set up on the basis of the Army Signal School is also under the network center of excellence will continue to be retained, the Army on the regularization of the construction of cyberspace “Regulations – Organization – Training – Resources – Leadership and Education – Personnel – Facilities” model has been further refined. With the establishment of the Army Network Arsenal (“17-Series” Career Management), the Army requested new staff members to enter the network career field to complete the school’s school training program, from signal, intelligence and information operations forces and other units to the Corresponding to a large number of network operations staff also need to carry out new vocational education and training, the two schools will jointly set up the new Army network arms units officers, warrant officers and noncommissioned officers for individual personnel skills training. For example, the Army Leadership Foundation Training Program was officially launched at the online school in August 2015, and the 14-week Senior Officer Training Program was implemented in May 2016. For the first batch of network combatants recruited by the Army in October 2015, the senior personal training program that must be attended by the Army began in February 2016. As the cyberspace operations essentially have the characteristics of joint operations, the first phase of the 22-week training program will be the Naval Joint Network Analyst Course, the second phase of training for the same 22 weeks, training venues from the Navy The facility is transferred to the Army Network School.

Attention to the National Guard and reserve network strength, highlighting the support and coordination functions. In view of the development of the network combat force, the Army believes that the reserve department can assist the active forces to share some of the tasks and be able to provide reinforcements with high levels of training as quickly as necessary. Because of its unique dual legal position, the Army National Guard can play the role of state and federal government agencies, civil and military organizations, private and public sector convergence, “with the development of cyberspace capabilities of the natural advantages.” Therefore, the Army in the development of network combat forces also pay attention to the construction of the relevant reserve organizations. For example, the First Information Operations Command also includes four reserve forces theater information operations brigade, which has the ability to provide information operations and cyberspace planning, analysis and technical support. According to a memorandum signed by the Army National Guard in June 2014 with the Army Network Command, the Army National Guard transferred one of its network defenses in the previous year to the Army Network Command / 2nd Army. The cyber force, known as the 1636th Network Defense Unit, will be in Service No. 10 of the United States Code, which is a full-time service and will receive the same standard training with other active forces of the Army Network Command and jointly All types of tasks.

This article from the “Military Digest” December Editor: Zhang Chuanliang

Original Mandarin Chinese:

伴隨著美軍全球信息柵格系統的高速發展,基於信息技術系統作戰的概念研究不斷走向深入,最終美軍作戰理論將網絡空間確立為一種與陸、海、空、天並列的作戰域。在這種背景下,美國陸軍將網絡空間力量建設作為推進陸軍現代化進程的關鍵因素,決心按照正規軍事化組織的標準和結構高質量建設網絡作戰部隊。自陸軍網絡司令部於2010年成立以來,美國陸軍圍繞網絡空間軍事力量作戰化的目標,通過新建、調整、轉型和融合等手段逐步建立起完善的網絡作戰力量組織結構。

網絡作戰概念指導下的基本組織結構

從20世紀90年代開始,為確保美軍全球信息柵格系統中的陸軍部分高效安全運行,美國陸軍在聯合軍隊的指導下,圍繞網絡作戰行動概念進行了一系列組織結構調整,解散了信息系統司令部,並先後組建了陸軍信號司令部以及網絡企業技術司令部等機構,逐步形成基於技術、防禦為主、重在應急的網絡作戰基本組織架構。

2005年,美國戰略司令部發布了《全球信息柵格網絡作戰聯合作戰概念》,對這一時期美國陸軍網絡空間力量建設的組織結構進行了詳細說明,將陸軍網絡作戰體系組織架構劃分為三個層次:在第一個層面,在陸軍太空和導彈防禦司令部/陸軍戰略司令部的指揮下,作為陸軍網絡作戰行動唯一的領導機構,陸軍全球網絡行動和安全中心負責態勢感知和指揮協調工作,在美軍聯合部隊網絡力量體系中,該機構發揮軍種全球網絡作戰與安全中心的功能。在第二個層面,戰區網絡行動和安全中心是各作戰司令部的支持元素,負責“指導網絡作戰行動,管理和防禦屬於陸軍管轄的全球信息柵格元素”。戰區內各地區網絡行動和安全中心構成了陸軍網絡作戰體系的第三個層面。此外,陸軍計算機應急響應分隊是應對網絡突發事件的處置力量,在緊急情況下可以接受全球網絡作戰特遣部隊的戰術控制,每個戰區網絡行動和安全中心也都建立了計算機應急響應分隊。

新環球軍事

全球軍事一網打盡,盡在公眾微信號“新環球軍事”

長按下方二維碼即可關注

成立陸軍網絡司令部

隨著美軍對於網絡空間依賴程度的加深,控制和削弱網絡威脅持續成為美軍關注的重點任務,組建獨立負責網絡空間作戰指揮機構的呼聲在美軍內部日益高漲。在2008年“揚基鹿彈行動”的直接推動下,美軍決定結束軍種單位獨立分散發展網絡作戰能力的局面,通過並、撤、轉、改等措施對相關機構進行結構重組,成立全面負責網絡空間作戰的聯合指揮機構,美國陸軍網絡力量組織建設也進入快速發展階段。

通過全球部署分散發展的方式形成網絡空間作戰組織的基幹力量。由於意識到網絡作戰行動將對軍事領域產生更加深遠的影響,美國陸軍在作戰部隊層面投入大量資源,逐步建立起網絡作戰行動的基幹力量。例如,陸軍在2008年7月啟動了第一支網絡戰營,其能夠提供戰術支持、旅戰鬥隊支援以及向其他軍種單位、聯合部隊甚至跨機構夥伴提供戰略支援;陸軍還對網絡作戰行動的上層指揮體系實施調整,從而使相關行動得到適度權限的監管。在這個時期,陸軍未來網絡作戰力量都以分隊形式整合在軍種和聯合部隊架構下作戰單位的內部,包括從國防信息系統局、全球網絡作戰聯合特遣隊、國家安全局到旅戰鬥隊等各個級別的戰略和戰術機構。
新建核心協調機構,理順總部到分隊層面的指揮關係。 2009年6月,美國國防部通過發表備忘錄的形式宣佈建立美國網絡司令部,旨在通過一個專門的次級聯合司令部集中統籌和推進網絡空間軍事力量建設。與此同時,作為日後組建陸軍部隊網絡司令部的過渡性措施,陸軍決定保留陸軍太空和導彈防禦司令部/陸軍戰略司令部的組織架構,並將其重新命名為陸軍部隊網絡司令部。 2010年2月,美國陸軍宣佈在此基礎上正式組建陸軍網絡部隊司令部,其在組建和初始建設階段的工作主要圍繞三項任務展開:實現網絡空間軍事力量作戰化、增加陸軍網絡作戰力量的能力和規模、發展陸軍網絡空間專業人才隊伍。由於以往的指揮體係被打亂,網絡司令部下新成立的陸軍網絡空間作戰與整合中心實際上發揮了指揮控制和協調同步的核心作用。該機構與此前的陸軍全球網絡行動和安全中心功能類似,但是除了“在執行全譜網絡空間作戰行動過程中提供清晰、簡潔、及時的指導”以外,該組織還負責“與陸軍其他司令部、其他軍種單位中的同類機構、美國網絡空間聯合作戰中心共享信息”。在機構建立之初,網絡空間作戰與整合中心的部分人員還直接加入美國網絡司令部參謀機構,從而更好地促進實現聯合部隊與軍種單位網絡作戰行動的指揮統一。

美國陸軍網絡空間力量組織結構,2005年

轉型作戰部隊職能,促進傳統能力向網絡空間作戰能力發展。在作戰部隊建設層面,以野戰信號部隊為主體的網絡企業技術司令部/第9信號司令部轉隸陸軍網絡部隊司令部,陸軍情報和安全司令部所屬網絡空間作戰部隊的作戰指揮權也由陸軍網絡司令部掌握。通過這種組織調整,陸軍網絡司令部第一次掌握了前沿部署作戰力量,能夠形成全球存在態勢並具備遠征能力,可以向作戰指揮官提供更加全面的戰鬥支援能力。值得注意的是,網絡企業技術司令部以及情報和安全司令部指揮官都在陸軍網絡司令部擔任副司令,分別負責不同類型的網絡作戰行動任務,基本形成了原信號部隊主管網絡防禦、原軍事情報部隊主管網絡進攻的模式,從而將此前離散部署、鬆散聯合的網絡空間相關組織整合為一支完備的陸軍網絡力量。此外,陸軍網絡司令部在2011年還被賦予執行信息作戰的任務,掌握第1信息作戰司令部的作戰指揮權,情報和安全司令部下屬的第780軍事情報旅也將轉型為陸軍網絡司令部直接指揮的網絡旅。

持續優化陸軍網絡空間部隊

陸軍網絡司令部成立後,網絡空間軍事力量作戰化始終是其中心工作,這一點在陸軍網絡力量組織不斷優化整合的過程中得到突出體現。對於當前已經形成的網絡作戰、電子戰、信息作戰、軍事情報甚至太空作戰能力,美軍陸軍在進行網絡軍隊組織結構設計時也體現出融合多種能力的趨勢。美國陸軍還在網絡部隊建設中積極推進整體型軍隊模式,突出國民警衛隊和預備役網絡力量的發展。經過多年建設,美國陸軍網絡力量組織結構已經基本形成。
陸軍網絡作戰力量組織結構,2011年

優化戰鬥力量組織結構,適應作戰行動支援需求。在總部機構層面,為了進一步完善網絡空間作戰行動的指揮程序並實現意圖統一,陸軍在2014年3月批准網絡司令部為陸軍部隊組成總部,同時指定第2集團軍為其直屬單位,而網絡企業技術司令部成為第2集團軍直接指揮的網絡作戰部隊,網絡企業技術司令部指揮官兼任第2集團軍副軍長。而且在前一年,網絡司令部已經在美國網絡司令部和陸軍總部的指導下開始組建聯合部隊網絡總部,其將對網絡空間作戰部隊實施任務指揮,並且具備直接支持作戰司令部的網絡作戰能力。在作戰部隊和戰區層面,網絡司令部試圖通過地區網絡中心改善全球網絡防禦態勢。在原有戰區網絡作戰和安全中心、地區計算機應急響應中心力量基礎上,這些地區網絡安全中心對網絡作戰行動指揮程序進行精簡,能夠發揮較強的計劃、協調和同步功能,從而更加高效地支援地理作戰司令部的行動。

確定條令開發負責機構,完善網絡建軍理論指導。由於美國陸軍網絡司令部合併了原網絡作戰、信息作戰和信號部隊的力量,信號部隊的大量作戰理論迫切需要修訂並轉化為網絡作戰理論,從而實現協調統一的作戰能力發展模式,避免出現概念指導上的混亂。 2014年3月,美國訓練和條令司令部在原信號卓越中心的基礎上,整合其他相關專業力量元素,組建了陸軍網絡卓越中心,目標在2015年10月使其具備指導網絡、信號和電子戰部隊訓練的全面能力。網絡司令部下屬的網絡空間促進辦公室也被合併入網絡卓越中心,從而進一步增強網絡卓越中心在總結網絡部隊建設經驗教訓方面的優勢。通過實施條令出版項目,網絡卓越中心試圖合併原有的信號和電子戰部隊條令,根據陸軍“2015條令體系”的相關要求開發全新的網絡空間作戰、電子戰以及信號部隊條令。目前,陸軍已經完成了對野戰條令FM6-02《信號部隊支持作戰行動》的修訂,指導信號部隊向網絡部隊進行職能轉型;第一次發布了野戰條令FM3-38《網絡電磁行動》,明確了“陸軍在統一地面行動中整合網絡電磁活動的總體原則、戰術和規程”;作為陸軍網絡軍隊建設的根本性指導文件,野戰條令FM3-12《網絡空間作戰》也基本完成了最後的批准程序,於2015年正式在陸軍內部發行。以上述條令文件為主體,網絡卓越中心將繼續完善數十種相關陸軍條令出版物的編撰發布工作,構建完整的陸軍網絡空間作戰技術、戰術和規程體系,為陸軍網絡部隊建設提供全面理論指導。
陸軍網絡作戰力量組織結構,2015年

整合網絡空間教育訓練力量,促進網絡部隊正規化發展。美國陸軍將推進網絡訓練正規化發展視為提高網絡作戰和戰備水平的根本途徑。在陸軍網絡卓越中心組建的同時,陸軍網絡學校作為其下屬機構在原電子戰學校的基礎上成立,而且陸軍信號學校也在網絡卓越中心的建制下繼續得以保留,陸軍關於網絡空間力量正規化建設的“條令-組織-訓練-資源-領導力和教育-人員-設施”模型得到進一步完善。隨著陸軍網絡兵種(“17-系列”職業管理領域)的設立,陸軍要求進入網絡職業領域的新任職人員必須完成網絡學校的駐校訓練項目,從信號、情報和信息作戰部隊等單位調動到相應網絡作戰崗位的大量人員也需要進行新的職業教育訓練,上述兩所學校將共同對新成立的陸軍網絡兵種單位的軍官、準尉和士官進行單個人員技能訓練。例如,軍官領導力基礎訓練課程於2015年8月在網絡學校正式啟動,為期14週的準尉軍官高級訓練項目則在2016年5月開始實施。對於陸軍在2015年10月徵募的第一批網絡作戰士兵,其必須參加的高級個人訓練項目則在2016年2月開始。由於網絡空間作戰行動本質上具有聯合作戰的屬性,高級個人訓練項目為期22週的第一階段訓練內容將是海軍聯合網絡分析師課程,第二階段訓練同樣持續22週,訓練場地也會從海軍設施轉移到陸軍網絡學校。

重視國民警衛隊和預備役網絡力量,突出支援和協調功能。針對網絡作戰力量的發展問題,陸軍認為預備役部門可以協助現役部隊分擔部分任務,能夠在必要時迅速提供具備較高訓練水平的增援力量。因其獨特的雙重法律定位,陸軍國民警衛隊可以發揮各州與聯邦政府機構、民事與軍事組織、私營與公共部門之間的銜接作用,“具備發展網絡空間能力的天然優勢”。因此,陸軍在網絡作戰力量發展過程中也注重相關預備役組織的建設。例如,第1信息作戰司令部還包含4支預備役部隊戰區信息作戰大隊,其都具備提供信息作戰和網絡空間計劃、分析、技術支持能力。根據陸軍國民警衛隊2014年6月與陸軍網絡司令部簽署的一份備忘錄,陸軍國民警衛隊將其在此前一年組建的1支網絡防禦分隊轉隸於陸軍網絡司令部/第2集團軍。這支被稱為第1636網絡防禦分隊的網絡部隊將處於《美國法典》第10卷服役狀態,即全時服役狀態,將與陸軍網絡司令部其他現役部隊共同接受同等標準的訓練,並共同執行所有類型的任務。

本文轉自《軍事文摘》12月刊 責任編輯:張傳良

中國軍隊戰略層面的網絡空間特種作戰 China’s Strategic Level of Cyberspace Special Operations

战略层面的网络空间特种作战 –

China’s Strategic level of Cyberspace Special Operations

Editor’s Note: US Army Lieutenant Colonel Patrick Mitchell Dugen at the US Army War College during the fourth quarter of 2015, “Joint Force Quarterly” published “strategic level of cyberspace special operations,” a paper, the article was Chairman of the Association of the United Nations in 2008 Strategic Papers Competition Strategy Research Award.

In this paper, by reviewing the cyberspace special operations cases, this paper analyzes the potential power of using network tools in asymmetric conflicts, and points out that cyberspace special operations have become an effective strategic tool to achieve national goals. Become a regional power to avoid the US military dominance and to ensure that their strategic interests of the unconventional path. The author proposes three new options for integrating emerging technologies and special operations: “cloud-driven” foreign defense, network counter-insurgency and unconventional cyber warfare advance team. Designed to maintain the US network technology advantages, and to build an important partnership, shaping the full spectrum of the conflict environment has a revolutionary impact. Iran and Russia and other regional forces of cyberspace special combat readiness why more than the United States? How does Iran and Russia strengthen its power at the tactical level while the United States has assembled its network and network capabilities at the strategic level? The United States in more than 20 years ago issued a network of special operations related documents, but why the network of special operations policies, departments and regulations are still not mature enough? For the US military, the most basic question is: how will the United States build a strategic level of network special combat capability?

As early as 1993, Internet technology theorists John Achilla and David Lennfield in his book “cyber war is coming” a book has predicted the recent Iran and Russia to implement the cyberspace special operations. “A large number of scattered small groups around the use of the latest communications technology coordinated” control network, to obtain the decisive advantage of the opponent. In reality this scene has been staged again and again. “We are using the information and the more information we have, and the less demand for traditional weapons,” says Achilla and Lunfield. US military executives have also realized that with asymmetric network tools, unconventional tactics and a large number of false information armed, a small amount of special combatants can form a certain strategic impact. There is news that both Iran and Russia have succeeded in using cyberspace special operations as a strategic tool to achieve their national goals. Both countries have an integrated network of special operations forces that know how to exploit the potential power of network tools in asymmetric conflicts. The asymmetric approach of the two countries has become a strong and unconventional path for regional powers to circumvent US military superiority and to ensure their strategic interests. Low price Of the network of high-tech allows potential rivals can develop a strong network warfare capabilities. Therefore, the United States urgently need to make strategic choices, the development of cyberspace special operations, as a tool for the protection and projection of national interests.

Low-cost network of high-tech technology allows potential rivals to develop a strong network warfare capabilities In February 2013, the Russian chief of staff Grazimov in the Russian “military messenger” magazine published “science in the forecast value” article. In the paper, Gracimov predicted a new generation of war that could “change the rules of the game”, whose strategic value would exceed “the effectiveness of weapon forces.” He called for universal asymmetric action to counter the enemy’s strengths and create a permanent frontier in the territory of the enemy through “special forces and internal confrontation and continuous improvement of information operations, equipment and means.” In the spring of 2014, Western media reported that in the eastern part of Ukraine, a casual special operations squad from Russia through the Ukrainian border, occupation of government buildings and arsenal and transferred to the separatist armed. At the same time, the Ukrainian authorities claim that their digital, telephone and cyber communications are cut off, interfered or attacked. The Ukrainian government attributed the cyber attacks on information and logistics infrastructure, including Internet servers and railroad control systems, to the destruction of Russia, and argued that the implementation of information fraud in Russia was costly in important social media, blogs, and News website published 50 pro-Russian comments every day, inside and outside Ukraine to form a large number of false information flow, on the one hand to cover up its non-traditional military operations in cyberspace, on the other hand to create a political illusion. “Russia is not doing the usual information warfare about false information, lies, leaks or cyber sabotage, it reshapes reality, creates public illusions, and then translates them into political action,” said senior government officials. To this end, in September 2014 at the NATO security summit, the NATO Allied Supreme Commander, US Air Force Admiral Philip Bride Leaf pointed out that Russia in East Ukraine to implement the “mixed” non-traditional operations on behalf of the war The most amazing information in history is Blitzkrieg. Bride Leaf urges the Allies to immediately develop the ability to counter the Russian non-traditional warfare, propaganda and cyber attacks. Russia’s use of the “non-traditional Western as a war” non-traditional means to achieve its political purpose, which makes the Western and NATO countries by surprise. Russia is not a fragmented way to use special forces, information operations or network capabilities.

On the contrary, as General Glashimov said, “the war does not need to be publicly announced, when the special forces with advanced technology and a lot of information for the traditional forces in the maintenance of peace and crisis under the cover of strategic objectives to create good conditions, the war on “Cybercrime deception and cyber attacks are special forces in” war and peace ”

Network information spoofing and cyber attack action for special combat forces in the “war and peace” between the implementation of non-traditional warfare to win the time and space lessons learned from the Russian case can draw four major experience, for the United States special operations Action and network capacity integration to provide a viable theoretical framework. First, there are tactical and strategic differences in the offensive network tools used by the Russian Special Forces, targeting tactical “closed networks”, such as local communications, social media, regional networks and logistics infrastructure, while retaining Its more advanced open network tools as a backup. Second, the network special operations are primarily an agent behavior, emphasizing the minimization of the source tracking. As Gracimov described, “the long-distance, non-contact action against the enemy is becoming the primary means of the tactical battle.” Network special operations usually avoid direct contact with people, but in peace and war in the gray area to start action. Third, information and communication technology, network attacks and information operations in the network to form a non-conventional warfare play an important role. As long as the appropriate implementation, the traditional special operations can go far beyond its original function, “which involves the comprehensive application of a wide range of capabilities to achieve policy objectives.” To be effective, it must also be integrated to synchronize other areas of expertise. Fourth, the network special operations can both deter the conflict, can also be used to deal with the whole spectrum of conflict, because “it is suitable for all stages of action, from shaping the environment to the intense war to post-war reconstruction.” Although the network war to destroy the original intention, but also has a constructive side. The widespread dissemination of low-cost information and communication technologies is conducive to strengthening the security of partner countries and thus helping to prevent the occurrence of conflicts.

“‘Foreign help defense’ (FID) under ‘cloud drive’ is both a concept of cloud computing and a metaphorical description of partnering and trust through virtual means. “The concept of” cloud-driven “FID” has not yet been clearly defined, but it can be integrated into an interdisciplinary field to better understand people, geography and virtual worlds and to act together on related goals. Technically, the “cloud-driven” FID “strengthens the partnership, consolidates data through the federated facilities, enhances automation, and disseminates the analysis process. “Cloud-driven” is flexible and can be developed in private, public, community, or mixed form, using different software, platforms, and infrastructure. Security personnel use intelligent technology to drive confidential mobile applications, analyze tools and share data through “cloud-driven” FIDs. Although the data associated with the virtual cloud, but its real value is to make the timely dissemination of information to the hands of tactics. “The cloud-driven” FID “can also be likened to a persistent, active partnership, the data never stops, the network has been busy. Technology is only a tool to drive deeper, extensive socio-cultural, political and historical factors that are often prone to conflict. “Cloud-driven” FID “can build more sustainable competencies and trust with partner countries. “The cloud-driven” FID “lay a virtual foundation for the future establishment of various institutions, centers and laboratories to bridge the benefits of inter-agency across the United States. From the strategic point of view of the US government, “cloud-driven” FID “is a pragmatic” partnership-centered approach designed to target the core interests of partner countries rather than to Way to change the partner country “. “The cloud-driven” FID “is also a prudent strategic move to” prevent the US partner countries from becoming a public relations crisis due to domestic political problems. ” “The cloud drive ‘FID’ also offers other opportunities. The technology and networks it forms can react quickly to emergencies, such as humanitarian relief or relief operations, prevent mass killings, or evacuate personnel from non-combatants. This saves time, money and manpower by providing information for the decision-making process. For the construction of the partnership, the cloud-driven FID can store local non-US social media information, rich social network analysis, social network maps, and behavioral and opinion trends analysis. Most importantly, the “cloud drive ‘FID” builds trust in an innovative and extremely powerful way to build lasting influence on allies and partners.

Today’s global environment drives the United States to use cyber special operations as a strategic tool network for national military strategies Anti-riot counterintelligence network Anti-riot operations (CNCOIN) aims to use social media networks to achieve the purpose of rebellion. To break the asymmetric information superiority of the enemy, CNCOIN uses non-technical means to combat the relevant crowd and control its perception, behavior and action. It adds a military color to the cyber space’s ubiquitous anti-social network. Although these means are not clearly defined, this article believes that it actually refers to the manipulation of social media, cover up the true identity, to achieve ulterior motives. While social media provides a wide range of opportunities for anti-social networks, such as malicious use, intentional misconduct, but from the military point of view, social media provides a wealth of information resources to affect the psychological vulnerability, but also an ideal attack platform. There are several technologies that contribute to its implementation in each functional category. The scope of action includes, but is not limited to, cyber-pseudo operation and cyber-herding operation. Network fraud is a classic counter-insurgency strategy, “government forces and technical staff will pretend to be insurgents, into the enemy network after the use of advanced intelligence technology in the network within the implementation of the destruction.” Internet expulsion means that “individuals, groups, or organizations deport other individuals, groups, or organizations to the default network area.” The magic of the two technologies is the expulsion of insurgents in the virtual network by exploiting the inherent flaws of the communication technology and communication platform. The two tactics are aimed at rebel activist online communities, manipulating or disrupting them, and ultimately providing more opportunities for cyberbullying. The virtual world magnifies the environmental factors, because the characters in the network are more difficult to determine their authenticity. Planning command control, communication frequency and equipment platform and other elements will become the key to the implementation of network fraud or network expulsion operations to manipulate, mislead or expel the target group to the desired results. The scope of information includes, but is not limited to, Crowdsourcing and Social Networking Analysis, SNA). Crowdsourcing is the use of large-scale knowledge base, provided by the participants voluntarily, to solve the problem to provide new ideas, services or observation, you can quickly expand the organizers of the field of vision. Social network analysis depicts and measures the relationships, strengths, and cores of social links in a visual way to illustrate the social network structure. Social network visualization or social networking maps can provide a unique window for assessing, depicting and even predicting the intensity, time, space, and relationship dimensions of relationship events. In September 2013, during the crisis in the Philippines, the anti-government armed Moro National Liberation Front (hereinafter referred to as “the dismount”) was dissatisfied with the situation of national reconciliation, hijacked more than 200 civilians as hostages, attacked commercial shops and burned urban buildings. Throughout the crisis, crowdsourcing and social network analysis are very successful non-traditional tactical means. The Philippine security forces use crowdsourcing tactics to encourage Zamboang residents to discover and report on the “melodic” members of the hiding place. FEI security forces, together with crowdsourcing information and intelligence analysis, provide information for security operations and humanitarian operations. The use of social network analysis to assess the “Mobility” of the public support, and in the social media against the “interpretation” declaration, to ban the violation of social media user agreement propaganda site, but also the use of crowds of information blockade ” Troops, attacking their temporary command post. The Philippine security forces used solid media to track the key information and lead the use of social media, and then use the solid forces to defeat the “interpretation” of the asymmetric advantage. The information warfare category includes but is not limited to cyber intrusion (cyber Aggression, forum vest (sock-puppeting), astro-turfing and so on. Three tactics are anonymous use of social media to implement misleading, false information to manipulate behavior, public opinion and action. The cyber-invasion is proposed by Teanna Felmyr, which refers to “an electronic or online act that is intended to cause psychological harm to others or damage its reputation by using e-mail, instant messaging, cell phones, digital information, chat rooms

As well as social media, video, game sites, etc. “. It is much broader than the range of ordinary cyber-aggressive behavior. Its anonymity may cause substantial psychological harm and negative consequences, as the relevant information will be repeatedly sent to the target or published in the social media. Its value to CNCOIN is that it can use sensitive digital information to humiliate, defame or hurt the target, causing psychological barriers. This powerful cyber-invading action can reduce the credibility, influence and power of the target, and ultimately lose the power of the target or other insurgents. The other two tactics, the forum vest and the fake are all fictitious online propaganda tools used to spread distorted views to create a wider range of support or opposition to the illusion. In fact, with the forum vest is the same concept, but more complex, more organized, larger. Both tactics use virtual characters to distribute false information in cyberspace, with the aim of initiating group reactions or actions. Combining massive amounts of text, images, and video with a planned misleading network activity will significantly enhance the effectiveness of CNCOIN’s action. The third way to advance the US network’s special operations is the unconventional cyber warfare team (cyber-UW Pilot Team, using social media networks to shape the physical environment, the establishment of regional mechanisms, in the implementation of non – conventional war before the regional connectivity. The core of the unconventional network warfare team is the special forces, with a number of professional organizations to provide technical support, its task is in the field of network security for the preparation of unconventional operations. The penetration of the traditional advance team is the target of enemy territory, military facilities and other entities, rather than the conventional advance team is through the virtual means of infiltration, and then into the sensitive, hostile or refused to area. Through the virtual means, can reduce the United States and partner countries armed forces in time, risk, equipment and other aspects of the loss and risk. Conceptually, unconventional cyber warfare teams use web tools and advanced technology to build people, entities, intelligence, and information infrastructures on social media. While deepening understanding of the local human terrain, the team can strengthen its local language and cultural skills, as well as identify resistance leaders, assess motivation and resistance, and overall support for US government goals, while at the same time understanding Informal hierarchical distribution, psychology and behavior. In addition, you can also incorporate the Internet’s white noise into the social media network to “improve the cultural understanding of potential collaborators in the United States and the local situation before action.” While the US national security strategy has long recognized the strategy of cyber warfare Role, but this understanding is not fully translated into a clear strategic level of thinking and combat capability. For example, the US Department of Defense cyberspace action strategy did not give much solution or specific measures, only from five aspects of the previous repeated network ideas. Lack of clear ideas lead to our network strategy is flawed, making the United States advanced network technology advantages to hand over to the potential rival risk. In contrast, Iran and Russia’s asymmetric innovation modeled other regions and global forces, trying to circumvent the US military advantage by unconventional means to ensure their strategic interests. Cyberspace special operations are a must to fill the strategic level of the blank. Obviously, the United States must actively seek a tactical level of unconventional combat into the cyber space operations in the form of special operations. Rand’s recent study of special operations concluded that “the United States needs to use a more advanced form of special operations to ensure national interests, taking into account the recent US and its interests facing the security threat situation, special operations

Become the most appropriate form of ensuring national interests “. In an increasingly interconnected global environment, the physical infrastructure is quickly allocated Internet protocol addresses, accessory networking. By 2020, there will be 50 billion “machine-to-machine” equipment (currently 1 3 billion units) will be through the “embedded computer, sensor and Internet capabilities” access to network space. Cyberspace special operations Unicom virtual and reality, through the modern information network and with the traditional face-to-face combination of special operations partnership. Today’s global environment has prompted the United States to use cyber special operations as a strategic tool for national military strategies. Potential rivals combine offensive network capabilities with unconventional tactics to set a terrible example for other enemies in the United States, and they will follow suit quickly. This paper presents three new options for integrating emerging technologies and special operations: foreign-assisted defense under “cloud-driven”, anti-riot operations in the network, and non-conventional cyber warfare advance teams. Full play of these three tactics will not only maintain the advantages of the US network technology, but also to build an important partnership, shaping the whole spectrum of combat environment have a revolutionary impact. If successful implementation, network special operations will become the United States a strong new strategic options

Original Mandarin Chinese:

编者按:美国陆军中校帕特里克·米歇尔·杜根在美陆军战争学院就读期间,于2015年第4季度《联合部队季刊》发表《战略层面的网络空间特种作战》一文,该文曾获得2015年度参联会主席战略论文竞赛战略研究类奖。本文通过回顾网络空间特种作战案例,分析了在非对称性冲突中利用网络工具的潜在力量,指出网络空间特种作战已经成为达成国家目标的有效战略工具。成为地区强国用以规避美国军事主导权以及确保本国战略利益的非常规性路径。作者提出了融合新兴技术与特种作战的三种新选项:“云驱动”下的国外协助防御,网络反暴乱平叛行动与非常规网络战先遣队。旨在维持美国的网络技术优势,并对构建重要伙伴关系、塑造全频谱冲突环境产生革命性影响。伊朗和俄罗斯等地区力量的网络空间特种作战战备为何比美国更为充分?

美国在战略层面集结其网络部门和网络能力的同时,伊朗和俄罗斯又是如何在战术层面强化其力量的呢?美国在20多年前就发布了网络特种作战的相关文件,但为何其网络特种作战的政策、部门和条令仍然不够成熟呢?对于美军而言,最基本的问题是:美国将如何打造战略层面的网络特种作战能力?早在1993年,互联网技术理论家约翰·阿奇拉和大卫·伦菲尔德在其著作《网络战争即将来临》一书中就已经预言了最近伊朗和俄罗斯所实施的网络空间特种作战行动。“大量分散各地的小规模团体利用最新的通信技术协调一致”控制网络,取得对对手的决定性优势。现实中这一情景一再上演。阿奇拉和伦菲尔德认为,“战争中我们投向敌人的不再是质量和能量;如今我们使用的是信息,掌握的信息越多,对传统武器的需求就越少”。

美军高层也已经意识到,有了非对称性网络工具、非常规战术以及大量虚假信息的武装,少量的特种作战人员就可以形成一定的战略影响。目前有消息表明,伊朗和俄罗斯均已成功地将网络空间特种作战作为一种战略工具来达成其国家目标。两国都拥有一体化的网络特种作战部队,知道如何在非对称性冲突中利用网络工具的潜在力量。两国的非对称性手段成为地区强国用以规避美国军事优势以及确保本国战略利益的强大非常规性路径。价格低廉的网络高新技术使得潜在对手可以发展出强大的网络战能力。因此,美国亟需做出战略选择,发展网络空间特种作战,作为保护和投射国家利益的工具。

价格低廉的网络高新技术使得潜在对手可以发展出强大的网络战能力2013年2月,俄罗斯总参谋长格拉西莫夫在俄《军工信使》杂志发表了《科学在预测中的价值》一文。文中,格拉西莫夫预测了能够“改变游戏规则”的新一代战争,其战略价值将超过“武器力量的效能”。他号召普遍开展非对称性行动,以抵消敌方的优势,通过“特种作战力量和内部对抗以及不断完善的信息行动、装备和手段,在敌国的领土中创造一个永久活动的前线”。2014年春,有西方媒体报道,在乌克兰东部的乱局中,一支便装的特种作战小分队从俄罗斯境内穿越乌克兰边界,占领政府建筑和武器库并转交给分裂主义武装。与此同时,乌克兰当局声称,其全境的数字、电话及网络通信均遭到切断、干扰或攻击活动。乌克兰政府将信息和物流基础设施(包括互联网服务器和铁路控制系统)遭受的网络攻击归因于俄方的破坏,同时还认为,俄罗斯实施信息欺骗行动,花费巨资在重要的社交媒体、博客以及新闻网站每天发布50条亲俄评论,在乌克兰内外形成大量的虚假信息流,一方面掩盖其在网络空间的非传统军事行动,另一方面制造了政治假象。乌政府高级官员表示,“俄罗斯所做的并不是通常的信息作战所涉及的虚假信息、谎言、泄漏机密或网络破坏活动,它重新塑造现实,造成大众幻象,然后将之转化为政治行动”。为此,在2014年9月召开的北约安全峰会上,北约盟军最高司令、美国空军上将菲利普·布里德莱弗指出,俄罗斯在东乌克兰实施的“混合型”非传统作战代表了战争史上最惊人的信息闪电战。布里德莱弗敦促盟军立即发展相应的能力以反制俄罗斯的非传统战、宣传战及网络攻击行动。俄罗斯使用“根本不被西方视为战争的”非传统手段达成其政治目的,这使得西方及北约国家措手不及。俄罗斯并不是以碎片化的方式来使用特种力量、信息作战或网络能力。相反,正如格拉西莫夫将军所言,“发动战争不再需要公开宣布,当配备先进技术和大量信息的特种力量为传统部队在维持和平与危机的掩护下达成战略目标创造好条件,战争就发生了。”言外之意,网络信息欺骗和网络攻击行动为特种作战力量在“战争与和平之间”实施非传统战赢得了时间和空间。俄罗斯的网络赋能非传统战极为成功,不仅是其网络特种力量的混成,而且还成功地侵入欧盟成员国,甚至没有引起西方有效的军事反应。

网络信息欺骗和网络攻击行动为特种作战力量在“战争与和平之间”实施非传统战赢得了时间和空间 经验教训从俄罗斯的案例中可以得出四个方面的主要经验,可为美国特种作战行动与网络能力整合提供一个可行的理论框架。第一,俄罗斯特种部队所使用的进攻性网络工具存在战术和战略层面的差别,主要以战术层面的“封闭网络”为目标,如本地通讯、社交媒体、区域网络和后勤基础设施等,同时保留其更为先进的开放网络工具作为备用。第二,网络特种作战主要是一种代理人行为,强调最小化的来源跟踪。正如格拉西莫夫所描述的那样,“对敌方的远距离、无接触行动正在成为战术战役目标的主要手段”。网络特种作战通常避免人员的直接接触,而是在和平与战争的灰色地带展开行动。第三,信息与通信技术、网络攻击及信息作战等在网络赋能的非常规战中发挥着重要作用。只要恰当的实施,传统的特种作战可以远远超出其原有的功能,“这涉及到对广泛能力的综合运用,以达成政策目标”。要发挥效能,还必须整合同步其他领域的专门知识。第四,网络特种作战既可以慑止冲突,也可用于应对全频谱冲突,因为“它适合行动的各个阶段,从塑造环境到剧烈战争再到战后重建等”。虽然网络战以破坏为初衷,但也具有建设性的一面。低成本的信息和通信技术的广泛传播有利于强化伙伴国安全,从而有助于阻止冲突的发生。

网络空间特种作战是一种必须填补的战略层面的能力空白,美国必须积极寻求一种在战术层面的非常规作战中融入网络空间作战的特种作战形式 “‘云驱动’下的‘国外协助防御’(FID)”既是一种云计算概念,也是通过虚拟手段增强伙伴能力和信任的一种比喻性描述。“‘云驱动’FID”概念虽然还未经明确界定,但是它却可以联接整合跨学科领域,以更好地理解人员、地理及虚拟世界,并对相关目标展开共同行动。从技术上而言,“‘云驱动’FID”可以强化伙伴关系,通过联合设施,实时共享数据,增强自动化,传播分析过程。“云驱动”是灵活多变的,能够以私人、公共、社区或混合形式出现,各自使用不同的软件、平台和基础设施等。安全人员通过“‘云驱动’FID”使用智能技术驱动保密的移动应用软件、分析工具和共享数据。虽然数据与虚拟云相联,但其真正价值在于使信息及时传播到战术人员手中。“‘云驱动’FID”也可比喻为一种持续的、活跃的伙伴关系,数据永不停止,网络一直忙碌。技术仅仅是一种工具,用以驱动更深入、广泛的社会文化、政治和历史因素的理解,这些往往是容易造成冲突的因素。“‘云驱动’FID”可以与伙伴国构建更具持续性的能力和信任。“‘云驱动’FID”为未来建立各种机构、中心和实验室弥合美国各跨机构间的利益打下一个虚拟的基础。从美国政府的战略视角而言,“‘云驱动’FID”是一种实用主义的“以伙伴国为中心的方式,旨在围绕伙伴国的核心利益设计行动,而不是寄希望于以短视的方式来改变伙伴国”。“‘云驱动’FID”还是一种审慎的战略举措,“以防美国的伙伴国由于国内政治问题出现公共关系危机”。“‘云驱动’FID”也提供了其他的机会。它所形成的技术和关系网络可以迅速对紧急事件做出反应,如人道主义救援或救灾行动、阻止大规模屠杀,或者非战斗人员撤离任务等。这样可以通过为决策过程提供信息而节约时间、金钱和人力等。对于伙伴关系的构建而言,“‘云驱动’FID”可以存储当地的非美国社交媒体信息、丰富的社交网络分析、社会网络地图以及行为和舆论趋势分析等信息。最为重要的是,“‘云驱动’FID”以富有创新性和极为有力的方式构建信任,打造对盟友及伙伴国的持久影响力。

当今的全球环境促使美国采用网络特种作战作为国家军事战略的战略性工具 网络反暴乱平叛行动网络反暴乱平叛行动(CNCOIN)旨在利用社交媒体网络达成平叛的目的。为打破敌人的非对称性信息优势,CNCOIN使用非技术手段打击相关人群,控制其感知、行为和行动。它为网络空间无处不在的反社交网络手段增添了军事色彩。虽然这些手段没有明确界定,本文认为,它实际上就是指操纵社交媒体,掩盖真实身份,达成不可告人的目的。虽然社交媒体为反社交网络提供了广泛的机会,如恶意利用、有意误导等,但从军事角度而言,社交媒体提供了丰富的信息资源以影响心理脆弱性,也是一个理想的攻击平台。每种功能性范畴中都有几种有助于其实施的技术。行动范畴包括但不局限于网络欺骗行动(cyber-pseudo operation)和网络驱逐行动(cyber-herding operation)。网络欺骗行动是一种经典的平叛策略,“政府军和技术人员将自己假扮为叛乱分子,渗入敌方网络后使用先进的谍报技术在该网络内部实施破坏”。网络驱逐行动就是指,“个人、团体或组织把其他的个人、团体或组织驱逐到预设的网络区域”。两种技术的奇妙之处在于,通过利用通信技术与通信平台的内在缺陷来驱逐虚拟网络中的叛乱分子。两种战术以叛乱分子活跃的网络社群为目标,对其进行操控或者瓦解,最终为网络平叛提供更多的机会。虚拟世界放大了环境因素,因为网络中的人物更难确定其真实性。规划指挥控制、通信频率以及设备平台等要素将成为网络欺骗行动或网络驱逐行动实施的关键点,用以操纵、误导或者驱逐目标群走向预想的结果。情报范畴包括但不局限于众包(Crowdsourcing)和社交网络分析技术(Social Networking Analysis, SNA)。众包就是利用大规模的知识库,由参与者自愿提供的,为解决问题提供新思路、服务或观察,可以迅速扩展组织者的视野。社交网络分析以可视的方式描绘和测量社交链接的关系、强度及核心性以说明社会网络结构。社交网络可视化或者社网图可以提供独特的窗口用以评估、描绘甚至预测关系事件的强度、时间、空间和关系维度。2013年9月,菲律宾三宝颜危机期间,反政府武装摩洛民族解放阵线(以下简称“摩解”)对民族和解状况感到不满,挟持200多名平民为人质,袭击商业店铺,烧毁城市建筑。整个危机期间,众包和社交网络分析都是非常成功的非传统战术手段。菲律宾安全部队使用众包战术鼓励三宝颜居民发现并报告“摩解”成员的藏身地点。菲安全部队结合众包信息和情报分析,为安全行动和人道主义行动提供信息。使用社交网络分析来评估“摩解”的民众支持度,并在社交媒体上反制“摩解”宣言,封禁违反社交媒体用户协议的宣传网站,还使用众包信息封锁“摩解”小股部队,攻击其临时指挥哨所。菲安全部队通过使用社交媒体跟踪关键信息和领导节点,随后使用实体部队挫败了“摩解”的非对称性优势。信息作战范畴包括但不局限于网络入侵(cyber aggression)、论坛马甲(袜子手偶sock-puppeting)、以假乱真(Astro-turfing)等。三种战术都是匿名利用社交媒体实施误导、假信息等来操纵行为、舆论及行动。网络入侵是由蒂安娜·菲尔姆利提出,是指“一种电子或在线行为,旨在对他人实施心理伤害或损毁其名誉,通过使用电子邮件、即时信息、手机、数字信息、聊天室以及社交媒体、视频、游戏网站等”。它比普通的网络攻击性行为的范围要广泛得多。它的匿名性可能会引起实质性的心理伤害和负面后果,因为相关信息会被重复发送给目标或者在社交媒体发布。它对CNCOIN的价值在于,可以利用敏感的数字信息来羞辱、诽谤或伤害目标,造成心理障碍行为。这种强大的网络入侵行动可以降低目标的可信度、影响力和权力,最终使目标或其它叛乱分子丧失实力。其它两种战术,论坛马甲和以假乱真都是虚构的在线宣传工具,用来散布扭曲的观点,以制造更广范围的支持或者反对的假象。以假乱真实际上跟论坛马甲是同一个概念,只不过更为复杂、更有组织、规模更大。两种战术都使用虚拟人物在网络空间散布虚假信息,目的是引发群体反应或行动。以假乱真的网络信息作战行动包含海量文字、图片和视频,与有计划的误导性网络活动相结合,将显著增强CNCOIN行动的效果。 非常规网络战先遣队推进美国网络特种作战的第三种方式是非常规网络战先遣队(cyber-UW Pilot Team),利用社交媒体网络塑造实体环境,建立区域机制,在实施非常规战之前将各区域联通起来。非常规网络战先遣队的核心是特种部队,拥有多个专业机构提供的技术支持,其任务是在网络安全领域进行非常规作战的准备。传统先遣队的渗透目标是敌方领土、军事设施等实体目标,而非常规先遣队则是通过虚拟手段进行渗透,再潜入敏感、敌对或拒止区域。通过虚拟手段,可以减少美国及伙伴国武装力量在时间、风险、装备等方面的损失和风险。从概念上讲,非常规网络战先遣队利用网络工具和先进技术在社交媒体上打造人员、实体、情报以及信息基础设施。在加深对当地人文地形理解的同时,小组可以强化其本地语言和文化技能,还可识别抵抗活动领导者、评估动机和抵抗能力以及对美国政府目标的总体支持度,与此同时,还可以了解非正式的层级分布、心理及行为等。此外,还可以通过接入社交媒体网络混入互联网白噪音,以“提高美国对潜在合作者的文化理解以及在采取行动之前的当地形势。”虽然美国国家安全战略中早就承认了网络作战的战略作用,但是这种认识并没有完全转化成明晰的战略层面的思维和作战能力。例如,美国《国防部网络空间行动战略》中并没有给出多少解决方案或具体措施,仅仅从五个方面重复了先前的网络思路。缺乏明确的思路导致我们的网络战略存在缺陷,使得美国先进的网络技术优势有拱手让给潜在对手的风险。对比之下,伊朗和俄罗斯的非对称性创新为其他地区和全球力量树立了模仿的样板,都试图以非常规手段规避美国的军事优势,确保各自的战略利益。网络空间特种作战是一种必须填补的战略层面的能力空白。很显然,美国必须积极寻求一种在战术层面的非常规作战中融入网络空间作战的特种作战形式。兰德公司最近的一份研究特种作战的报告得出结论,称“美国需要运用一种更为先进的特种作战形式来确保国家利益,考虑到近来美国及其利益面临的安全威胁形势,特种作战成为确保国家利益的最合适的形式”。在一个日益互联的全球环境中,实体性基础设施快速被分配互联网协议地址,接入物联网。到2020年,将有500亿台“机器对机器”设备(目前为130亿台)会通过“嵌入计算机、传感器和互联网能力”接入网络空间。网络空间特种作战联通了虚拟与现实,通过现代的信息网络并与传统的面对面的特种作战伙伴关系相结合。当今的全球环境促使美国采用网络特种作战作为国家军事战略的战略性工具。潜在对手将进攻性网络能力与非常规战术相结合为美国的其他敌人树立了可怕的榜样,他们必将快速跟进。本文提出了融合新兴技术与特种作战的三种新选项:“云驱动”下的国外协助防御、网络反暴乱平叛行动以及非常规网络战先遣队。充分发挥这三种战术将不仅仅能维持美国的网络技术优势,还可对构建重要伙伴关系、塑造全频谱作战环境产生革命性影响。如果能成功实施,网络特种作战必将成为美国强有力的新战略选项。

 

2016-08-22 17:42现代军事

中國軍隊信息戰裝備的作戰運用 – Chinese Military Operation of Information Warfare Equipment

中國軍隊信息戰裝備的作戰運用

Chinese Military Operation of Information Warfare Equipment

Information warfare is the C4ISR system and C4ISR system of confrontation, is the advantage of information contention, the main purpose is to ensure that their own information system to run properly, from the enemy use, paralysis and destruction; the same time, trying to use, paralyzed and destroy the enemy’s information system, So that in a paralyzed, confused state. Information warfare includes two parts: strategic information warfare and battlefield information warfare.

Strategic information warfare and information warfare battlefield

strategic information warfare is mainly characterized by a wide range of sectors covering all key political, economic, technological, and military and other special areas; special way, relates to psychological warfare, media warfare, deception warfare, media warfare and other special Means that the target is special, mainly through the decadence war, psychological warfare, information deterrence attack the enemy’s understanding system and thinking system; great harm, can make the whole country’s economic, political or military paralyzed, and even make it happen alternately; Personnel special, the war is not necessarily military personnel, computer experts, international criminal groups, ulterior motives of hackers or terrorist organizations and so may become war personnel.

Battlefield information warfare is the information warfare in the battle space, refers to the preparation and conduct of a campaign, the integrated use of information technology and a variety of information technology weapons, information combat platform and C4ISR system, in reconnaissance detection and early warning, information processing and Transmission, weapons control and guidance, operational command and control, camouflage deception and interference, as well as military strategy and other aspects of the comprehensive confrontation and struggle. Battlefield information warfare is through the interference or disrupting the enemy decision-making process, so that the enemy can not effectively take concerted action. Therefore, we must first affect the enemy decision-making, and then affect its actions, that is, to win the air electromagnetic advantage, and then made the air superiority, and finally the use of conventional forces to take combat operations. To seize the right to information system, to seize the initiative to fight the space, but also for the fight for land rights, air supremacy, sea power and the system of the right to lay a good foundation and necessary conditions.

A The basic combat forces and means are digital forces and information weapons equipment, the main contents include combat confidentiality, military deception, electronic warfare, psychological warfare and fire destroyed, the core purpose is to compete for the battle space information access , Control and use rights. Battlefield information warfare is the confrontation of the information system, it directly affects the entire battle space, the whole process of war and success or failure. Battlefield information warfare The main combat style is the electronic warfare and cyber warfare. Electronic warfare is an important part of the battlefield information warfare, mainly for the enemy communications, radar and other electromagnetic radiation source for the lure, interference, destruction and destruction activities. In the Gulf War, the electronic warfare was not only for the first time on a large scale, but also as a campaign stage and a specific campaign in war. In the Kosovo war, NATO used a lot of electronic warfare equipment, and the first use of electromagnetic pulse bombs and the first time a network war. Network warfare is a cyber-confrontational activity in computer cyberspace, using the Internet, and is being used for the first time in the Kosovo war. NATO network warfare measures include: network advertising; hacker attacks; attacks on financial networks. The main feature of the network war in the Southern Alliance is the people’s war mode, fans, computer fans and computer enthusiasts spontaneously carried out a large number of network operations, such as online publicity, attack NATO website, the use of network transmission of information.

Information warfare equipment in war equipment electronic warfare equipment the trend of electronic warfare equipment increasingly integrated and universal, under the conditions of information technology in the local war, the battlefield of the electromagnetic environment is increasingly complex, the past that the separation of each other, a single function of electronic warfare equipment is far from Adapt to combat needs. Integration and generalization has become the focus of the development of electronic warfare equipment and future electronic warfare equipment overall development direction. In order to deal more effectively with the complex and volatile electromagnetic threat in the information warfare, the future of the new generation of electronic warfare equipment, will be widely used advanced computer technology, greatly improve the automation of the entire system to have better real-time capabilities, since Adaptability and full power management capability. Electronic warfare equipment, work areas continue to widen, increasing the transmission power, millimeter-wave technology and the development of optical technology, the modern electronic warfare equipment, the frequency of continuous development to a wider band. On the whole, the future range of electronic warfare equipment will be extended to the entire electromagnetic spectrum. GPS interference and anti-interference will be concerned about the practice of war has shown that if the loss of GPS support, it will greatly weaken the information advantage, so that command, control, reconnaissance, combat, military and other military aspects are facing severe tests, Combat effectiveness. Focusing on the development of anti-radiation and new electronic warfare jets, attention to the development of new, special electronic warfare technology and equipment, such as anti-satellite laser weapons, high-energy particle beam weapons, and meteor communication, neutrino communication and so on.

Computer virus weapon <a In the military information system, the battlefield information acquisition, transmission, processing and other functions need to complete the computer and network, computer network is the basis and pioneer of information warfare. The use of software-driven sniffers and hardware magnetic sniffers and other sniffing network is an important way to attack the network. These sniffing tools were originally a test device used to diagnose and assist in repairing the network, so it was a powerful tool for network management personnel to manage the network, but it was a terrible computer virus weapon in information warfare. It can make the network “service denied”, “information tampering”, information “halfway steal” and so on. In addition, will also focus on design “portal trap”. “Portal trap”, also known as “back door”, is a computer system designer in the system in advance of a structure, in the application appears or operating system, the programmer to insert some debugging agencies. System programmers in order to achieve the purpose of the attack system, deliberately left a small number of portal traps for familiar with the system staff to go beyond the normal system protection and sneak into the system. Network is an important infrastructure for information warfare, network-based warfare is mainly based on the network and the network is reliable to determine the outcome of the war. Therefore, to strengthen the network of offensive and defensive combat research, to win the future of information war is essential.   Electromagnetic pulse bombs

Iraq war, the US military used a lot of electronic warfare equipment, and the use of electromagnetic pulse bombs attacked the Iraqi radio and television system and the Iraqi military various types of electronic radiation source. Electromagnetic pulse bomb, also known as microwave pulse bomb, is through the micro-beam into electromagnetic energy, damage to each other’s electronic facilities and personnel of a new directional energy weapons. Its working principle is: high-power microwave through the antenna gathered into a very narrow, very strong electromagnetic waves fired at each other, relying on this beam of electromagnetic waves generated by high temperature, ionization, radiation and other integrated effects in the target internal electronic circuit to produce fatal voltage And the current, breakdown or burn the sensitive components, damage to the computer stored in the data, so that the other side of the weapons and command system paralyzed, loss of combat effectiveness. According to the test, a briefcase size of the microwave bomb, can produce power of 300 million watts of pulse waves. Will be more than one connection, it can become an adjustable radiation source, resulting in more than 2 billion watts of pulse waves. This pulse wave is somewhat similar to the nuclear pulse generated when the nuclear explosion can easily from the power and communication pipes into the underground bunker, which rely on radio, radar, computers, power grids and telephone modern weapons systems, chemical and biological arsenal and its production The shop was paralyzed in an instant.

GPS interference device <a I = 13> Iraq war, the Iraqi military use of GPS interferometer on the Tomahawk cruise missiles for effective interference, which is the first time in combat in the GPS guidance system interference. GPS signal is very weak, very easy to interfere. A Russian company offers a 4-watt power handheld GPS jammers that can be bought for less than $ 4,000. If you buy parts from a retail e-store, spend $ 400 to create a GPS jammer with a radius of 16 km or more. Before the war in Iraq, the United States had expected the Iraqi side to interfere with GPS signals. The United States has already been equipped with anti-jamming technology for its GPS bombs and missiles so that these GPS-guided weapons can continue to use GPS signals in the event of interference; even if the GPS signal is lost, these weapons can also use their own other guidance system Such as inertial navigation, laser guidance, etc., so that they reach the target. Nevertheless, the early Iraq war, the US military more than a dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles or because of interference from the scheduled route, falling in Turkey, Syria and Iran. Small GPS jitter problem alerted the US government, Powell personally come forward to investigate the source of Iraqi GPS jammers, Russia and other countries imposed no small pressure.

Gulf War, GPS navigator as a trial for the first time issued to the use of desert combat personnel, the effect is obvious. At that time, including cruise missiles, including all the weapons are not using GPS navigation device. During the war in Iraq, we saw almost all of the combat platforms, and every soldier, almost all of the missiles and bombs used this kind of navigation device, so that the tanks, planes, ships were more mobile so that the missiles and bombs were The probability error is reduced to 1-3 m, within a maximum of 10 m. <A I = 15> everything has a disadvantage. GPS navigation defects and information technology weapons and equipment of the drawbacks is the same, that is, electronic interference. From the perspective of the development of weapons and equipment, the purchase of a cruise missile needs more than 100 million dollars, and manufacturing a GPS jammers only a few hundred dollars, as a strategic defense side, if a large number of development and development of GPS jammers, not only for US missiles And bombs are a threat to their tanks, planes, ships and personnel navigation and positioning will also have a huge impact. Of course, you should also see the US military fight, further, after the end of the war in Iraq will be based on the lessons of the war to improve the GPS system. Is expected to be improved in three areas: First, GPS satellites, mainly to enhance the satellite launch signal, and as much as possible to launch GPS satellites; Second, improve the guidance system, mainly to increase the composite guidance device, after the GPS guidance is disturbed, Automatic recovery or transfer to inertia and other navigation methods to ensure the normal operation of the platform and weapons; Third, GPS anti-interference, mainly to improve the GPS receiver anti-jamming capability, the development of new GPS receiver, Machine and jamming machine for electronic suppression and interference.

 

Original Mandarin Chinese:

信息戰是C4ISR系統與C4ISR系統的對抗,是信息優勢的爭奪,主要目的是確保己方信息系統正常運行,免遭敵方利用、癱瘓和破壞﹔同時,設法利用、癱瘓和破壞敵人的信息系統,使之處於癱瘓、迷茫狀態。信息戰包括戰略信息戰和戰場信息戰兩大部分。

戰略信息戰和戰場信息戰

戰略信息戰主要特征是范圍廣泛,涉及國家政治、經濟、科技、軍事等各個要害部門和特殊領域﹔方式特殊,涉及心理戰、輿論戰、欺騙戰、媒體戰等特殊手段﹔目標特殊,主要是通過誘騙戰、心理戰、信息威懾等攻擊敵人的認識體系和思維體系﹔危害巨大,能使整個國家的經濟、政治或軍事陷入癱瘓,甚至能使其發生政權交替﹔人員特殊,參戰人員不一定軍人,計算機專家、國際犯罪集團、別有用心的黑客或恐怖組織等都可能成為參戰人員。

戰場信息戰是發生在戰斗空間內的信息戰,是指為准備和進行一場戰役,綜合運用信息技術手段和各種信息化武器、信息化作戰平台和C4ISR系統,在偵察探測及預警、信息處理與傳遞、武器控制和制導、作戰指揮與控制、偽裝欺騙與干擾以及軍事謀略等方面展開的全面對抗和斗爭。戰場信息戰是通過干擾或打亂敵方決策程序,使敵方無法有效採取協調一致的行動。因此,要先影響敵人決策,然后再影響其行動,即先贏得空中電磁優勢,再取得空中優勢,最后使用常規部隊採取作戰行動。奪取了制信息權,就奪取了戰斗空間的主動權,而且為爭奪制陸權、制空權、制海權和制天權奠定一個良好基礎和必要條件。

戰場信息戰的基本作戰力量和手段是數字化部隊及信息化武器裝備,主要內容包括作戰保密、軍事欺騙、電子戰、心理戰和火力摧毀,核心目的是爭奪戰斗空間的信息獲取權、控制權和使用權。戰場信息戰是信息體系的對抗,它直接影響到整個戰斗空間、整場戰爭的進程和成敗。戰場信息戰的主要作戰樣式是電子戰和網絡戰。電子戰是戰場信息戰的一個重要組成部分,主要是針對敵人通信、雷達等電磁輻射源進行的誘騙、干擾、破壞和摧毀活動。海灣戰爭中,電子戰不僅首次大規模使用,而且正式作為戰爭中的一個戰役階段和特定戰役行動。科索沃戰爭中,北約使用了大量電子戰裝備,並首次使用了電磁脈沖炸彈並首次進行了網絡戰。網絡戰是在計算機網絡空間,利用因特網進行的一種網絡對抗活動,並在科索沃戰爭中首次使用。北約網絡戰的措施包括:網絡宣傳﹔黑客攻擊﹔襲擊金融網絡等。南聯盟網絡戰的主要特征是人民戰爭模式,網迷、電腦迷和計算機愛好者自發地進行了大量網絡作戰行動,如開展網上宣傳、攻擊北約網站、利用網絡傳遞情報等。

戰爭中的信息戰裝備

電子戰裝備

電子戰裝備的發展趨勢日趨一體化和通用化,信息化條件下的局部戰爭中,戰場上的電磁環境日益復雜,以往那種彼此分立、功能單一的電子戰裝備已遠遠不能適應作戰需要了。一體化和通用化已成為當前電子戰裝備發展的重點和未來電子戰裝備總的發展方向。為了更有效地對付信息化戰爭中復雜多變的電磁威脅,未來新一代的電子對抗裝備,將廣泛採用先進的計算機技術,大幅度提高整個系統的自動化程度,以具備更好的實時能力、自適應能力和全功率管理能力。電子戰裝備的工作頻段不斷拓寬,發射功率不斷增大,毫米波技術和光電技術的發展,使現代電子戰裝備的工作頻率不斷向更寬的頻段發展。從整體上看,未來電子戰裝備的工作范圍必將擴展到整個電磁波頻譜。GPS干擾與反干擾將受到關注,戰爭實踐已經表明,如果失去GPS的支持,就會極大地削弱信息優勢,使指揮、控制、偵察、打擊、部隊機動等各個軍事環節都面臨嚴峻考驗,嚴重降低戰斗力。重點發展反輻射和新型電子戰干擾機,重視發展新型、特殊的電子戰技術裝備,如用於反衛星的激光武器、高能粒子束武器,以及流星余跡通信、中微子通信等等。

計算機病毒武器

在軍事信息系統中,戰場信息的獲取、傳遞、處理等功能需要計算機及網絡來完成,計算機網絡是進行信息戰的基礎和先鋒。利用軟件驅動嗅探器和硬件磁感應嗅探器等對網絡進行嗅探是進攻網絡的重要方法。這些嗅探工具原本是一種測試設備,用來診斷和協助修理網絡,因此它是網管人員管理網絡的一種得力工具,但在信息戰中卻是一種可怕的計算機病毒武器。它能使網絡“服務否認”、“信息篡改”、信息“中途竊取”等。另外,也將重視設計“門戶陷阱”。“門戶陷阱”又稱“后門”,是計算機系統設計者預先在系統中構造的一種機構,在應用出現或操作系統期間,程序員插入一些調試機構。系統程序員為了達到攻擊系統的目的,特意留下少數門戶陷阱,供熟悉系統的人員用以超越對方正常的系統保護而潛入系統。網絡是信息化戰爭的重要基礎設施,網絡中心戰主要是基於網絡而進行的,網絡是否可靠決定戰爭的勝負。因此,加強網絡攻防作戰的研究,對於贏得未來信息化戰爭至關重要。

電磁脈沖炸彈

伊拉克戰爭中,美軍使用了大量電子戰裝備,並使用電磁脈沖炸彈襲擊了伊拉克廣播電視系統及伊軍各類電子輻射源。電磁脈沖炸彈也稱微波脈沖炸彈,是通過把微波束轉化為電磁能,毀傷對方電子設施和人員的一種新型定向能武器。其工作原理是:高功率微波經過天線聚集成一束很窄、很強的電磁波射向對方,依靠這束電磁波產生的高溫、電離、輻射等綜合效應,在目標內部的電子線路中產生致命的電壓和電流,擊穿或燒毀其中的敏感元器件,毀損電腦中存貯的數據,從而使對方的武器和指揮系統陷於癱瘓,喪失戰斗力。據測試,一枚公文包大小的微波炸彈,可產生功率達3億瓦的脈沖波。將其多個聯接后,則能成為可調整的輻射源,產生20億瓦以上的脈沖波。這種脈沖波有點類似核爆炸時產生的電磁脈沖,可以輕易地從電力和通訊管道進入地下掩體,使其中依賴無線電、雷達、計算機、電網和電話等的現代化武器系統、生化武器庫及其生產車間在瞬間癱瘓。

GPS干擾設備

伊拉克戰爭中,伊軍利用GPS干擾儀對戰斧巡航導彈進行了有效的干擾,這是第一次在實戰中對GPS制導系統進行干擾。GPS信號很弱,很易於干擾。一家俄羅斯公司提供的一種4瓦功率的手持GPS干擾機,不到4000美元就能買到。如果從零售電子商店購買部件組裝,花400美元就可以制造一個干擾半徑16公裡以上的GPS干擾機。伊拉克戰爭開戰之前,美國就已經預料到伊拉克方面會干擾GPS信號。美國其實早已經給其GPS炸彈和導彈裝載了抗干擾技術,使這些GPS導引的武器能夠在干擾的情況下繼續使用GPS信號﹔即使GPS信號丟失,這些武器還可以使用自身的其他導引系統如慣性導航、激光制導等,使自己到達目標。盡管如此,伊拉克戰爭初期,美軍十幾枚戰斧式巡航導彈還是因受干擾偏離預定航線,落在土耳其、敘利亞和伊朗境內。小小的GPS干擾機問題驚動了美國朝野,鮑威爾親自出面調查伊拉克GPS干擾機的來源,對俄羅斯等國施加了不小的壓力。

海灣戰爭中,GPS導航儀作為試用品首次發放給沙漠作戰人員使用,效果明顯。當時,包括巡航導彈在內的所有武器都沒有採用GPS導航裝置。伊拉克戰爭中,我們看到幾乎所有的作戰平台,每一個單兵,幾乎全部的導彈和炸彈都採用了這種導航裝置,從而使坦克、飛機、艦艇的機動更加精確,使導彈和炸彈的原概率誤差縮小到1—3米,最大10米范圍之內。

凡事有一利必有一弊。GPS導航的弊端與信息化武器裝備的弊端是一樣的,就是電子干擾問題。從武器裝備發展角度來看,購買一枚巡航導彈需要100多萬美元,而制造一部GPS干擾機才幾百美元,作為戰略防御一方,如果能夠大量發展和研制GPS干擾機,不僅對於美軍導彈和炸彈是一種威脅,對其坦克、飛機、艦艇和人員的導航定位也將產生巨大影響。當然,也應看到美軍打一仗、進一步,伊拉克戰爭結束后必將根據戰爭中的教訓,改進GPS系統。預計將在三個方面進行改進:一是GPS衛星,主要是增強衛星發射信號,並盡可能多的發射GPS衛星﹔二是改進制導系統,主要是增加復合制導裝置,在GPS指導受到干擾之后,自動恢復或轉入慣性等其他導航方式,以保証平台和武器的正常運行﹔三是GPS反干擾,主要是提高GPS接收機抗干擾能力,研制新型GPS接收機,在戰區對地方軍民用GPS接收機和干擾機進行電子壓制和干擾等。

China Military Interpretation of information warfare, cyber warfare, cyber – centric warfare 中國軍隊解读信息战、网络战、网络中心战

中國軍隊解读信息战、网络战、网络中心战

China Military Interpretation of information warfare, cyber warfare, cyber – centric warfare

With the rapid development of information technology and its extensive application in the military field, some new operational concepts and operational styles came into being. Such as information warfare, cyber warfare, cyber-centric warfare, in recent days local war has demonstrated a powerful power, has become the topic of the current officers and men to explore. Then this new “war” in the end what is the difference and contact? How do you understand it? I have the following views.

The so-called information warfare, refers to the hostile parties in the field of information struggle and confrontation activities. Specifically, it is based on the digital forces as the basic strength to compete, control and use of information as the main content of a variety of information weapons and equipment as the main means of confrontation and struggle, with a transparent battlefield, real-time action, The overall coordination and the higher degree of intelligence. From the point of view of combat, information warfare is to control the “energy flow” and “material flow” with “information flow”, gain the advantage of decision-making and the advantage of action, and then end confrontation or reduce confrontation and realize ” Soldiers “. From the content and form of combat, information warfare is different from information warfare and information warfare. Information operations are specific actions of information warfare, can be divided into electronic warfare, intelligence warfare and network warfare. The information war is relative to the mechanized war, refers to a form of war. Information warfare is the main battlefield and core of information war.

The so-called network warfare refers to the information and network environment which the enemy and the enemy can use for the war, and surrounds the “system of information right” to compete, through the computer network to ensure that their own information and network system security at the same time, disrupt, destroy and threaten each other’s information and Network Systems. In essence, cyber warfare is a special form of information warfare, a kind of combat action carried out in cyberspace. Compared with the traditional war, the network war has a sudden, hidden, asymmetric and low cost, strong participation and so on. Network-centric warfare, whose English name is “NetworkCentricWarfare”, is a new concept of warfare relative to the traditional platform-centric warfare. The so-called platform center warfare, refers to the platform mainly rely on their own detectors and weapons to combat, its main feature is the platform between the information sharing is very limited. The network center war is through the network of the combat unit, the information advantage into the combat action advantage, so that the scattered configuration of the common sense of the battlefield situation, so as to coordinate their own actions to play the largest overall combat effectiveness of the combat style, it So that the focus of combat from the past platform to the network. It goes without saying that cyber-centric warfare can help combat forces create and exploit information superiority and dramatically improve combat effectiveness. It has the battlefield situation full-dimensional perception ability, the combat power integration, the combat action real-time, the army coordination synchronism and so on the characteristic.

In short, information warfare is the core of information war. Network warfare is a special form of information warfare, belonging to the category of information warfare. Network-centric warfare is the product of the transition from mechanized war form to informational warfare because the development of the network is the regeneration of the operational form of the mechanized forces of the industrial age. Therefore, whether it is information warfare or network warfare and network-centric warfare, are inseparable from the rapid development of information technology, but also inseparable from the application and popularization of network technology.

中國軍隊解读信息战、网络战、网络中心战

隨著信息技術的迅速發展及其在軍事領域的廣泛應用,一些新的作戰理念和作戰樣式應運而生。如信息戰、網絡戰、網絡中心戰,在近幾場局部戰爭已彰顯出強大威力,也成為當前官兵廣為探討的話題。那麼這新的“戰”到底有何區別和聯繫?怎樣理解把握才對呢?筆者有如下看法。
所謂信息戰,是指敵對雙方在信息領域的鬥爭和對抗活動。具體說來,是以數字化部隊為基本力量,以爭奪、控制和使用信息為主要內容,以各種信息武器和裝備為主要手段而進行的對抗和鬥爭,具有戰場透明、行動實時、打擊精確、整體協調和智能化程度高等特徵。從作戰目的上看,信息戰是以“信息流”控制“能量流”和“物質流”,以信息優勢獲得決策優勢和行動優勢,進而結束對抗或減少對抗,實現“不戰而屈人之兵”。從作戰內容與形式來看,信息戰不同於信息作戰和信息化戰爭。信息作戰是信息戰的具體行動,可分為電子戰、情報戰和網絡戰等。而信息化戰爭是相對於機械化戰爭而言,指一種戰爭形態。信息戰是信息化戰爭的主戰場和核心。
所謂網絡戰,是指敵對雙方針對戰爭可利用的信息和網絡環境,圍繞“制信息權”的爭奪,通過計算機網絡在保證己方信息和網絡系統安全的同時,擾亂、破壞與威脅對方的信息和網絡系統。從本質上講,網絡戰是信息戰的一種特殊形式,是在網絡空間上進行的一種作戰行動。與傳統戰爭相比,網絡戰具有突然性、隱蔽性、不對稱性和代價低、參與性強等特點。網絡中心戰,其英文名稱為“ NetworkCentricWarfare”,是相對於傳統的平台中心戰而提出的一種新作戰概念。所謂平台中心戰,是指各平台主要依靠自身探測器和武器進行作戰,其主要特點是平台之間的信息共享非常有限。而網絡中心戰是通過各作戰單元的網絡化,把信息優勢變為作戰行動優勢,使各分散配置的部隊共同感知戰場態勢,從而自主地協調行動,發揮出最大整體作戰效能的作戰樣式,它使作戰重心由過去的平台轉向網絡。不言而喻,網絡中心戰能夠幫助作戰部隊創造和利用信息優勢並大幅度提高戰鬥力。它具有戰場態勢全維感知能力,作戰力量一體化,作戰行動實時性,部隊協調同步性等特點。
總之,信息戰是信息化戰爭的核心。網絡戰是信息戰的特殊形式,屬於信息戰範疇。網絡中心戰是機械化戰爭形態向信息化戰爭形態過渡的產物,是因為網絡的發展為工業時代機械化部隊注入活力而帶來作戰形態的更新。因此,無論是信息戰還是網絡戰和網絡中心戰,都離不開信息技術的迅速發展,也離不開網絡技術的應用與普及。
《中國國防報》

Using Psychological Warfare in Information War China’s Military Advantage ~ 信息戰爭中使用心理戰爭中國的軍事優勢

信息戰爭中使用心理戰爭中國的軍事優勢

Using Psychological Warfare in Information War China’s Military Advantage

Since the eighties of the 20th century, with the development of science and technology and the evolution of war forms, so that the psychological war plug in the high-tech wings. In the information war, the psychological warfare fully demonstrated a series of distinctive features, its status, domain objects and methods of means have undergone major changes, the impact of the war far more than any period in history.

Status is strategic

Psychological warfare has been incorporated into the national strategic areas, to achieve the national strategic objectives of the important form of struggle. At the end of the twentieth century, the drastic changes in Eastern Europe and the disintegration of the Soviet Union showed the success of the “peaceful evolution” strategy pursued by the Western capitalist countries headed by the United States. “Peaceful evolution” can be said to be synonymous with “psychological warfare.” Its success has made it more strongly aware that psychological warfare is no longer an adjunct to military struggle, but an important battlefield of strategic importance in international struggle The In view of this, the world in the strategic thinking, all the psychological warfare into the overall strategic structure. In the information war, the psychological war has become the country’s strategic behavior and basic tactics, not only troops and horses did not move, heart war first, and psychological attack and psychological defense throughout the whole, as all-round, all time and space, Level of strategic action, so that the psychological battle to become an important factor leading the war situation.

Psychological warfare of the macro-level has risen to the highest strategic decision-making level of the state and the army, and the psychological attack of the primary target directly to each other’s top strategic decision-makers. After the September 11 incident, under the instigation of the National Security Council, Bush decided to make a public opinion in the international community, the Iraqi as “evil axis”, for its military strike for political pave the way. In this overall decision-making traction, the United States Department of Psychology and Strategy and the control of the “Voice of America”, newspapers, publications, film, television, the International Exchange Department, are their responsibilities, from the strategic psychological war straight Refers to the Saddam regime, with a view to leading international public opinion, for the military action to create a suitable environment.

Psychological warfare has become an important factor in leading the war situation, the outcome of the war has a pivotal role. The most representative of the recent information war mainly four: 1991 Gulf War, the 1999 war in Kosovo, the 2001-2002 war in Afghanistan and the 2003 war in Iraq. The four wars are exactly the same in the strategic use of the psychological warfare. The United States is an important part of the military’s high-intensity psychological warfare as an indispensable part of the military strategy. The intensity, scope and time of the military strike are as limited as possible within the limits of politics, and even every military action Not only to consider the military value, but also to consider the political and psychological values, every stage of the war, to assess the psychological effects of the enemy, and then decide the next stage of military strike to achieve the military goals and political and psychological goals coincide. These four wars, not only to show people the psychological war is “war before the war, after the war of war”, but also to fully demonstrate the great power of psychological warfare and to play a major role in the war.

The field is broad

The psychological warfare in the information war has transcended the boundaries of military struggle and has become a well-planned and comprehensive strategic action in various fields such as politics, economy, military affairs, diplomacy, culture and religion.

Looking at the information war in recent years, we can clearly see that the United States is not political, economic, diplomatic, military, cultural and religious and other areas of the psychological war as a whole, so that the psychological battle became a veritable “psychological encirclement and suppression ”

The object of the war of information warfare has also completely broken through the scope of the traditional warfare against the military. “The whole purpose of mental warfare is to encourage emotions in foreign groups and people to influence their attitudes or behavior in order to support the goals of the United States.” That is to say, the psychological warfare of information war Object range, has been extended to both the enemy combat forces, but also against the enemy of the people, and even the psychological warfare to the war with the object of friendly countries and regions, pointing to neutral countries and neighboring countries and neighboring countries and the entire international community. Information war in the psychological war also bear the education of their own military and civilian, to maintain the heart to the same and psychological stability of the task.

Methods show diversity

From the Gulf War, the Kosovo War, the war in Afghanistan to the war in Iraq, the United States not only attached great importance to “heart war” and “war” closely, but also in the psychological warfare will be used in a variety of ways to complement each other, complement each other , Thus greatly enhancing the effectiveness of psychological warfare. 9.11 after the incident, the United States to fight the psychological war, for the war on terror to lay the foundation of public opinion. The United States on the day of making a decision to send troops in Afghanistan, the State Council set up a “propaganda group”, the use of domestic major media, repeated rendering of the United States in the “9.11” loss, widely for the people to form a terrorist The On the eve of the military strike, the US Department of State has set up a “public relations team”, responsible for the full implementation of national propaganda strategy. After the war began, for the support of international public opinion, the United States in Washington, London and Islamabad established three “wartime press room”, the timely release of the so-called “real and reliable” battlefield information, and the Taliban propaganda to compete. The US Department of Defense has also set up a “strategic information office”, specifically concocted false information, through a variety of ways to pass abroad. In the implementation of military strikes, strengthen the deterrence of the enemy. First to deploy troops to push to change. In a short period of 20 days, within 500 km of Afghanistan, the assembly of five aircraft carrier formation, 18 million combat troops, 550 combat aircraft, from the air, the ground basically blocked the whole territory of Afghanistan, its intention is to Strong military pressure to force the Taliban unconditionally to meet the demands of the United States. Then, continuous blow to fried change. The US military every day out of hundreds of fighters on the Taliban strategy and tactical goals for continuous bombing. In the air raid, the US military intends to use a variety of powerful psychological deterrent effect of new weapons, such as AC-130 laser attack aircraft, this aircraft carrying a new laser weapons, it can be said that the light flash, that is, ashes, The Afghan army is called “the light of death”. US Department of Defense officials have made no secret that the main intention is not to completely eliminate the Taliban military forces, but to strive to defeat its morale, weaken its psychological affordability, triggering “internal chaos and fission.”

Means to show high technology

High-tech makes the psychological warfare endless. In the recent wars, the United States has made use of satellite positioning and direction finding, television broadcasting technology, computer information processing technology, network technology, signal simulation and distortion technology, audio and video technology and other high-tech means to improve the psychological warfare comprehensive combat effect The According to incomplete statistics, in the Iraq war, the United States used military and civilian satellites up to 160, compared with the Gulf War increased by 23. The US news media is through these communications satellites to the domestic and the world launched a large number of favorable to the enemy is not conducive to the enemy’s war information and images. Now, people can use computer graphics synthesis technology, easy to create such as “a country army in the enemy capital square lined up”, “a country leader and the enemy leaders secret talks, shake hands” and other fictional photos or television pictures, to Suddenly these “information bomb” fired at each other’s military and civilian, to destroy the other side of the military and civilian defense line. People can use the audio and video technology to simulate the voice of the head of the enemy and battlefield commander, issued a wrong command of the war, so that the enemy decision-making mistakes, command into chaos, and can use these high-tech means to adjust their military and civilian psychology, inspire morale. In 1993, the United States in the Somali Marine Corps in the implementation of peacekeeping missions, suffered some setbacks. Once, the wind, the dust storm suddenly, the troops suddenly chaos up. At this critical moment, the American Army forces suddenly appeared on a head of up to 150 meters of Jesus image, the US soldiers saw after kneeling, and some frightened, and some burst into tears, that God is really with them, they Somali warfare is “the will of God” and is “fighting for God”. Later, this image exists for a full five minutes to disperse. It is said that this is the United States psychological warfare forces with laser holographic imaging system projection to the air image, to improve the morale of the troops. The United States also attaches great importance to the use of network technology, network infiltration, information and psychological attacks. Network transmission speed, in a very short period of time, heart war information up to front-line officers and men, up to the warrior family, can affect the highest decision-making body, under the ordinary people, its influence is self-evident. In the Iraq war, the United States even organized “hackers” experts to crack the Iraqi military high-level characters e-mail password, send a large number of e-mail, but also directly call the Iraqi high-level mobile phone, the implementation of psychological deterrence and inducement. There is a recent report that the US military engaged in a “666” computer virus, the virus into the computer, you can make the screen repeated an image, people repeatedly see this image, will produce some inexplicable potential awareness, leading to nerve Disorder, hallucinations and even death.

Power show professional

In contemporary times, the developed countries in the world not only attach great importance to the use of psychological warfare, but also pay special attention to strengthening the psychological warfare from all levels.

First, the establishment of a scientific and effective organization and leadership institutions. Now, many countries in order to effectively carry out psychological defense and external implementation of psychological operations, have established a corresponding psychological warfare organizational system. The United States is the most complete system of psychological warfare, the commander of the body by the President of the psychological warfare counsel, chief of staff of the joint meeting of the psychological warfare, the Ministry of Defense of the General Office of the Department of psychological operations; middle institutions by the Joint Command and the theater headquarters of the psychological war department; The lower body consists of psychological war camps and psychological warfare groups. The state and the armed forces have unified their organization and coordinated mental warfare work from top to bottom, serving not only for military struggle but also for international and domestic political struggle.

Second, the establishment of psychological warfare research and think tank institutions. The United States and some Western countries and military personnel attach great importance to the study of psychological warfare, and the establishment of research institutions, specializing in psychological warfare theory and technology research. But also pay attention to play the role of civil “think tank”, the use of universities, research institutions and a variety of senior specialized personnel for the psychological warfare service.

Third, the establishment of professional psychological warfare forces and training of psychological warfare professionals. The US military has a large number of psychological warfare troops, allocated in the land and sea and air forces, including the army has four psychological battle groups, 12 psychological war camps, 22 psychological warfare, the Navy has a psychological warfare brigade, the Air Force has a special operations The wing is used to support the psychological warfare. At the same time, also set up a special psychological warfare institutions or professional, training professional psychological warfare talent. In the war in Afghanistan, the US military to the two most combat capability of the psychological warfare force – Air Force 193 Special Combat Wing and the Army 4th psychological war brigade, deployed in Uzbekistan and Pakistan, the use of various means to start the Taliban The battlefield psychological attack, such as flight radio, cast leaflets, block the Taliban news channel. Iraq war, the US military used almost all of the current psychological warfare forces, but also mobilized and organized a folk psychological strength. The Air Force Psychological Warfare Force is equipped with EC-130E psychological warfare aircraft, from time, space, audio-visual, electromagnetic and other dimensions of the release of psychological warfare information; the Army psychological warfare forces are mostly proficient in Arabic, by telephone, e-mail, And so on to lobby the Iranian specific figures, but also with the Iraqi people and soldiers in general face to face dialogue and exchange.

Original Mandarin Chinese:

20世紀八十年代以來,隨著科學技術的發展和戰爭形態的演變,使心理戰插上了高技術的翅膀。在信息化戰爭中心理戰充分展示出一系列鮮明的特點,其地位作用、領域對象和方法手段等都發生了重大變化,對戰爭的影響遠超過歷史上任何一個時期。
地位顯現戰略性
心理戰已被納入國家戰略範疇,成為實現國家戰略目標的重要鬥爭形式。 20世紀末期,東歐劇變和蘇聯解體,顯現了以美國為首的西方資本主義國家推行的“和平演變”戰略取得成功。 “和平演變”可以說是“心理戰”的代名詞,它的成功,使人們更加強烈地認識到,心理戰已不再是軍事鬥爭的輔助性手段,而是國際鬥爭上具有戰略意義的重要戰場。有鑑於此,世界各國在戰略思維中,無不把心理戰納入整體戰略結構之中。在信息化戰爭中,心理戰已成為國家的戰略行為和基本戰法,不僅兵馬未動,心戰先行,而且把心理進攻和心理防禦貫穿全程,作為全方位、全時空、多領域、多層次的戰略行動,使心理戰成為主導戰局走向的重要因素。
心理戰的宏觀策動層次已上升為國家和軍隊的最高戰略決策層,並將心理戰的首要攻擊目標直接指向對方的最高戰略決策者。 9·11事件之後,布什在國家安全委員會的策動下,決定在國際進行輿論布勢,將伊拉克列為“邪惡軸心”,為其進行軍事打擊作政治鋪墊。在這一總的決策牽引下,美國務院心理戰略局和控制“美國之音”、報紙、出版物、電影、電視的國際交流署,都各司其責,從戰略上將心理戰的鋒芒直指薩達姆政權,以期主導國際輿論,為軍事行動營造適宜的環境。
心理戰已成為主導戰局走向的重要因素,對戰爭結局具有舉足輕重的作用。近期最具代表性的信息化戰爭主要有四場:1991年的海灣戰爭、1999年的科索沃戰爭、2001—2002年的阿富汗戰爭和2003年的伊拉克戰爭。這四場戰爭在心理戰的戰略運用上如出一轍。美國都是把對敵的高強度心理戰作為軍事戰略中不可或缺的重要組成部分,將軍事打擊的力度、範圍、時間等盡可能限制在政治允許的範圍之內,甚至每個軍事行動都不僅要考慮軍事價值,而且要考慮政治心理價值,戰爭每進行一階段,都要評估對敵所取得的心理效果,爾後再決定下一階段軍事打擊力度,以實現軍事目標與政治心理目標的高度重合。這四場戰爭,不僅向人們充分展示了心理戰是“戰爭之前的戰爭,戰爭之後的戰爭”,而且更是向人們充分展示了心理戰的巨大威力和為贏得戰爭所發揮的重大作用。
領域顯現廣闊性
信息化戰爭中的心理戰,已逾越了軍事鬥爭的界限,成為一種精心策劃的,在政治、經濟、軍事、外交、文化、宗教等各個領域進行的全方位戰略行動。
縱覽近些年的幾場信息化戰爭,可以清楚地看到,美國無不融政治、經濟、外交、軍事、文化和宗教等各個領域的心理戰為一體,使心理戰成了名副其實的“心理圍剿”。
信息化戰爭中心理戰的對像也已完全突破了主要是針對軍人的傳統戰爭範圍。美國《心理作戰條令》提出:“心理作戰的全部目的在於,在國外團體和民眾中鼓動情緒,影響其態度或行為,以此支援美國的目標。”這就是說,信息化戰爭中心理戰的對象範圍,已擴大到既針對敵國作戰部隊,也針對敵國的民眾,甚至將心理戰指向與作戰對象友好的國家和地區,指向中立國和與敵國相鄰的周邊國家及整個國際社會。信息化戰爭中的心理戰還擔負著教育本國軍民,使其保持心向一致和心理穩定的任務。
方法顯現多樣性


從海灣戰爭、科索沃戰爭、阿富汗戰爭到伊拉克戰爭,美國不僅高度重視“心戰”與“兵戰”的緊密結合,而且在心理戰中還將各種方法綜合運用,使之互為補充,相得益彰,從而大大地增強了心理戰的功效。 9·11事件以後,美國大打宣傳心理戰,為反恐戰爭奠定輿論基礎。美國在做出對阿富汗出兵決策的當天,國務院即成立“宣傳小組”,利用國內各主要媒體,反复渲染美國在“9·11”中的損失,廣泛爭取民心,以形成對恐怖主義的輿論圍剿。軍事打擊前夕,美國務院又成立了“公關小組”,負責全面執行國家宣傳戰略。戰爭開始後,為爭取國際輿論的支持,美國在華盛頓、倫敦和伊斯蘭堡建立了三個“戰時新聞發布室”,及時發布所謂“真實可靠的”戰場信息,與塔利班的宣傳相抗衡。美國防部還成立了“戰略新聞辦公室”,專門砲制虛假信息,通過各種途徑向國外傳遞。在實施軍事打擊中,強化對敵心理威懾。先是調兵遣將,以壓促變。在短短的20天內,在阿富汗周邊500公里的範圍內,集結了5個航母編隊、18萬軍作戰部隊、550架作戰飛機,從空中、地面基本封鎖了阿富汗全境,其意圖是,以強大的軍事壓力威逼塔利班無條件滿足美國的要求。接著,連續打擊,以炸促變。美軍每天均出動上百架戰機對塔利班戰略與戰術目標進行連續轟炸。在空襲中,美國軍有意使用多種具有強大心理震懾作用的新式武器,如AC—130激光攻擊機,這種飛機載有新型激光武器,可以說是光閃之處,即化為灰燼,被阿富汗軍隊稱為“死亡之光”。美國防部官員曾毫不掩飾地說,主要意圖不在於完全消滅塔利班軍事力量,而是力求打垮其士氣,削弱其心理承受能力,引發“內部混亂與裂變”。
手段顯現高技術性
高新技術使心理戰手段層出不窮。在近期的幾場戰爭中,美國均利用了衛星定位測向、電視轉播技術、計算機信息處理技術、網絡技術、信號模擬和失真技術、聲像技術等高新技術手段,努力提高心理戰綜合作戰效果。據不完全統計,在伊拉克戰爭中,美國使用的軍用和民用衛星達160顆,比海灣戰爭時增加了23顆。美國的新聞媒體就是通過這些通信衛星向國內和世界發播了大量有利於己、不利於敵的戰爭信息和圖像。現在,人們可以利用計算機圖像合成技術,輕鬆地製造出諸如“某國軍隊在敵國首都廣場上列隊前進”、“某國領導人與敵國首腦秘密會談,握手言和”等虛構的照片或電視畫面,到時突然將這些“信息炸彈”射向對方軍民,以摧毀對方軍民的心理防線。人們可以利用聲像技術模擬敵方國家元首和戰場指揮員的聲音,下達錯誤的作戰命令,使敵方決策失誤、指揮陷入混亂,並可以利用這些高技術手段調節本國軍民心理,鼓舞己方士氣。 1993年,美國駐索馬里海軍陸戰隊在執行維和任務中,受到一些挫折。一次,狂風大作,沙塵暴驟起,部隊一下子混亂起來。在這個關鍵時刻,美軍部隊頭頂上突然出現了一個高達150米的耶穌圖像,美軍士兵見到後紛紛跪下,有的大驚失色,有的痛哭流涕,認為上帝確實與他們同在,他們來索馬里作戰更是“上帝的旨意”,是“為上帝而戰”。後來這個圖像存在了足足五分鐘才散去。有資料說,這是美國心理戰部隊用激光全息成像系統投影到空中的圖像,用以提高部隊的士氣。美國還十分重視利用網絡技術,進行網絡滲透、信息恐怖和心理攻擊。網絡傳播速度快,在極短的時間內,心戰信息前可達前線官兵,後可達參戰者家庭,上可影響最高決策機構,下可及普通民眾,其影響力不言而喻。伊拉克戰爭中,美國甚至組織“黑客”專家,破解伊軍方高層人物的電子郵箱密碼,發送大量電子郵件,還直接撥打伊拉克高層人物的手機,實施心理威懾和誘降。近期有一則報導,稱美軍搞了一個“666”計算機病毒,這種病毒進入電腦後,可以使屏幕反復出現一種圖像,人們反复看到這一圖像,會產生一些莫名其妙的潛在意識,導致神經錯亂、幻覺甚至死亡。
力量顯現專業性
在當代,世界各發達國家不但高度重視心理戰的運用,而且特別重視從各個層面加強心理戰的力量建設。
一是建立科學有效的組織領導機構。現在,許多國家為了有效地進行心理防禦和對外實施心理作戰,都建立了相應的心理戰組織系統。美國的心理戰體系最為完備,其統帥機構由總統心理戰顧問、參謀長聯席會議心理戰處、國防部辦公廳心理作戰部組成;中層機構由聯合司令部和戰區司令部的心理戰部門組成;下層機構由心理戰營連和心理戰小組組成。國家和軍隊自上而下統一組織和協調心理戰工作,不僅為軍事鬥爭服務,而且為國際國內政治鬥爭服務。
二是建立心理戰的科研和智囊機構。美國和一些西方國家及軍人都非常重視心理戰的研究工作,並建立研究機構,專門從事心理戰的理論和技術研究。同時還重視發揮民間“思想庫”的作用,利用各大學、科研機構和各種高級專門人才為心理戰服務。
三是建立專業化的心理戰部隊和培養心理戰專門人才。美軍有一支人數眾多的心理戰部隊,編配在陸海空部隊,其中陸軍有4個心理戰群、12個心理戰營、22個心理戰連,海軍有一個心理戰欺騙大隊,空軍有一個特種作戰聯隊用於支援心理戰活動。同時,還設立了專門的心理戰院校或專業,培養專業化的心理戰人才。在阿富汗戰爭中,美軍把兩支作戰能力最強的心理戰部隊——空軍第193特種作戰聯隊和陸軍第4心理戰大隊,部署在烏茲別克斯坦和巴基斯坦兩國,運用多種手段對塔利班展開了戰場心理進攻,如飛行廣播、投撒傳單、封鎖塔利班新聞傳播渠道等。伊拉克戰爭,美軍動用了幾乎全部現役心理戰力量,還動員和組織了民間的心理戰力量。其空軍心理戰部隊裝備有EC—130E心理戰專用飛機,能夠從時間、空間、視聽、電磁等各個維度發布心理戰信息;其陸軍心理戰部隊大多精通阿拉伯語,能夠通過電話、電子郵件、信函等遊說伊方特定人物,也能與伊拉克普遍民眾和軍人進行面對面的對話和交流。

China’s “Network-centric warfare”: let the future battlefield dominate ~ 中國“網絡中心戰”:讓未來戰場占主導地位

中國“網絡中心戰”:讓未來戰場占主導地位

China’s “Network-centric warfare”: let the future battlefield dominate

“Network-centric warfare” is an important symbol in the process of the evolution of the mechanized war form to the information war form. It is the advanced form of the joint operation of the information age. It is a new mode of warfare on the information warfare platform which is relatively “platform center war” At present, from the “network-centric warfare,” the real arrival, although there is a long distance, but with its gradual maturity and rise, will inevitably lead to revolutionary changes in the future battlefield.

Combat operations from “asynchronous” to “synchronization”

The operations of the mechanized era are the same as the production lines of the industrial age, and there is usually a clear sequence of stages, such as firepower preparation, assembly and entry, and the first echelon attack. In the sequence of operations, due to the lack of real-time information can not grasp the battlefield, let alone the information sharing between the various forces, so the process of combat, mutual action can only be pre-planned asynchronous collaboration. In the “network center war”, the entire battlefield is a “information grid”, “sensor network” and “war network” composed of interconnection, seamless connection, dynamic open integrated network, commanders at all levels through The network can continue to perceive the entire battlefield situation, the full access to the battlefield information, and the use of the network to obtain information on the rapid processing, the development of operational plans and the issuance of operational orders, combat operations at all levels of the network at the same time almost at the same time get the same information, The command and order of the superior commander, according to the “network” to act, thus a high degree of autonomy to implement operations, to achieve operational synergy with self-synchronization.

Power concentration from the “quantity” to “system”

Since ancient times, the principle of concentrated forces has been regarded as the combat power of the military forces of the golden rule. The history of large-scale naval warfare, air combat and land brigade combat, concentrated tens of thousands of troops to fight the battlefield battle case too numerous. However, in the information age, the use of combat forces will be a series of major changes. In the “network-centric warfare”, the army became a complex and large-scale integrated system consisting of a number of command and control systems, battlefield awareness systems and weapons systems, in order to manage such a system and make it most efficient And give full play to the power and potential of the system, it must be information network technology as a link to the battlefield operation of the various functional systems highly integrated, into an organic whole, the formation of a high-performance war power system. This is by the traditional number of concentration can not be achieved, we must rely on the highly integrated system. Highly integrated combat system can make the theater, battlefield, warriors at all levels through the digital network, linked into a string of closely related chain, so that a general through the screen to see the fighting scene, a soldier can also see from his monitor , And thus achieve different combat forces, different levels of command of the real joint.

Combat group from “hard link” to “soft connection”

The general joint operations, to achieve only the combat entities of the “hard” connection, and “network-centric” approach, through the computer network as the core of the wide-area distribution, seamless connection, dynamic open integrated network system, not only To achieve combat entities “hard” connection, but also to achieve “combat procedures”, “operating mechanism” of the soft connection. Therefore, the “network-centric warfare” is a high-level form of joint operations in the information age, in this battlefield, land, sea, air and other military (soldiers) kind of block-like division of the group has no practical significance, the battlefield all combat units Are integrated network system in an equivalent cell, while the perception of the various states of the battlefield. Therefore, in the “network-centric warfare” approach, the combat group structure will be more grouped by ability, according to the need for joint “useful” combination. The so-called grouping by ability, that is, to break the boundaries of military and civilian forces will have the same combat capability of the unified grouping, thus greatly reducing the arms and arms between the overlap and waste; the so-called joint need, is based on the actual needs of combat, to have different Combat capability of the troops together, the joint operations.

Logistics support from “build” to “focus”

“Network-centric warfare” under the battlefield, will show a typical multi-dimensional, non-linear and non-contact characteristics. Logistics forces to build a large number of traditional means of protection, in this battlefield environment, will appear extremely cumbersome and discomfort. And the information, materials and transportation technology into one, through the automated supply network system to track and master the flow of a variety of materials and the demand situation of the troops, the required logistical supplies in a timely manner to the strategy, campaign and tactical units of the ” Focus “logistics, will become” network-centric warfare “in the logistics of the inevitable choice.

“Network center war” mode, the entire battlefield is a computer network technology as the core of the intelligent integrated system, through a highly integrated and highly intelligent information network, can achieve information, materials and transportation technology integration; through the combat Troops on the various sites to access the computer system, the security sector can grasp the needs of combat forces in real time, the combat forces can also real-time understanding of combat materials consumption and supplement the situation, so that real-time as needed to the required direction Materials, and to keep track of the material throughout. To ensure that logistical support is more accurate, flexible and accurate in terms of time, location and quantity.

Combat mission from “stability” to “change”

On the traditional battlefield, due to the weak sense of the battlefield, from the discovery of the target to attack the target reaction is slow, combat mission allocation is mostly planned, the middle rarely change. In the “network-centric warfare” approach, due to the battlefield perception, command and control and fire strike has become a whole, from the discovery of the target to the implementation of the attack time difference is getting smaller, near real time, the commander can change the battlefield situation, at any time To carry out dynamic adjustment and redistribution of the tasks of the troops, so as to maximize the operational potential of combat troops. In the Iraq war, the US military used its advanced and powerful information and network technology to reduce the time from the discovery of the target to the completion of the attack from the Gulf War 3 days, 2 hours of the Kosovo war to tens of minutes. And the real realization of the “network-centric warfare”, the reaction time will be further reduced or even reached in seconds to calculate, which makes the commander of the battlefield can make a quick change, more sensitive response, timely and efficient command, Control and coordination, greatly improving the ability to temporarily change the operational response to the rapid response. (Liu Yushan)

“China Defense News” July 1, 2004

Original Mandarin Chinese:

“網絡中心戰”是機械化戰爭形態向信息化戰爭形態演變過程中的一個重要標誌;是信息時代聯合作戰的高級形態;是相對“平台中心戰”的信息化戰場上的一種新型作戰模式,目前,離“網絡中心戰”的真正到來雖然還有較長距離,但隨著它的逐漸成熟和崛起,必將引起未來戰場的革命性變革。
作戰行動由“異步”轉向“同步”
機械化時代的作戰行動與工業時代的流水線生產一樣,通常是有明顯階段性的順序,如依次進行火力準備、集結與開進、第一梯隊發起攻擊等。在順序作戰中,由於無法掌握戰場實時信息,更談不上各部隊之間信息共享,因而作戰過程中,相互之間的行動只能按預先計劃進行異步協同。而在“網絡中心戰”中,整個戰場是一個由“信息柵網”、“傳感器網”和“交戰網”組成的互連互通,無縫連接,動態開放的綜合網絡,各級指揮員通過網絡能夠持續不斷地感知整個戰場態勢,全面獲取戰場信息,並利用網絡對獲取的信息進行快速處理,制定作戰計劃和發布作戰命令,各級作戰部隊通過網絡幾乎可在同時獲得同樣的信息,了解上級指揮員的意圖和指令,依“網”行事,從而高度自主地實施作戰,實現作戰協同自我同步。
力量集中由“數量”轉向“系統”
自古以來,集中兵力原則一直被兵家奉為作戰力量運用的金科玉律。歷史上大規模海戰、空戰和陸上大兵團作戰,集中成千上萬部隊進行戰場廝殺的戰例不勝枚舉。然而,在信息時代,作戰力量的運用將發生一系列重大變化。在“網絡中心戰”中,軍隊成為了一個由眾多指揮控制系統、戰場感知系統和打擊武器系統等構成的複雜而又龐大的綜合體系,要想駛馭這樣一個體系,使之最有效地運轉並充分發揮各系統的威力和潛能,就必須以信息化網絡技術為紐帶,把戰場運行中的各個功能係統高度集成,聯結成一個有機的整體,形成一種高效能的戰爭力量體系。這一點靠傳統的數量集中是無法實現的,必須依靠系統的高度集成。高度集成化的作戰系統可使戰區、戰場、戰士各個層面通過數字化網絡,聯結成一串息息相關的鏈條,使一個將軍通過視屏所看到的戰鬥景象,一個士兵也同樣能從他的顯示器中看到,進而實現不同作戰力量、不同指揮層次的真正聯合。
作戰編組由“硬聯接”轉向“軟聯接”
一般的聯合作戰,實現的只是各作戰實體的“硬”連接,而“網絡中心戰” 方式下,通過以計算機網絡為核心的廣域分佈,無縫連接,動態開放的綜合網絡系統,不僅可實現作戰實體的“硬”連接,而且可實現“作戰程序”、“運行機制”的軟連接。因此,“網絡中心戰”是信息時代聯合作戰的高級形態,在這種戰場上,陸、海、空等各軍(兵)種條塊式的區分編組已無實際意義,戰場上所有作戰單元都是綜合網絡系統裡的一個等同的細胞,同時感知著戰場的各種狀態。因此,在“網絡中心戰”方式下,作戰編組結構更多的將是按能力編組、按需要聯合的“有用”組合。所謂按能力編組,就是打破軍兵種界限將具備同樣作戰能力的部隊統一進行編組,從而大大減少各軍兵種力量之間的重疊和浪費;所謂按需要聯合,就是根據作戰的實際需要,把具備不同作戰能力的部隊組合起來,進行聯合作戰。
後勤保障由“集結”轉向“聚焦”

“網絡中心戰”下的戰場,將呈現出典型的多維性、非線性和非接觸性特點。後勤部隊大量集結進行保障的傳統方式,在這種戰場環境下,將顯得極為笨重和不適。而將信息、物資和運輸技術融為一體,通過自動化補給網絡系統,跟踪和掌握多種物資的流動和部隊的需求狀況,將所需的後勤物資及時發放到各戰略、戰役及戰術單位的“聚焦”式後勤,將成為“網絡中心戰”中後勤保障的必然選擇。
“網絡中心戰”方式下,整個戰場是一個以計算機網絡技術為核心的智能化的綜合系統,通過高度集成和高度智能化的信息網絡,可實現信息、物資和運輸技術一體化;通過在作戰部隊機動的各個站點上接入計算機系統,可使保障部門實時掌握作戰部隊的需要,作戰部隊也能實時了解作戰中物資的消耗和補充情況,從而做到實時按需要向多個所需方向運送物資,並保持對物資的全程跟踪。確保後勤保障在時間上、地點上和數量上的精確,使後勤保障更加及時、靈活和準確。
作戰任務由“穩定”轉向“多變”
傳統戰場上,由於戰場感知能力弱、從發現目標到攻擊目標反應慢,作戰任務分配多是預先計劃,中間很少有變。而在“網絡中心戰”方式下,由於戰場感知、指揮控制和火力打擊已成為一個整體,從發現目標到實施攻擊的時差越來越小,近乎實時,指揮員可以根據戰場態勢的變化,隨時對部隊的任務進行動態的調整和重新分配,從而最大限度地發揮作戰部隊的作戰潛能。伊拉克戰爭中,美軍運用其先進和強大的信息及網絡技術,使戰場上從發現目標到完成攻擊的時間從海灣戰爭時的3天,科索沃戰爭時的2小時縮短至幾十分鐘。而真正實現“網絡中心戰”後,這一反應時間還會進一步縮短甚至達到以秒來計算,這使得指揮員可對戰場的瞬息變化作出更快、更靈敏的反應,及時高效地進行指揮、控制與協調,大大提高臨時改變作戰計劃的快速反應能力。 (劉玉山)
《中國國防報》 2004年07月01日

互聯網”的混沌與網絡空間的迷茫 ~ China’s Internet – creating chaos and confusion in cyberspace

互聯網”的混沌與網絡空間的迷茫

China’s Internet – creating chaos and confusion in cyberspace

One, chaotic “internet”

1 , from the Apache network to the “Internet”

“Internet” What is the network? China has no “Internet”? The world whether there is no “Internet”? This is not a problem, due to language and cultural expression and understanding of different interests due to the scope and purpose of the different Academic research conditions and the different atmosphere, and so on, these years more and more chaotic. “Internet”, “Internet”, “Internet”, “Mobile Internet”, “Internet Finance”, “Internet +” … … and so on, what are linked to a “Internet”, “Internet” has become a fashion term.

Today’s world has become the “Internet” encompasses the world of the world, in addition to what are “the Internet” that an “Internet”, many people do not know there is no other network, but also can not have other networks, why There are other networks. “Internet” in the end is a network or should be more than one network? Recognize the chaos, chaos awareness, are derived from this.

In 1969, Dr. Xu became the first member of the internetwork at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and later became the only senior vice president of Chinese lab in the history of Bell Labs, Institute of Engineers (IEEE) academician, has been known as the US network communications industry, “the first Chinese.” In 2004, Mr. Xu told me that people today are keen on the “Internet”, the predecessor of the ARPANET (ARPANET), the US government based on the defense considerations to the university to study the large computer mutual communication of an experimental network, 20 years of innovation and improvement from a network.

In 1970, the American Information Processing Association defined the computer network as “a collection of computer systems with separate functions that could be shared in a way that shared resources (hardware, software, data, etc.).” The definition of this computer network in the United States, perhaps regarded as the earliest from the United States “Internet” definition?

2 , two network architecture

In the 1950s, the United States established a semi-automatic ground air defense system (SAGE, Chinese translation “赛 Qi”), the computer technology and communication technology combined application attempt. In the early 1960s, the American Air Ticket Booking System (SABRE-1) consisted of a central computer and more than 2,000 terminals distributed across the United States to form a computer communication network, enabling the terminals to connect to the central computer via telephone lines on a larger scale Of the typical application. This is a single computer-centric, through the multi-line controller and remote terminal connected to the online system, known as the terminal-based remote online system, that is, early computer network.

At the end of the 20th century, the International Organization for Standardization ISO standardization of computer and information processing technology committee to study and develop network communication standards to achieve the international standardization of network architecture. In 1984, ISO formally promulgated the International Standard ISO 7498, referred to as the “Open System Interconnection Basic Reference Model”, referred to as the OSI RM (Open System Interconnection Basic Reference Model), the famous OSI seven-layer model. OSI RM and standard protocol development and improvement to promote a unified, open network architecture, greatly accelerating the development of computer networks.

However, the United States does not put ISO in the eyes, insist on arbitrary. In 1983, the United States in the Apache network officially launched TCP / IP protocol to replace the original NCP network control protocol, and then the formation of the Internet (Internet). For more than 30 years, the United States has used its technology, economy and military advantages to implement the Internet’s Internet-wide network strategy. The Internet Task Force (ICANN) is naked to put forward the slogan of “the same world, the same Internet”. The Obama administration is also praised “the Internet is unique in the international environment.” As a result, the Internet by the United States and its dormant countries in the iron powder are relish for the “Internet”.

In fact, the Internet is the United States to develop rules, control the exchange, monitoring information of a computer network architecture, does not fully comply with the International Organization for Standardization ISO officially issued OSI RM requirements. In other words, there are two dominant network architectures in the world: one is the OSI RM (open system interconnection reference model) proposed by the ISO, and the other is the use and pushing of the Internet. TCP / IP RM (TCP / IP reference model). The fundamental difference between the two models is that OSI RM to promote the global computer network open system interconnection, TCP / IP forced all the world’s computer terminals are connected to the Internet one network; ISO is committed to all countries, various types of computer network system The interconnection between the United States stressed that the computer between the end of the exchange of information between the end.

3 , “Internet” definition

So far, the scientific and technological circles, academia, education, industry and commerce, there is no uniform, clear, accurate and standardized Internet definition. Here the Chinese Internet, referring to the Internet as early as July 18, 1997 by the State Council authorized by the National Science and Technology Nomenclature Committee clear English internetwork, rather than the Internet.

Some people following the US Internet strategy insist that “the Internet is the Internet,” “China is the Internet translated into the Internet.” This is not a scientific, academic definition, nor is it from the academicians and “authority” of the mouth, more like an unidentified “Ah Q” said.

Or Obama frankly. “Through the Internet connection, the US company’s business can be extended to any place in the world to create countless jobs and opportunities for the American people,” he said in the preface to the International Strategy for cyberspace, published in the White House, “The Internet itself can not open a new era of international cooperation.”

Internet, Internet from English. As a proper noun, it refers to the use of TCP / IP communication protocol of a computer system, and the system provides information, services and users. The Internet requires that the user (the terminal) use the specified domain name and address for information exchange within the defined Internet framework in accordance with its specific rules, which is excluded and closed to the network using other communication protocols, or simply replace it.

Some people say that the definition of the Internet, English should be “a computer network forming of a worldwide network of computer networks that use the TCP / IP network protocols to facilit data transmission and exchange.” Translated into Chinese, is “by a use of TCP / IP Network protocol to promote data transmission and exchange of computer networks composed of a global network. “Please note that this” definition “is very clear:

First, you must use the TCP / IP protocol;

Second, must be the same use of TCP / IP protocol composed of computer networks;

Third, must be in the TCP / IP protocol on the basis of a global network.

Around a long circle around the same circle, or “use TCP / IP protocol computer network”! Can only accept and use TCP / IP with a protocol, the same type of rules, in the same network space for transmission and exchange Of the network, which is not the Internet? How to become the “Internet” in the end is a dull chaos, or chaos led to a dull?

It is said that in the foreign literature, the Internet is described as “no leadership, no law, no political, no army … … incredible social organizational structure.” Dare to ask the US government to the global implementation of such a network structure is what is it? Is to ensure that to induce or force countries, regions, organizations and each use of computers around the world users have succumbed to the Internet, subject to, The United States?

It was argued that, from a general point of view, the definition of the Internet should include three aspects, namely:

– is a TCP / IP protocol based on the network;

– is a computer users of the network group, the user in the use of network resources at the same time, but also for the development and expansion of the network contribute;

– is a collection of all the information resources that can be accessed and used.

The question is whether or not the other computer networks that do not use or do not apply the TCP / IP protocol exist. Is it allowed to exist? Should it exist? Use different protocols The interconnection, convergence, exchange between networks is not the Internet, is it interconnected? Even if the same from the TCP / IP protocol network, IPV6 and IPV4 network is the relationship between the interconnection, or the upgrading of the relationship between China’s national intellectual property rights of IPV9 and the United States have intellectual property IPV6, IPV4 network, is the sovereign equality of network interconnection, or technology-compatible coverage of the alternative relationship? If the realization of IPV9, V6, V4 technology system network of mutual integration and sharing co-governance, which is the Internet? It is only the Internet To the future of the network of technological progress?

According to the above Internet, the definition and statement of the Internet, China only has a network within the Internet framework, there is no consistent with the national sovereignty, consistent with the public network, there is no interconnection with non-sovereign public Internet (internetwork).

The concept of “the Internet is the Internet” that the Americans themselves can not say clearly define, in recent years, have appeared in China’s strategic, planned, decision-making documents and media coverage. Some “authorities” who take the opportunity to hustle and dust, constantly extending, expanding, distorting, fabricating its connotation and extension, it is chilling. If only by the United States 忽悠, but also not detained our independent innovation thinking, and will not be able to reverse and adjust the decision-making mistakes and mistakes strategy. If we themselves fool yourself, self-deception, does not mean that we know the chaos has been deep mud, it is difficult to extricate themselves?

Second, the confusion and confusion of cyberspace

U = 590280692, 1668539107 & fm = 21 & gp = 0.jpg

1 , the Internet constitutes the network space

With the approval of the Central Network Security and Information Leading Group, the National Internet Information Office published the “National Network Space Security Strategy”, which was first published by “Internet, Communication Network, Computer System, Automated Control System, Digital Equipment and Its Bearer Which is “a new area of ​​human activity that is important to land, sea, sky and space. National sovereignty extension extends to cyberspace, and cyberspace sovereignty becomes An important part of national sovereignty.

What is the “Internet” mentioned above? Refers to the network of Internet coverage of a global network of space or the world’s multiple sovereign network interconnection of the network space formed? This problem is not clear, people’s cyberspace awareness, Recognize and identify the ability to distinguish still deep chaos, confusion and confusion.

The Internet is the Internet, in order to achieve the exchange of information between the terminal and the terminal in a network within the framework of the formation of a joint network of space; the Internet is the Internet, is a number of different types of networks in order to share the purpose of mutual benefit Interconnected network space. The Internet and the Internet constitute the integration of the network space, inclusive of common, but also the existence of their own specific and specific rules, categories, ecological and other characteristics. Different cyberspace can not be generalized, confused. Our knowledge should not be disturbed more and more chaos.

Different network space is the most fundamental, the most typical characteristic difference is that countries in the Internet (internetwork) under the framework of sovereignty can not be changed, can not cover up, irreversible, can only be between the sovereignty of the handshake, shake hands, In contrast, bullying. The sovereignty of the Internet is only one, that is, the United States a unique sovereignty, or hegemony. Within the framework of the Internet, any country’s sovereignty has been unilaterally formulated and closely governed by the United States, the scope and the shackles and shackles of ecology, and have to let the United States and its allies (such as Japan) violate, penetrate, , To play, to play in the applause.

In particular, the need for deep and clear, highly important is the dissemination of information, economic development, prosperity, culture, governance, cooperation and exchanges, not the Internet patent, the national sovereign network can also be implemented and implemented, based on national sovereign cyberspace Internet interconnection may do better. The use of the Internet in the United States a network of technical systems and means to bypass the national network of sovereignty, governance and legal rights, is leading to the sovereign cyberspace security is the biggest source of security, is the sovereign state of the greatest threat to security, The most destabilizing factors that endanger the peace, stability and national unity of the sovereign states. In the Internet, there is no country with the country’s diplomacy, there is no equal and mutual respect for international cooperation, only the United States a dominance, a strong, one dominate, one of the words have the final say. In the framework of such a network, with the United States to talk about the rules, stresses the principle of governance, on the Pratt & Whitney, not with the tiger skin, dance with the wolf? How can the United States take their own national interests to share with other countries, to sell their own network sovereignty To allow other countries to rival the country’s cyberspace “sovereignty in me, not subject to people”, if subject to the people, will be subject to chaos, will suffer! The truth, Iran understand, Germany understand that Russia understands that many countries understand. Over the years, from Asia, the Americas, the Middle East to the EU lessons one by one, we have no reason not to understand, do not accept the lesson?

2 , cyber space sovereignty belongs to the United States

Some people say that cyberspace is cyberspace, that the English Cyberspace is internetwork. If the two English words is entirely a meaning, pointing to the same category of words, why have to be divided into how to see, how to read, how to write can not stand on the two words, speak English foreigners tired tired!

It is said that Cyberspace translated into Chinese cyberspace is more meaningful. Some people say that the US Presidential Decree on Cyberspace’s definition shows that “the Internet is an important infrastructure for cyberspace,” “Internet computers are the most basic elements of Cyberspace,” “Internet + is the Internet’s most important move to cyberspace ”

Here the “Internet”, obviously refers to the Internet that Internet, “Internet +” is the Internet +. There is also a dizzy chaos: the Internet or “Internet” does not constitute cyberspace, the Internet or “Internet” is only Cyberspace this cyberspace infrastructure? “Internet +” is only the Internet to Cyberspace this Network space expansion of an important action, but also does not belong to the network space?

English Cyberspace Chinese literal translation, is cyberspace. 2008 President of the United States President Bush issued the Presidential Decree No. 8 (NSPD) / 23 Homeland Security Presidential Decree, the Chinese translation of cyberspace definition is: “a global domain in the information environment, by independent and interdependent information Technology infrastructure network, including the Internet, telecommunications networks, computer systems and embedded processors and controllers, etc. “This seemingly rigorous definition defines cyberspace as a global information environment, encompassing all of the world’s” information technology Infrastructure network “. US Air Force Chief of Staff said the cyber space encompasses everything from “direct current to visible light”. To say that, or the Internet a network of the world that the concept of a replica, for a noun, changed the argument only, not the right.

This definition can be seen almost as an American imperial edict to declare war on all sovereignty over the world. The definition does not recognize the resources, conditions and foundations of countries to build and develop sovereign cyberspace, and first incorporate all kinds of network infrastructures into the category of cyber cyberspace. The definition is preemptively bundled with political, economic, military and cultural Hands and feet of the “certain rules”, thrown out of the national scientists, strategists in the future development of the field of network innovation voyage cable; the definition of only state officials set fire to the people not allowed to light, domineering, ambition, aggressive.

3 , Internet sovereignty and power confused

Although the OSI RM (Open Systems Interconnection Reference Model) proposed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is one of the two dominant network architectures in the world, these years have not resulted in large-scale market applications. Some people think that the model exists level and content is not the best, the session layer and presentation layer is almost empty, the corresponding service definition and protocol complexity and other technical shortcomings.

And the obvious and unsafe problems caused by the inherent lack of Internet technology have been widely concerned by countries and international organizations. Fundamentally change the Internet’s single control center framework, TCP / IP protocol, identity and security authentication mechanism, has become a major global key core technology innovation research topics.

Perhaps because of this, the current countries have not yet formed in the sovereign cyberspace based on the construction of the global Internet (internetwork) conditions, resources and support, not the ability and the Internet “zhongjiang governance”, “equally”, “shared peace” Can only “send people”, in access to the Internet, rent Internet services, to prevent excessive penetration of the Internet and so on, put huge costs and bargaining with the United States to try to minimize harm and loss. Countries are equally involved in Internet governance, equitable distribution of Internet infrastructure resources, common management of Internet root servers and other key information infrastructure, to strengthen the representation and voice of developing countries, like slogans, and like a mirage, shouting fills, and can not reach.

In the framework of the United States Internet within a network, in the United States cyberspace sovereignty and security under the serious deterrence, the peaceful development of the theme of cyberspace international cooperation strategy is likely to only wishful thinking, the premise and the foundation is wrong, direction and route Biased The United States and the rest of the world continue to lag behind the United States in the network space, subject to the United States, the United States, the United States, the United States, the United States, the United States, the United States, Succumbed to the United States, and will actually lose cyberspace sovereignty, loss of development opportunities and strategic opportunities, more harm than good, regret not the beginning.

4 , cyberspace international cooperation trade-offs

Z (8) .jpg

Corresponding to the Chinese cyberspace English is Net Space, the scientific definition is: information infrastructure to connect, cover and carry information processing space-time domain.

This definition specifies the most common commonality of the Internet, the Internet, cyberspace, and any other cyberspace, not to the will of a particular country or interest, not limited to a particular network, Country to build the network space.

With this definition as a prerequisite to support countries to strengthen the construction and development of sovereign cyberspace, to promote the international community in a spirit of mutual respect for dialogue and cooperation, have the resources to protect the public in the cyberspace of the right to know, participation, expression, supervision Rights and conditions to build a multilateral, democratic and transparent global network space management system, it is possible to achieve scientific and rational, fair and orderly, equal and reciprocal, security checks and balances of international cooperation in cyberspace.

China in the supercomputer development, aerospace computer system applications, etc. has been rushed in the forefront of the world, can be compatible with IPV6 and IPV4 IPV9 technical system test run test is satisfactory. Russia in the domestic network information control and prevention of foreign network invasion and so has accumulated a good experience, the establishment of a good system. The EU has embarked on a potential threat to the Internet and is committed to building an autonomous cyberspace system. More and more countries put forward cyber space sovereignty demands, in favor of Xi Jinping President “jointly build cyberspace fate community” claims.

In the current limited conditions, the basis and the expected prospects, China’s international cooperation in cyberspace initiatives should be able to assess the situation, do what, careful operation, not rushed into the routines of other countries. Should be single-handedly with the United States and other countries to negotiate international Internet space governance diplomacy, a rainy day, one hand to build the power of the United States enough to balance the US Internet and cyberspace of China’s sovereign public network system. At the same time, take decisive and resolute measures to resolutely deal with domestic and foreign network security risks and threats, and resolutely punish the network of criminal activities, and resolutely crack down on China’s cyberspace sovereignty, betrayal of national and national interests, resolutely correct long passive Cyberspace following strategy and strategy.

Third, the world cyberspace security situation

U = 2873491118, 2968306817 & fm = 11 & gp = 0.jpg

The US Internet-dominated world cyberspace security situation is increasingly grim. Wearing the “Internet” caps of the Internet security problems riddled with more and more countries to become difficult to save the network of ills and long-lasting “heart disease.”

According to the “China cyberspace security report (2016)” Blue Book, since 2015, based on the Internet and cyber space network conflict and attack, become the main form of confrontation between countries. Russia Kaspersky accused the United States “Formula Group” through the implantation of spyware, infected Iran, Russia, China, more than 30 countries such as military, financial, energy and other key sectors of the tens of thousands of computers. Iran says it has thwarted the United States’ cyber attacks on its oil sector. Italy “Hacking Team” more than 400G of the company’s data was open and found that the United States, Morocco, Ethiopia and other institutions in more than 20 countries to buy a network of spy and vulnerability tools. The company blames Russia’s “APT28” organization for exploiting zero-day vulnerabilities to attack NATO and US defense agencies.

Blue Book Disclosure, the United States set up “Network Threat Intelligence Integration Center”, and expand the State Council “Anti-Terrorism Strategy Information Center” scale, the CIA set up “Digital Innovation Department” to strengthen the network intelligence gathering capacity. The US Department of Defense launched a network security incubator program, the British government to expand its network security research capabilities, the US Navy prepared offensive network action, NATO announced the preparation of mixed network warfare, countries focus on network attack and defense and hard and soft strength, and strive to security and attack Ability to enhance the two-way. Media disclosure, the world has more than 50 countries set up a network warfare forces, the global cyberspace “military race” escalating.

According to the disclosure, relying on the United States Internet technology, agreements and infrastructure development developed “China Internet”, government, banking, energy and other vital departments of the network information system generally can not achieve safe and controllable, the domestic industrial control system is ” Security loopholes. ” 2015 appears Alipay, Ctrip data loss, Netease e-mail leakage and other troubles, in recent years through SMS, WeChat implementation of financial fraud every day in a large number of occur. Minister of Industry and Trade Miao Wei told reporters that now an average of one month to search for 173 million telecommunications fraud information.

According to the “National Internet Information Center”, “Network Security Information and Dynamic Weekly”, February 13, 20-19, the number of domestic infected network virus host 400,000 units, up 6.6% over last week; territory was implanted back door Of the government website rose 47.1%; for the domestic website of the number of counterfeit pages increased by 165.2%; new information security high-risk loopholes rose 26.2%. Monitoring found that the source of network virus transmission to the site of the horse, involving 68 domain names in 30.9% for overseas registration, and the top domain for the .com about 83.8%, most of the horse site through the domain name to visit the implementation of the virus spread.

National Defense University professor Dai Xu pointed out that today’s world has been in a “network”. Changes in the military field have taken place. From the sensor as the core, to electromagnetic space as the boundary of the electronic information warfare (which can be called “telecommunications war”), to the network as the core, to the psychological space for the characteristics of the network, psychological warfare (can be called “network Heart war “),” network “into the basic characteristics of the seventh generation of war, is becoming the main battle of the big country game. China’s traditional strategic advantage is becoming the focus of opponents crack, China once again in a natural barrier can rely on the dangerous situation, the face of being blackmail the state of the network. The traditional cognitive system of war and anti-war requires urgent upgrading. In the new era of mixed warfare of the network, China must also have the ability to hold the “bull nose” of the times.

Fourth, the history of sovereign cyberspace

1 , “cyber space” alert the world

The United States carefully thrown out the “cyberspace” theory, self-righteous, and then without hesitation in its delineation of the “cyber space that cyberspace” large-scale global information monitoring, network war deployment and network information intelligence collection And plunder, etc., alert the world’s scientists, economists, military scientists, socialists and businessmen, politicians, people and so on. People suddenly realized that “the Internet is the Internet” and “cyber space is cyberspace” exactly the same. In the final analysis, the superpower capitalist hegemony of the United States regarded himself as the head of the “global village” and regarded “economic globalization” as “selfish”. “I am my, you or my, this earth on the land and sea sky all everything is my” – this is the real United States, which is all the interests of the United States. The United States, is so arrogant unreasonable.

However, reality and science have repeatedly verified that cyberspace is only a type of network that exists in a variety of independent runs, and is part of a space for different types of networks that are different in technology, different in purpose, and for different purposes. Cyberspace is not equal to cyberspace, cyberspace covers cyberspace, cyberspace is a subset of cyberspace.

Since the performance of the United States sovereignty and interests of cyber space, indicating that all constitute a subset of cyberspace, all countries and areas of the network space, have their sovereignty and interests of the demands. Iran, Russia, Germany, China and so on the EU and so on, should have, there must be, otherwise there is no construction of “cyberspace fate community,” the basic conditions and the necessary basis for peace, sharing, co-governance, win-win International cyberspace is out of the question.

In this way, to strengthen the national sovereignty network construction and development, build and maintain their own security and stability, national unity, and promote the prosperity of the domestic community of sovereign cyberspace, become a sovereign state important event. This is the common responsibility of the United Nations, the United States and the world’s sovereign States. “Cyber ​​space” deter the world, is the United States contempt for the world’s cyberspace strategy of the major errors; any follow the US Internet, cyber space strategy decisions and initiatives, will be lost in the direction of major mistakes.

2 , Internet space strategy has been put on the agenda

U = 2559533438,1219077096 & fm = 23 & gp = 0.jpg

Network space (Net Space), is the space-time system created by mankind, is the generic name of the concept, is the information processing and exchange of bearing space. It summarizes the three elements that make up the cyberspace: attributes, connection coverage, and the ability to carry processing information. Regardless of the financial network, enterprise network, government network, regardless of the Internet, Internet, Internet, regardless of land-based network, aviation network, space network, regardless of cable network, wireless network, quantum network, regardless of public or private network related services Providers and operators of private access networks, and so on, there are independent connections to cover the space-time domain and bearer processing exchange of different information on the network space.

The cyberspace has not been able to rigorously, regulate and accurately reflect and embrace all of its inherent characteristics, and extend the scope of the cyber space in the new network space. The conditions and the basis for the development of the law of change. This network and the network between the super network space, inspired the “Internet space” (Nets Space) doctrine. Internet space is an integrated domain of cyberspace.

Standing in the Internet space height, depth and breadth of the full dimension, full view of cyberspace, our vision will be wider and farther and clearer, our thinking will be easier to jump out yesterday and today, looking to tomorrow, we will from the Internet , “Internet”, cyber space caused by chaos in the liberation of ideas, out of a computer network era beyond the new path of the human information society.

A network space, wireless networks, quantum communication, space networks and other interconnected, interactive, interdependent constitute the era of Internet space, has come and is entering a more advanced stage. The rise of China’s cyberspace strategy will inevitably lead to the rise of revolutionary thought, the rise of science and technology, the rise of economy, the rise of the nation, the rise of the country, the benefit of future generations, the impact and drive the global human society by leaps and bounds.

Internet space strategy and technical preparation has been put on the agenda, the best time may be in front of and in the next few years. China can not seize the opportunity to seize the opportunity to go beyond the United States to lead the new super cyberspace – Internet space era, to seize the day and night, to now move from scratch, to the number of romantic figures, but also to see the current.

3 , the development of Internet space to be the power of the whole country

The United States to push the country to push the Internet, push IPV6, push the Bo space, leading to chaos in the country and confused at the same time, but also indeed created a remarkable network technology, network economy and network military glory.

China has become the world’s second largest economy. China is fully capable, conditional and confident to develop the international space strategy and technology with the power of the whole country.

Ideological emancipation, institutional reform is China’s reform and opening up since the two initiatives complement each other. From this start, it is recommended:

⑴ the establishment of the CPC Central Committee, the National People’s Congress, the State Council and the CPPCC under the leadership and under the constraints of a highly authoritative, rule of law and error correction mechanism and error correction mechanism, and resolutely put an end to the confusion and decision-making road.

A small number of follow the United States, “experts”, “authority” long-term impact and intervention in the national network of information authorities who also a number of “one speech” strange thing, no longer allow, exist and continue, and must be resolutely reversed and broken.

Should immediately resolutely correct the “comprehensive introduction, upgrading, the deployment of IPV6” major strategic decision-making and planning mistakes, abolished with the United States signed all the hazards and endanger China’s cyberspace sovereignty and security of the unequal agreement; cyberspace field investment projects one by one The implementation of the audit and post-evaluation, obviously “for others to marry clothes,” all shut down and turn.

(2) The State encourages and supports the construction, development and maintenance of a sovereign public network on the basis of the premise and national ownership of intellectual property rights.

Should be clearly in the United States based on the current “Internet”, the construction of independent development of the Chinese public network and other sovereign public network and provide services, the people have the right to use the sovereign public network and non-sovereign public network rights. The state should introduce the tendency of the incentive policies and measures to allow the sovereign public network using IPV9, Zheng code, Tao Chen code, CFL safety certification, MISC, and so on with national independent intellectual property rights technology. Actively build, develop and maintain the domestic independent operation of the multi-network constitute the Internet, can build a global network space fate community to explore the model, the accumulation of experience and create the conditions.

(3) to seize the opportunity to create a national-led, social participation, private operation of the “Internet Space Research Institute”, all-round, multi-dimensional, deep-level research and development of Internet space technology and development of development strategies and strategies to create a world-class training of Internet space talent base , Build the sovereign network / future network / Internet space experiment, test the system application environment, explore and solve the sovereign network, cyberspace and the development of Internet space in various problems, strides in the lead in the forefront of the development of Internet space.

(4) First of all, with Russia, Iran, Germany, the European Union and other countries committed to the development, development and maintenance of their own sovereign cyberspace and actively organize the construction of cyberspace destiny community communication, exchange, negotiation and cooperation, joint multi- The United States is the main negotiator.

Clear the chaos, swing confused, we will no longer be subject to the people, let the mercy, we will be firmly into the era of cyberspace, we will be far-sighted toward the future of Internet space.

Original Mandarin Chinese:

一、混沌的“互聯網”

1、從阿帕網到“互聯網”

“互聯網”究竟是什麼網?中國究竟有沒有“互聯網”?世界究竟有沒有“互聯網”?這本不是問題的問題,由於語言文化表達和理解的不同,由於利益追求範圍和目的的不同,由於學術研究條件和氛圍的不同,等等,這些年越來越顯得混沌不清。 “互聯網”、“中國互聯網”,“國際互聯網”、“移動互聯網”、“互聯網金融”、“互聯網+”……等等,什麼都掛上個“互聯網”,“互聯網”竟成為時尚用語。

今天的世界儼然成了“互聯網”囊括天下的世界,除了什麼都是“the Internet”那一張“互聯網”,許多人都不知道還有沒有其它網,還能不能有其它網,為什麼還會有其它網?。 “互聯網”到底是一張網?還是應該不止一張網?認識的混沌,混沌的認識,皆源於此。

1969年,許浚博士成為在美國加州大學洛杉磯分校(UCLA)實驗室誕生的第一個互聯網絡(internetwork)的研究成員,他後來成為貝爾實驗室歷史上唯一的華裔高級副總裁,美國電子電氣工程師學會(IEEE)院士,曾被譽為美國網絡通信界“第一華人”。 2004年,許先生告訴我,人們今天熱衷的“互聯網”,前身是阿帕網(ARPANET),是美國政府基於國防上的考量出錢給高校研究的大型計算機互相通信的一個實驗網,又經過20多年的創新和改進而來的一張網。

1970年,美國信息處理協會將計算機網絡定義為“以能夠共享資源(硬件、軟件和數據等)的方式連接起來,並且各自具備獨立功能的計算機系統之集合”。這個計算機網絡的美國定義,也許算是最早來自美國的“互聯網”定義?

2、兩張網絡體系結構

20世紀50年代,美國建立了一個半自動的地面防空系統(SAGE,中文譯作“賽琪”),進行了計算機技術與通信技術相結合的應用嘗試。 60年代初,美國航空訂票系統(SABRE-1)由一台中心計算機和分佈在全美範圍內的2000多個終端組成計算機通信網絡,更大規模地實現了各終端通過電話線連接到中心計算機的典型應用。這種以單個計算機為中心、通過多重線路控制器與遠程終端相連接的聯機系統,被稱做面向終端的遠程聯機系統,即早期的計算機網絡。

20世紀70年代末,國際標準化組織ISO的計算機與信息處理標準化技術委員會著手研究和製定網絡通信標準,以實現網絡體系結構的國際標準化。 1984年,ISO正式頒布了稱為“開放系統互連基本參考模型”的國際標準ISO 7498,簡稱OSI RM(Open System Interconnection Basic Reference Model),即著名的OSI七層模型。 OSI RM及標準協議的製定和完善推動了統一、開放的網絡體系結構,大大加速了計算機網絡的發展。

但是,美國並不把ISO放在眼裡,堅持獨斷專行。 1983年,美國在阿帕網中正式推出TCP/IP協議取代原有的NCP網絡控制協議,進而形成因特網(Internet)。 30多年來,美國利用其科技、經濟和軍事優勢,以舉國之力推行因特網一張網連接覆蓋全球的戰略。美國因特網任務工作組(ICANN)赤裸裸地提出“同一個世界,同一個因特網”的蠱惑人心口號。奧巴馬政府更是讚譽“因特網在國際環境中獨樹一幟”。由此,因特網被美國及其蟄伏在各國的鐵粉們津津樂道為“互聯網”。

實際上,因特網就是美國製定規則、控制交換、監控信息的一種計算機網絡體系結構,並不完全符合國際標準組織ISO正式頒布的OSI RM的要求。也就是說,目前世界上存在著兩種占主導地位的網絡體系結構:一種是國際標準化組織ISO提出的OSI RM(開放式系統互連參考模型);另一種是因特網使用和力推的TCP/IP RM(TCP/IP參考模型)。兩種模型的根本區別在於,OSI RM推動全球計算機網絡開放式系統互連,TCP/IP迫使世界所有計算機終端都接入因特網一張網之中;ISO致力於各國、各種類型的計算機網絡系統之間的相互連接,美國強調的是計算機端對端之間的信息互通。

3、“互聯網”的定義

迄今,各國科技界、學術界、教育界、工商界,沒有統一、清晰、準確、規範的互聯網定義。這裡的中文互聯網,指的是早在1997年7月18日就經我國國務院授權的全國科學技術名詞審定委員會明確的英文internetwork,而不是Internet。

追隨美國因特網一張網戰略的某些人堅持說,“因特網就是互聯網”,“中國就是將因特網翻譯成互聯網”。這不是科學的、學術的定義,也不像是出自院士和“權威”之口,更像是不明事理的“阿Q”之說。

還是奧巴馬坦誠。他在白宮發表的《網絡空間國際戰略》的序言裡說,“通過因特網連接,美國公司的業務可以延伸至全球任何一個地方,為美國民眾創造無以計數的就業崗位和機會”,他承認, “因特網本身無法開啟國際合作的新紀元。”

因特網,源自英文的Internet。作為專有名詞,它所指的是使用TCP/IP通訊協議的一種計算機系統,以及這個系統所提供的信息、服務與用戶。因特網要求用戶(終端)按照其特定的規則在限定的因特網框架內使用指定的域名和地址進行信息交換,它對採用其它通訊協議的網絡是排斥和封閉的,或者乾脆越俎代庖、取而代之。

有人說,因特網的定義,英文應該是“a computer network consisting of a worldwide network of computer networks that use the TCP/IP network protocols to facilitate data transmission and exchange.”翻譯成中文,就是“一個由使用TCP / IP網絡協議促進數據傳輸和交換的計算機網絡組成的全球網絡。”請注意,這個“定義”說得很明確:

第一,必須使用TCP/IP協議;

第二,必須是同樣使用TCP/IP協議的計算機網絡組成;

第三,必須是在TCP/IP協議基礎上構成的全球一張網絡。

繞了這麼長一個繞口令一般的圈子,歸齊還是“使用TCP/IP協議的計算機網絡”!只能接受和使用TCP/IP同一種協議、同一類規則、在同一個網絡空間內進行傳輸與交換的網絡,這不還是因特網嗎?怎麼就成了“互聯網”了?到底是愚鈍產生了混沌,還是混沌導致了愚鈍?

有人說,在國外的文獻中,因特網被描述成“沒有領導、沒有法律、沒有政治、沒有軍隊……的不可思議的社會組織結構”。敢問,美國政府向全球推行這樣的網絡結構是何居心呢?是確保、誘導或迫使各國、各地區、各組織以及每個使用計算機的世界各地用戶都通過因特網屈從於、受制於、聽命於美國嗎?

有人說,從一般的角度認為,因特網的定義應包括三個方面內容,即:

——是一個基於TCP/IP協議的網絡;

——是一個計算機用戶的網絡集團,用戶在使用網絡資源的同時,也為網絡的發展壯大貢獻力量;

——是所有可被訪問和利用的信息資源的集合。

問題在於,不使用或者不適用TCP/IP協議的其它計算機網絡是否存在?是否允許存在?是否應該存在?使用不同協議網絡之間相互連接、融合、交換構成的是不是互聯網、是不是互連互通的網絡空間?即便同樣源於TCP/IP協議的網絡,IPV6與IPV4網絡之間是互連互通的關係,還是升級換代的關係?具有我國民族自主知識產權的IPV9與美國擁有知識產權的IPV6、 IPV4網絡之間,是主權平等的網絡互連關係,還是技術兼容的覆蓋替代關係?如果實現IPV9、V6、V4技術體系網絡的相互融通與共享共管共治,這是互聯網呢?還僅僅是因特網走向未來網絡的技術進步?

按照以上的因特網、“互聯網”定義和說法,中國祇有因特網框架內的一張網,沒有與國家主權相吻合、相一致的公眾網絡,沒有與非主權公眾網絡互聯互通的互聯網(internetwork)。

一個連美國人自己都說不清定義的“因特網就是互聯網”的概念,近些年來,接二連三地出現在我國戰略性、規劃性、決策性的文件和媒體連篇累牘地報導渲染之中。某些“權威”人士藉機喧囂塵上,不斷延伸、膨脹、曲解、編造其內涵和外延,實在令人不寒而栗。如果僅僅被美國忽悠,還不至於禁錮我們的自主創新思維,不至於不能扭轉和調整決策的失誤和失誤的策略。如果我們自己一個勁地忽悠自己,自欺欺人,難道不是意味著我們認識的混沌已經深陷泥沼、難以自拔了嗎?

二、網絡空間的迷茫與錯亂

1、因特網構成的網絡空間

經中央網絡安全和信息化領導小組批准,國家互聯網信息辦公室首次發布的《國家網絡空間安全戰略》中表述,網絡空間是由“互聯網、通信網、計算機系統、自動化控制系統、數字設備及其承載的應用、服務和數據等組成的”,是“國家主權的新疆域”,是“與陸地、海洋、天空、太空同等重要的人類活動新領域,國家主權拓展延伸到網絡空間,網絡空間主權成為國家主權的重要組成部分。”

以上述及的“互聯網”是指什麼?是指因特網一張網覆蓋全球構成的網絡空間?還是世界多張主權網互連互通構成的網絡空間?這個問題不搞清楚,人們的網絡空間意識、認識和識別辨析能力仍然深陷混沌、迷茫和錯亂之中。

因特網就是因特網,是為了實現終端與終端之間的信息交換而在一張網框架之內形成聯合的網絡空間;互聯網就是互聯網,是多個不同類型的網絡為了共享共治共贏的目的構成互連互通的網絡空間。因特網與互聯網各自構成的網絡空間存在融合、包容的共性,更存在各自專有與特定的規則、範疇、生態等特性。不同的網絡空間不能一概而論、混為一談。我們的認識不應該被攪和得越來越混沌不清。

不同的網絡空間最根本、最典型的特性區別在於,各國在互聯網絡(internetwork)框架下的主權不可改變,不可掩蓋,不可逆襲,只能是主權之間的握手言歡、握手言和,不可刀槍相向、恃強凌弱。因特網的主權只有一個,即美國一家獨有的主權,或者說是霸權。在因特網一張網的框架內,任何國家的主權都被美國單方面製定和嚴密掌控的規則、範疇和生態束縛、捆綁、桎梏,不得不任憑美國及其盟國(例如日本)侵犯、滲透、改變、驅使,把玩於鼓掌之中。

特別需要深度明晰、高度重視的是,傳播信息、發展經濟、繁榮文化、治理社會、合作交流等,不是因特網的專利,各國的主權網絡同樣可以實施和實現,建立在各國主權網絡空間基礎上的網絡互聯可能會做得更好。美國利用因特網的一張網技術體系和手段,繞開各國網絡空間的主權、治權和法權,是導致各主權網絡空間不安全的最大根源,是對各主權國家安全最大的威脅,是長期危害各主權國家和平穩定、民族團結的最不安定因素。在因特網內,沒有國與國的外交,沒有平等與相互尊重的國際合作,只有美國一家獨大,一家獨強,一家獨霸,一家之言說了算。在這樣的一張網框架內,同美國談規則、講原則、說治理、論普惠,豈非與虎謀皮、與狼共舞?美國怎麼可能拿自己的國家利益讓其他國家分享,出讓自己的網絡主權允許其他國家分庭抗禮呢?各國的網絡空間“主權在我、不受制於人”,倘若受制於人,必受其亂、必受其害!這個道理,伊朗明白、德國明白、俄羅斯明白,許多國家都明白。這些年來,從亞洲、美洲、中東到歐盟的教訓一個接一個,我們有什麼理由不明白、不接受教訓嗎?

3、“互聯網”的定義

迄今,各國科技界、學術界、教育界、工商界,沒有統一、清晰、準確、規範的互聯網定義。這裡的中文互聯網,指的是早在1997年7月18日就經我國國務院授權的全國科學技術名詞審定委員會明確的英文internetwork,而不是Internet。

追隨美國因特網一張網戰略的某些人堅持說,“因特網就是互聯網”,“中國就是將因特網翻譯成互聯網”。這不是科學的、學術的定義,也不像是出自院士和“權威”之口,更像是不明事理的“阿Q”之說。

還是奧巴馬坦誠。他在白宮發表的《網絡空間國際戰略》的序言裡說,“通過因特網連接,美國公司的業務可以延伸至全球任何一個地方,為美國民眾創造無以計數的就業崗位和機會”,他承認, “因特網本身無法開啟國際合作的新紀元。”

因特網,源自英文的Internet。作為專有名詞,它所指的是使用TCP/IP通訊協議的一種計算機系統,以及這個系統所提供的信息、服務與用戶。因特網要求用戶(終端)按照其特定的規則在限定的因特網框架內使用指定的域名和地址進行信息交換,它對採用其它通訊協議的網絡是排斥和封閉的,或者乾脆越俎代庖、取而代之。

有人說,因特網的定義,英文應該是“a computer network consisting of a worldwide network of computer networks that use the TCP/IP network protocols to facilitate data transmission and exchange.”翻譯成中文,就是“一個由使用TCP / IP網絡協議促進數據傳輸和交換的計算機網絡組成的全球網絡。”請注意,這個“定義”說得很明確:

第一,必須使用TCP/IP協議;

第二,必須是同樣使用TCP/IP協議的計算機網絡組成;

第三,必須是在TCP/IP協議基礎上構成的全球一張網絡。

繞了這麼長一個繞口令一般的圈子,歸齊還是“使用TCP/IP協議的計算機網絡”!只能接受和使用TCP/IP同一種協議、同一類規則、在同一個網絡空間內進行傳輸與交換的網絡,這不還是因特網嗎?怎麼就成了“互聯網”了?到底是愚鈍產生了混沌,還是混沌導致了愚鈍?

有人說,在國外的文獻中,因特網被描述成“沒有領導、沒有法律、沒有政治、沒有軍隊……的不可思議的社會組織結構”。敢問,美國政府向全球推行這樣的網絡結構是何居心呢?是確保、誘導或迫使各國、各地區、各組織以及每個使用計算機的世界各地用戶都通過因特網屈從於、受制於、聽命於美國嗎?

有人說,從一般的角度認為,因特網的定義應包括三個方面內容,即:

——是一個基於TCP/IP協議的網絡;

——是一個計算機用戶的網絡集團,用戶在使用網絡資源的同時,也為網絡的發展壯大貢獻力量;

——是所有可被訪問和利用的信息資源的集合。

問題在於,不使用或者不適用TCP/IP協議的其它計算機網絡是否存在?是否允許存在?是否應該存在?使用不同協議網絡之間相互連接、融合、交換構成的是不是互聯網、是不是互連互通的網絡空間?即便同樣源於TCP/IP協議的網絡,IPV6與IPV4網絡之間是互連互通的關係,還是升級換代的關係?具有我國民族自主知識產權的IPV9與美國擁有知識產權的IPV6、 IPV4網絡之間,是主權平等的網絡互連關係,還是技術兼容的覆蓋替代關係?如果實現IPV9、V6、V4技術體系網絡的相互融通與共享共管共治,這是互聯網呢?還僅僅是因特網走向未來網絡的技術進步?

按照以上的因特網、“互聯網”定義和說法,中國祇有因特網框架內的一張網,沒有與國家主權相吻合、相一致的公眾網絡,沒有與非主權公眾網絡互聯互通的互聯網(internetwork)。

一個連美國人自己都說不清定義的“因特網就是互聯網”的概念,近些年來,接二連三地出現在我國戰略性、規劃性、決策性的文件和媒體連篇累牘地報導渲染之中。某些“權威”人士藉機喧囂塵上,不斷延伸、膨脹、曲解、編造其內涵和外延,實在令人不寒而栗。如果僅僅被美國忽悠,還不至於禁錮我們的自主創新思維,不至於不能扭轉和調整決策的失誤和失誤的策略。如果我們自己一個勁地忽悠自己,自欺欺人,難道不是意味著我們認識的混沌已經深陷泥沼、難以自拔了嗎?

二、網絡空間的迷茫與錯亂

1、因特網構成的網絡空間

經中央網絡安全和信息化領導小組批准,國家互聯網信息辦公室首次發布的《國家網絡空間安全戰略》中表述,網絡空間是由“互聯網、通信網、計算機系統、自動化控制系統、數字設備及其承載的應用、服務和數據等組成的”,是“國家主權的新疆域”,是“與陸地、海洋、天空、太空同等重要的人類活動新領域,國家主權拓展延伸到網絡空間,網絡空間主權成為國家主權的重要組成部分。”

以上述及的“互聯網”是指什麼?是指因特網一張網覆蓋全球構成的網絡空間?還是世界多張主權網互連互通構成的網絡空間?這個問題不搞清楚,人們的網絡空間意識、認識和識別辨析能力仍然深陷混沌、迷茫和錯亂之中。

因特網就是因特網,是為了實現終端與終端之間的信息交換而在一張網框架之內形成聯合的網絡空間;互聯網就是互聯網,是多個不同類型的網絡為了共享共治共贏的目的構成互連互通的網絡空間。因特網與互聯網各自構成的網絡空間存在融合、包容的共性,更存在各自專有與特定的規則、範疇、生態等特性。不同的網絡空間不能一概而論、混為一談。我們的認識不應該被攪和得越來越混沌不清。

不同的網絡空間最根本、最典型的特性區別在於,各國在互聯網絡(internetwork)框架下的主權不可改變,不可掩蓋,不可逆襲,只能是主權之間的握手言歡、握手言和,不可刀槍相向、恃強凌弱。因特網的主權只有一個,即美國一家獨有的主權,或者說是霸權。在因特網一張網的框架內,任何國家的主權都被美國單方面製定和嚴密掌控的規則、範疇和生態束縛、捆綁、桎梏,不得不任憑美國及其盟國(例如日本)侵犯、滲透、改變、驅使,把玩於鼓掌之中。

特別需要深度明晰、高度重視的是,傳播信息、發展經濟、繁榮文化、治理社會、合作交流等,不是因特網的專利,各國的主權網絡同樣可以實施和實現,建立在各國主權網絡空間基礎上的網絡互聯可能會做得更好。美國利用因特網的一張網技術體系和手段,繞開各國網絡空間的主權、治權和法權,是導致各主權網絡空間不安全的最大根源,是對各主權國家安全最大的威脅,是長期危害各主權國家和平穩定、民族團結的最不安定因素。在因特網內,沒有國與國的外交,沒有平等與相互尊重的國際合作,只有美國一家獨大,一家獨強,一家獨霸,一家之言說了算。在這樣的一張網框架內,同美國談規則、講原則、說治理、論普惠,豈非與虎謀皮、與狼共舞?美國怎麼可能拿自己的國家利益讓其他國家分享,出讓自己的網絡主權允許其他國家分庭抗禮呢?各國的網絡空間“主權在我、不受制於人”,倘若受制於人,必受其亂、必受其害!這個道理,伊朗明白、德國明白、俄羅斯明白,許多國家都明白。這些年來,從亞洲、美洲、中東到歐盟的教訓一個接一個,我們有什麼理由不明白、不接受教訓嗎?

2、賽博空間主權屬於美國

有些人硬說賽博空間就是網絡空間,說英文的Cyber​​space就是internetwork。如果這兩個英文單詞完全是一個意思、指向同一個詞語範疇,為什麼非要分成怎麼看、怎麼讀、怎麼寫也挨不上的兩個單詞呢,說英語的外國人累不累呀!

有人說,Cyber​​space翻譯成中文的網絡空間意義更寬。有人說,美國的總統令關於Cyber​​space的定義表明,“互聯網是網絡空間重要的基礎設施”,“互聯網計算機是Cyber​​space最基本的元素”,“互聯網+才是互聯網向網絡空間擴展最重要的一個動作”。

此處的“互聯網”,明顯指的是因特網即Internet,“互聯網+”也就是Internet+。這裡又出現了令人頭暈眼花的混沌:因特網亦或“互聯網”不構成網絡空間,因特網亦或“互聯網”只不過是Cyber​​space這個網絡空間的基礎設施?“因特網+”只不過是因特網向Cyber​​space這個網絡空間擴展的一個重要動作,也並不歸屬於網絡空間?

英文Cyber​​space的中文直譯,就是賽博空間。 2008年美國總統布什發布的54號國家安全總統令(NSPD)/23號國土安全總統令,對賽博空間定義的中文翻譯是:“信息環境中的一個全球域,由獨立且相互依存的信息技術基礎設施網絡組成,包括因特網、電信網、計算機系統以及嵌入的處理器和控制器等。”這個看上去嚴謹的定義,將賽博空間圈定為全球信息環境域,囊括世界所有的“信息技術基礎設施網絡”。美國空軍參謀長說,賽博空間囊括了從“直流電到可見光波”的一切東西。說來說去,還是因特網一張網網羅天下的那一套概念的翻版,換了個名詞、換了個說法而已,不出其右。

這個定義,幾乎可以被看作是向世界所有網絡空間主權宣戰的美國總統詔書。該定義不承認各國建設和發展主權網絡空間的資源、條件和基礎,先入為主地將各國各種網絡基礎設施統統納入美國賽博空間的範疇;該定義搶先拋出捆綁他國政治、經濟、軍事、文化手腳的“一定之規”,甩出了束縛各國科學家、戰略家在未來網絡發展領域創新遠航的纜繩;該定義只許州官放火,不許百姓點燈,霸氣十足、野心昭彰、咄咄逼人。

3、互聯網主權與治權迷茫

儘管國際標準化組織ISO提出的OSI RM(開放式系統互連參考模型)是目前世界上兩種占主導地位的網絡體系結構之一,但這些年並沒有形成規模化的市場應用。有人認為,該模型存在層次數量與內容不是最佳、會話層和表示層幾乎為空、相應的服務定義和協議複雜等技術缺點。

而因特網技術先天不足導致的諸多顯而易見的不安全問題,已為各國和各國際組織普遍關注。從根本上改變因特網的單一控制中心框架結構、TCP/IP協議、標識與安全認證機制等,已經成為全球重大的關鍵核心技術創新攻關課題。

也許正因為此,目前各國還沒有形成在主權網絡空間基礎上構建全球互聯網(internetwork)的條件、資源和依托,還沒有能力與因特網“劃江而治”、“平分秋色”、“共享太平”,只能“寄人籬下”,在接入因特網、租用因特網服務、防止因特網過分滲透等方面,投入巨大成本與美國討價還價地周旋,試圖盡量減少危害和損失。各國平等參與互聯網治理、公平分配互聯網基礎資源、共同管理互聯網根服務器等關鍵信息基礎設施、加強發展中國家的代表性和發言權等,好像口號,又好像海市蜃樓,喊喊罷了,觸不可及。

在美國因特網一張網的框架內、在美國賽博空間主權和安全的嚴重威懾下,和平發展為主題的網絡空間國際合作戰略很可能只是一廂情願的奢談,前提和基礎錯了,方向與路線偏頗。耗費巨大的人力物力財力追隨美國的因特網升級部署及賽博空間戰略,拼精力、拼時間、拼智商、磨牙口,終將導致我國及世界各國繼續在網絡空間長期落後於美國、受制於美國、屈從於美國,並將實際上喪失網絡空間主權、痛失發展良機和戰略契機,得不償失,悔不當初。

4、網絡空間國際合作權衡

與中文網絡空間對應的英文是Net Space,科學的定義是:信息基礎設施連接、覆蓋及承載信息處理的時空域。

這個定義,指明了因特網、互聯網、賽博網絡空間以及其它任何網絡空間最基本的共性,不以某個國家、某個利益集團的意志為轉移,不局限於專指某一張網、某一個國家構建的網絡空間。

以這個定義為前提,支持各國加強主權網絡空間的建設與發展,推動國際社會本著相互尊重的精神開展對話與合作,才有資源保障公眾在網絡空間的知情權、參與權、表達權、監督權,才有條件構建多邊、民主、透明的全球網絡空間治理體系,才有可能實現科學合理、公平有序、平等互惠、安全制衡的網絡空間國際合作。

我國在超級計算機研製、航天計算機系統應用等方面已經沖在了世界的前列,可以兼容覆蓋IPV6和IPV4的IPV9技術體系試運行測試令人滿意。俄羅斯在國內網絡信息控制和防範外來網絡侵襲等方面積累了很好的經驗、建立了良好的系統。歐盟已經著手製衡因特網的潛在威脅,致力於打造獨立自主的網絡空間體系。越來越多的國家提出網絡空間主權訴求,贊成習近平主席“共同構建網絡空間命運共同體”的主張。

在當前有限的條件、基礎和可預期的前景下,我國的網絡空間國際合作舉措應當審時度勢、量力而行、精心運籌操作,不可貿然鑽進他國的套路里。應當一手搶占與美國及他國談判國際網絡空間治理的外交先機、未雨綢繆,一手以舉國之力打造足以製衡美國因特網和賽博空間的我國主權公眾網絡體系。同時,採取果斷有力的措施,堅決處置來源於境內外的網絡安全風險和威脅,堅決懲治網絡違法犯罪活動,堅決打擊危害我國網絡空間主權、出賣國家和民族利益的行為,堅決糾正長期被動受制的網絡空間追隨戰略和策略。

三、世界網絡空間安全態勢

美國因特網主導下的世界網絡空間安全形勢日益嚴峻。穿戴“互聯網”衣帽的因特網安全問題千瘡百孔,越來越成為各國網絡空間難以救藥的頑疾和久治不癒的“心病”。

據《中國網絡空間安全報告(2016)》藍皮書,2015年以來,基於因特網和賽博空間的網絡衝突和攻擊,成為國家間對抗的主要形式。俄羅斯卡巴斯基公司指責美國“方程式小組”通過植入間諜軟件,感染伊朗、俄羅斯、中國等30多個國家的軍事、金融、能源等關鍵部門的上萬台電腦。伊朗稱挫敗了美國對其石油部門的網絡攻擊。意大利“Hacking Team”公司逾400G的數據被公開後發現,美國、摩洛哥、埃塞俄比亞等20多個國家的機構向其購買了網絡間諜和漏洞工具。美國火眼公司指責俄羅斯“APT28”組織利用零日漏洞,攻擊北約和美國國防機構。

藍皮書披露,美國設立“網絡威脅情報整合中心”,並擴大國務院“反恐戰略信息中心”的規模,中情局設立“數字革新部”加強網絡情報蒐集能力。以色列國防部啟動網絡安全孵化器計劃,英國政府拓展其網絡安全研究能力,美國海軍籌備攻擊性網絡行動,北約宣布進行網絡混合戰準備等,各國註重網絡攻防與軟硬實力建設,力求安全保障與攻擊能力雙向提升。媒體披露,全球已經有50多個各個國家組建的網絡戰部隊,全球網絡空間“軍備賽”不斷升級。

另據披露,依托美國因特網技術、協議和基礎設施建設發展起來的“中國互聯網”,政府、銀行、能源等機要要害部門的網絡信息系統普遍無法實現安全可控,國內工業控制系統更是“安全漏洞百出”。 2015年出現的支付寶、攜程網數據丟失,網易郵箱信息洩漏等鬧得沸沸揚揚,近年來通過短信、微信實施的金融詐騙每天都在大量發生。工信部長苗圩告訴記者,現在平均一個月能夠搜索到1.73億條電信詐騙的信息。

據“國家互聯網信息中心”《網絡安全信息與動態週報》,2017年2月13日-19日,境內感染網絡病毒的主機數量為40萬台,比上週上升6.6%;境內被植入後門的政府網站上升47.1%;針對境內網站的仿冒頁面數量上升165.2%;新增信息安全高危漏洞上升26.2%。監測發現,網絡病毒傳播的源頭放馬站點,涉及的68個域名中30.9%為境外註冊,且頂級域為.com的約佔83.8%,大部分放馬站點通過域名訪問實施病毒傳播。

國防大學教授戴旭指出,今天的世界已在一張“網”中。軍事領域的變化已經發生。從以傳感器為核心、以電磁空間為邊界的電子信息戰(可稱之為“電信戰”),到以網絡為核心、以心理空間開闢為特徵的網絡、心理戰(可稱之為“網心戰”),“網絡”化為基本特徵的第七代戰爭,正在成為大國博弈的主戰場。從攻城略地到攻心掠民,中國的傳統戰略優勢正成為被對手破解的重點,中國又一次處於無自然屏障可以依賴的危險境地,面對被網絡訛詐的狀態。關於戰爭和反戰爭的傳統認知體系,亟須升級換代。在網絡化多形態混合戰爭的新軍事時代,中國必須也有能力牽住時代的“牛鼻子”。

2、網際空間戰略已提上日程

網絡空間(Net Space),是人類創造的時空體系,是泛指的名稱概念,是信息處理與交換的承載空間。它概括了構成網絡空間的三大要素:屬性、連接覆蓋範圍和承載處理信息的功能。無論金融網、企業網、政府網,無論因特網、互聯網、網間網,無論陸基網、航空網、太空網,無論有線網、無線網、量子網,無論公網或私網涉及的相關服務提供商和運營商的專用接入網絡,等等,都有自主連接覆蓋的時空域和承載處理交換不同信息的網絡空間。

地球各種網絡空間並存構成的集合體,已經大大超出了網絡空間泛指的概念和定義,“網絡空間”已不能嚴謹、規範、準確地反映和包容其全部的內在特徵、延伸範疇與在全新的條件和基礎上發展變化的規律。這種網絡與網絡之間構成的超級網絡空間,喚生了“網際空間”(Nets Space)的學說。網際空間是網絡空間的集成域。

站在網際空間的高度、深度和廣度全維度、全視角地審視網絡空間,我們的視野將更寬更遠更清晰,我們的思維將更加容易跳出昨天和今天、展望明天,我們將會從因特網、“互聯網”、賽博空間造成的混沌中解放思想,走出一條超越計算機網絡時代的人類信息社會的全新道路。

一個由有線網絡、無線網絡、量子通訊、太空網絡等相互聯繫、相互作用、相互依托構成的網際空間時代,已經來臨並正在進入更加高級的階段。中國網際空間戰略的崛起,必將引起革命性的思想崛起、科技崛起、經濟崛起、民族崛起,國家崛起,惠及子孫後代,影響和帶動全球人類社會的跨越式進步。

網際空間戰略和技術準備已經提上日程,最佳時機也許就在眼前和今後的幾年之中。中國能不能搶占先機、把握良機,超越美國引領全新的超級網絡空間——網際空間時代,須只爭朝夕,須而今邁步從頭越,須數風流人物、還看今朝。

3、網際空間發展須舉國之力

美國以舉國之力推因特網、推IPV6、推賽博空間,在導致他國混沌和迷茫的同時,也確實創造了令人矚目的網絡科技、網絡經濟和網絡軍事輝煌。

我國已經成為世界第二大經濟體。我國完全有能力、有條件、有信心以舉國之力發展網際空間戰略和技術。

思想解放、體制改革是我國改革開放以來相輔相成的兩大舉措。由此出發,建議:

⑴ 建立黨中央、全國人大、國務院和全國政協共同領導和約束下的具高度權威性、法治化的決策糾錯機構和糾錯機制,堅決杜絕借混淆視聽左右決策之路。

少數追隨美國的“專家”、“權威”長期影響和乾預國家各網絡信息主管部門的身兼數職“一言堂”的怪事,再也不能允許發生、存在和繼續下去了,必須堅決扭轉和破除。

應當立即堅決糾正“全面引進、升級、部署IPV6”的重大戰略決策和規劃失誤,廢除與美國簽署的所有危害和危及我國網絡空間主權與安全的不平等協議;對網絡空間領域的國家投資項目逐一實施審計與後評價,明顯“為他人作嫁衣裳”的一律關停並轉。

⑵ 國家鼓勵和支持在民族自主知識產權前提和基礎上建設、發展與維護主權公眾網絡。

應當旗幟鮮明地允許在目前基於美國因特網的“中國互聯網“之外,建設發展獨立運行的中華公網等其它主權公眾網絡並提供服務,國民有選擇使用主權公眾網絡和非主權公眾網絡的權利。國家應出台傾向性的激勵政策和措施,允許主權公眾網絡採用IPV9、鄭碼、陶陳碼、CFL安全認證、MISC等等具有民族自主知識產權的技術。積極建設、發展與維護國內獨立運行的多網構成的互聯網,可以為構建全球網絡空間命運共同體探索模式、積累經驗、創造條件。

⑶ 不失時機地創建國家主導、社會參與、民間操作的“網際空間研究院”,全方位、多維度、深層次研究開發網際空間技術並製訂發展戰略和策略,打造世界一流的培養鍛煉網際空間人才基地,構建主權網絡/未來網絡/網際空間實驗、測試架構系統應用環境,探索與解決主權網絡、網絡空間和網際空間發展中的各種問題,大踏步地走在引領網際空間發展的世界前列。

⑷ 首先與俄羅斯、伊朗、德國、歐盟等致力於建設、發展、維護各自主權網絡空間的國家和國際組織積極進行構建網絡空間命運共同體的溝通、交流、洽談與合作,聯合多國積蓄力量,不以美國為主要談判對手。

掃清混沌,蕩滌迷茫,我們將不再受制於人、任其擺佈,我們將穩健地步入嚮往的網絡空間時代,我們將高瞻遠矚地奔向網際空間的未來。

中國的網絡空間治理或衝突的困境選擇 – China’s Dilemma Choice of Cyberspace Governance or Conflict

中國的網絡空間治理或衝突的困境選擇 –

China’s Dilemma Choice of Cyberspace Governance or Conflict

Introduction
The problem of cyberspace security governance is attracting more and more attention from the international community. Among them, the problem of cyberspace conflict management is more and more concerned. Compared with the physical space conflict, the cyber space conflict has the characteristics of diversification of the actors, rapid updating of the attack means and unpredictability of the conflict. This leads to the reality that the cyberspace conflict management is faced with serious challenges such as serious cognitive differences, difficult to effectively govern, deterrence and “structural problems”. Therefore, the network space conflict governance needs to change the governance concept, through the pragmatic cooperation between countries, the integration of all the advantages of resources, to build a global network of governance mechanisms, and cultivate cooperation and sharing of governance culture. As a global network of countries, China has been actively advocating the establishment of multilateral, democratic and transparent global governance system. At the same time, China will make a positive contribution to the construction of international rules of cyberspace and the global network governance mechanism in the areas of innovation governance, bridging the digital divide, carrying out bilateral and multilateral international cooperation.
text
With the extensive application and rapid development of network information technology in the world, the relationship between network and national security is becoming more and more closely. Among the security issues, the most interesting is cyberspace conflict. Cyberspace is called “next battlespace” by military strategists and futurists. The primary objective of governments in cyberspace is to ensure that their core interests are not compromised and that nationals are protected from cyber attacks. But the reality is that the vast majority of cyber attacks are not directly initiated and implemented by the government, but are operated directly by non-state actors. Moreover, the cost of launching a network attack is low, action is hidden, and can cause serious consequences. This also causes cyberspace to burst out of clashes or even cyber warfare (cyber warfare). Once the cyberspace conflict or war, its size and scope of influence will be difficult to estimate. Cyber ​​space conflicts can also lead to direct hostility and conflict among nations in the real world. In addition, due to the lack of necessary international legal jurisdiction and norms, cyber conflict management is also facing serious challenges. Effective control of the intensity of cyberspace conflict, the development of cyberspace national code of conduct, will be the international community to explore new issues of cyber conflict.

First, the changes and challenges of

cyberspace conflict Network space conflict from the behavior of the network threat to the perception and the resulting response. Network threats can be broadly divided into two categories: one is called cyber attacks, is deliberately destroying the behavior of the network system; the other is called cyber exploitation (cyber exploitation), that is, the use of network infrastructure to achieve illegal purposes, but Will not harm the network system itself. [1] The target of cyber attacks is aimed at national and non-state actors, including sovereign states, organizations and individuals, which can disrupt both hardware and software and other aspects of the computer, or by improperly invasive computer operating systems Information or implement remote control. Network attacks can cause network conflicts, and network conflicts can be upgraded to cyber warfare. A cyber war generally refers to the destruction and disruption of a nation or nation that infiltrates another country’s computer or network. [2] cyber war can seriously endanger the country’s political, economic and social security and stability, is the highest form of network conflict. <A I = 3> Network information technology has the immediacy, convenience, cheap nature, so that conflict and war becomes easy to operate and implement. Network information technology to the traditional conflict and war has undergone a subversive change. As long as there is a network of computers, a few people can implement a network attack, launched a small-scale war without smoke. Network space weapons development costs are very low, as long as there are one or two computers, and can achieve network connectivity, and then equipped with several high-level hackers, is enough to create a very lethal network weapons. [3] Therefore, the impact of the Internet on national security will be comprehensive, thorough and unprecedented. Network information technology from the continuous innovation and development of communication technology. The emergence and continuous updating of instant messaging technology has enhanced the efficiency of political decision-making on the battlefield. Network information technology for the innovation of weapons technology has an important role in promoting, especially in the era of nuclear weapons, computer technology to make nuclear weapons more accurate, reliable and high speed. During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union attached great importance to the development of information processing technology. With the comprehensive development of computer technology, the United States first proposed the “information warfare doctrine” (information warfare doctrine), that is, the use of information technology, tactics and means beyond the opponent. Western scholars said that the current international society is no greater risk of weapons of mass destruction, but large-scale destructive weapons (weapons of mass disruption). [4] In the technical breakthrough, cyber space conflict and war more profound changes reflected in the behavior of the main, means of attack and the consequences of conflict and so on. (I) Increasing diversity of actors The cyberspace provides a broader platform for non-State actors to move beyond the limits of territory and sovereignty and to play a greater role in reality and in the virtual world. Traditional conflicts and wars occur between different groups, generally monopolized by powerful states, and individual individuals are difficult to attack groups. Network information technology has greatly enlarged the power of relatively weak behavior. With the help of a network information platform, small countries can challenge the hegemonic countries, small groups can attack the powerful sovereign states, individuals can also attack the group. The United States has always regarded North Korea as a threat in cyberspace. According to the US Fox News Network reported that the beginning of 2010, the report shows that North Korea has trained thousands of top computer students to become excellent “cyber warrior” (cyber Warrior), whose operational targets are locked for the United States and South Korea. [⑤] In recent years, terrorism has also gained the “new life” with the help of network carrier and information tools. Al Qaeda uses Internet technology to promote its extreme ideas, and use the network platform to implement member recruitment, online training, fund raising, remote command and other activities. It can be said that the cyber space of the hidden and open features to increase the international community to prevent and combat the difficulty of terrorism. [⑥] In 2008, a 14-year-old boy in Poland, through the invasion and control of the Lodz tram system, caused confusion, resulting in four trams derailed, 12 people were injured, the accident did not cause death. [⑦] for the increasingly diverse network attackers, the US Strategic Command Command Kevin Hilton (Gen. Kevin P. Chilton) vividly believes that “our enemy range, including not only the boring young hackers, but also criminal organizations, but also related to national actors.” [ 2] Attack means to constantly update the original intention of the development of the Internet is to facilitate the effective flow of information to achieve resource sharing, interoperability. Open environment will often bring more risks and challenges to security, cyberspace and thus appeared in the “offensive and defensive imbalance” problem. This structural imbalance triggers cyber malicious attacks, thereby reducing confidence in deterrence and effective defense. [⑨] static defense in cyberspace (static defenses), that is, passive defense, refers to the most powerful hackers as a new challenge or to be resolved. [⑩] Skilled cyber attackers can easily find network vulnerabilities and successfully bypass security defense software. Compared with the traditional conflict, cyber space in the attackers in a shelter, and specifically attack the target of the weak links. In the “offensive side of the defensive side” in the context of the network of offensive weapons has become very common. The general network of offensive weapons, including computer viruses, malware, logic bombs (logic bombs, denial of service (denial of service) and so on. Low-end network weapons, the goal is simply to steal information, access to passwords, modify the program, generally do not produce significant harm. By contrast, high-end network weapons can cause data or critical facilities to be interrupted or severely damaged. A series of cyber attacks can evolve into major emergencies, breaking critical services over a period of time, including disrupting military command or information systems, shutting down power supply or oil pipelines, and stopping financial services. In 2008, the US Department of Defense to store encrypted military information on the computer network had infected with malicious code. Malicious code diffuses to encrypted and unencrypted file systems without being perceived. Although it was found in time, but the US military is very scared that such an event may make its military confidential documents are uploaded to foreign intelligence agencies, and even unknown hostile forces, the consequences will be disastrous. [11] Complex high-end malicious code has a strong self-camouflage ability, it is difficult to be found, often has been caused after serious injury will be found. In 2010, Iran’s nuclear facilities were attacked by “Stuxnet” (Stuxnet), making Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment plant 1 More than 1,000 IR-1 centrifuges have to be replaced due to abnormal operation and damage. The fact that the “shock virus” attack target is very accurate or single, that is, the German Siemens control system (SIMATIC WinCC). This is a data acquisition and monitoring (SCADA) system, widely used by Iran in the defense of basic industrial facilities. “Seismic virus” in the invasion of a computer, it will automatically find the Siemens software to confirm the software found, the virus will be unaware of the state control of industrial computer systems, and control the computer software to other factories on the computer Issue a given order. Network security experts believe that the “earthquake network virus” is the first physical world infrastructure for the target “precision guidance” worm. [12] As the first disclosure of “shock virus” German well-known network security experts, Ralph Langner (Ralph Langner) through systematic analysis, that “shock network virus” structure than imagined even more complex , Including two different “digital warhead” (digital warhead), respectively, for different offensive targets, uranium enrichment facilities and Bushehr nuclear power plant external turbine. He believes that the power of the second warhead is equivalent to the Bushehr nuclear power plant for a precise air strike. [13] US information security expert Kevin Clayman (Kevin Coleman) 2010 in the United States National Defense Science and Technology published an article that the number of network attacks will be a sharp upgrade. To support this assertion, he mentioned that the number of malware in 2009 reached the highest level in the past 20 years, with multiple reports showing that more than 25 million malware was confirmed, and that growth would continue. [14] Through the above examples, it is easy to see the cyber space in the offensive weapon technology content is high and has a strong pertinence. Such weapons are more subtle, more precise, more offensive and destructive than conventional weapons. At the same time, network offensive weapons can not be reused, must be constantly upgrading. Matin Libici, a digital warfare expert at the famous American think tank, argues that it is no longer a weapon once someone knows how the cyber warfare works. The best weapon is the enemy does not know, but they already have. [15] (c) the consequences of conflict unpredictable <a I = 11> opponents in traditional conflicts are clearly visible, and the results of the conflict are predictable. In the conflict of cyberspace, once the offensive weapon is in power, the damage scale and influence caused by it are constantly copied and disseminated, and it is difficult to get effective control as the traditional conflict. More seriously, cyber attacks can bring serious panic to society, which is more serious than traditional wars. All kinds of infrastructure in modern society are controlled by computer and Internet systems. Once the network attacks are affected by water, electricity and financial control systems, the losses will be immeasurable and may even cause serious social unrest. American scholars envisioned the serious consequences of cyber attacks: no air control system or airport security system, no electronic control of rail traffic, no reliance on electronic computer day and night delivery of parcels or e-mails, no employer through payment software to pay workers wages Check, no electronic withdrawal record, no automatic teller machine, hospital or health center No reliable digital record, no electricity leads no light, no heat, no refueling system or fuel, petrol, no traffic lights, no phone, no internet service , There is no police effective security management, this series of problems will make the American society into a short-term paralysis. [16] According to the CIA revealed that the number of cyber attacks against the US public utility network in 2007 showed that the person in charge of the power company was even reluctant to talk about the risk of these events because of fear of serious social panic. In addition, the openness of cyberspace makes the network attacks happen and its scope of influence will be diffuse. In April 2013, hackers stole the Associated Press’s Twitter account and posted a false message that US President Barack Obama was injured in an explosion at the White House. A few minutes later, the Associated Press official used another Twitter account before the account was stolen. White House spokesman also clarified by President Obama did not hurt the radio. But many people have seen the news of the stolen Twitter account, the event led to the Dow Jones Industrial Average and S & P500 index both fell, after the two trading index and rapid rebound. Alert alleged that the Twitter account has 2 million audiences, the release of instant messaging is very influential. [17] The incident also sounded the alarm to the US government, with a simple account stolen event is likely to trigger a financial panic, which seriously disrupt the social order. The above new features of cyber conflict governance have had serious consequences. The diversity of the behavior makes it difficult to change the concept in a short time to overcome the differences and differences of cognition. The continuous innovation of the network attack means makes the international legal system and deterrence difficult to play the role. The unpredictable consequence is aggravating the inter- Mutual suspicion. These factors will seriously hinder the formation of cyberspace conflict management mechanism and play a role. Second, the network space conflict governance mechanism of the plight of cyberspace conflict and the traditional sense of the international conflict is very different. The main actors in the current global governance mechanism are sovereign states, who propose a series of rules and regulations on the basis of understanding and understanding of traditional armed conflicts. But in cyberspace, the effective regulation of the behavior of non-State actors is a matter of law and morality. And “structural dilemma” and other practical problems also exacerbated the difficulty of cyber conflict. (A) cognitive differences hinder effective governance At present, countries on the core concept of network security understanding of the network security events and their attribution (attribution) and identified there are deep differences. For example, the United States, Britain, Japan, Germany, France and the European Union have developed a network security strategy, through comparison can be found, the parties to “cyberspace”, “network security”, “network war” and other core concepts defined difference. [18] In cyberspace, how to determine that some of the acts have violated the basic norms of international law and can be used to combat Can individuals and organizations become the target of a national network attack? How do you define the national sovereignty of cyberspace? For these questions, the current international legal system has no ready answers. The United Nations, as a broadly representative international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security, has its own limitations, highlighting the development of the Charter of the United Nations much earlier than the arrival of the cyber-information age and therefore does not take into account the issue of cyber attacks. It is difficult to define cyber attacks as the use of force in accordance with prevailing norms of international law. During the three weeks before the 2008 Russian-Russian war, Unknown Acts used a commercial IP address to launch a decentralized denial service in several countries to attack the Georgian president’s website. The outside world believes that the relevant malware (named MachBo) was written in Russia and used by Russian hackers, although there is no definite proof that the Russian government has planned and implemented cyber attacks. Another dilemma faced by current international legal norms is the blurring boundary between cybercrime and cyber warfare. Realistic disagreement is manifested in the fact that the attacked state considers cybercrime to be a cybercrime and encourages implementation or support in the back of the country that cyber attacks are a cyber warfare for the maintenance of national interests. It can be seen that the lack of unified cognitive standards and operational guidelines make cyberspace conflict management difficult to carry out. In general, cyberspace behavior can be divided into three categories, one is legal (recognized is legal); the second is crime (illegal, the current legal norms that it is a crime); three is not legal (by the state and Non-state actors are found to be malicious, but the existing legal framework is not clearly defined). To be sure, cyber attacks should first fall within the jurisdiction of domestic law. If the attacker violates domestic law, the government of the host country is bound to enforce the jurisdiction. If the attacker attacked the target of another country, and the relationship between the target country and the host country is not friendly, there is a realistic problem. Especially for intelligence gathering, disruption of communications, or network behavior such as issuing erroneous directives to the enemy, it is easy for the implementer to be deemed to be a cyber attack because of being favored by the host country, So that it will not be punished. [19] (b) difficult to effectively govern international legal norms <a There are indeed many problems with the current international legal system and governance mechanisms. First, the existence of existing rules on armed conflict applied to cyberspace issues; second, the existing international rules can be applied to cyberspace governance, the majority of international rules focus on inter-State conflict, and cyberspace in the unconventional conflict But the more and more; third, the lack of legal experts; Fourth, the current rules focus on how to limit the network war, but the physical and collateral damage and other potential issues less concerned. [20] These problems make the existing international legal system not only effective control of cybercrime behavior, nor can it provide legal protection for civilian infrastructure and ordinary civilians. The Law of War and Armed Conflict (“the Law of Armed Conflict”) originated in the mid-19th century and is a humanitarian norm that regulates violence and conflict. The law of armed conflict applies exclusively to the conflict between the regular forces of the state. Countries in 1864 on the “Geneva Convention” to reach a consensus in 1868 in St. Petersburg officially signed. But the law of armed conflict, the Charter of the United Nations in the legal control of the war and wartime war behavior constraints are not applicable to cyberspace. And the existing legal norms do not clearly define the “war behavior” (war of act) concept. In general, war refers to the legal consequences of the use of force between States. The law of armed conflict is based on the use of force and aggression. In cyberspace, there is a great deal of controversy over whether cyber attacks are equal to the use of force and should be governed by the law of armed conflict. On the one hand, although not explicitly defined, it is generally believed that cyber attacks are hostile in cyberspace using network and information technology to achieve a certain purpose or effect; on the other hand, whether a cyber attack can be called For the conflict or war, still need the international community generally recognized. [21] There are gaps in the existing international legal norms for the control network space conflict. Within the existing international legal framework, the international legal norms governing conflict are the law of armed conflict, whose main legal sources are international treaties and international customs. It is the sum of binding principles, rules and regulations, and systems that adjust the relations between the warring parties and the warring parties and the neutral States in war and armed conflict. [twenty two] The subject of the law of armed conflict rests with the State and does not involve the question of the exercise of jurisdiction over individuals and international organizations. In addition, in the network attack, how to effectively distinguish between military and non-military objectives is also a real challenge. In the field of traditional warfare, military and non-military objectives are clearly defined, just as green tanks carry soldiers, and yellow cars carry students. But in the absence of clear boundaries in the cyberspace, the boundaries of the two are vague. The blurring of boundaries will lead to bias and shift of offensive targets, such as the blow to a country’s military facilities likely to shift to civilian infrastructure targets. In the network war, for the commander, it is difficult to distinguish which networks have military strategic objectives, which goals are civil. The more difficult problem is that it is difficult to determine the attacker’s long-range attack. Even if it is possible to determine the presence of the attacker and the attack itself, it is difficult to determine the identity of the attacker. Cyber ​​space conflict also exists on the application of the right of self-defense in traditional war. If a cyber attack against a country has occurred, the State under attack has the right to self-defense in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. But how to determine the implementation of the main body to determine whether the attack on the country’s attack, to define the extent of the attack, there is no uniform standard. Although the existing international legal system clearly stipulates that conventional wars can not use weapons of mass destruction, they are almost equivalent to the use of weapons of mass destruction if they are likely to be devastated by malicious code and malware. If this assumption is true, it will pose a serious challenge to the above principles. And if the network army in the public website embedded malicious code, and the infection code of the non-military system than the military system, which should be considered a violation of the principle of abuse of weapons. Whether there is a “network of weapons of mass destruction” in cyberspace, and the international community has not reached a consensus on the use and co-operation of these weapons that can cause serious consequences. In addition, the development of network information technology in the 21st century makes the soldiers separated from their war behavior. The closer the separation of the acts of war, the harder it is to preserve the humanitarian spirit implicit in the law of armed conflict. At the same time, the openness of cyberspace makes the public and private, government and private network mutual penetration, overlap each other. This will result in a joint attack on the consequences of a network attack and may cause physical damage and injury. (C) the network deterrence lost utility <a I = 25> cyberspace The international legal system is not yet sound is an existing fact, then can the cyber deterrence strategy be effectively implemented and achieve the intended purpose? The deterrence strategy emphasizes the strength and the will of the contest. Deterance refers to the strength of one party is strong enough to make its opponents can not attack, otherwise it will pay a significant price. The prerequisite for deterrence is the possibility and credibility: the possibility that one party has the absolute ability to launch retaliation and counterattack, credible means that at the crucial moment one party decides to impose the necessary blow to its opponent. To achieve the purpose of affecting the opponent’s decision-making, you need to let the opponent clearly understand and perceive the deterrent implementation of the absolute strength and revenge. In reality, there are serious limitations in the use of deterrence strategies in cyberspace: first, deterrence theory is generally applied between two powerful opponents, the deterrent can be effective to assume that the other is rational, can not bear the cost of attack. But in cyberspace, there may be a serious asymmetry between the attacking entity and the attacked object, and even if effective retaliation is implemented, the purpose of deterrence can not be achieved. Second, the asymmetry of retaliatory means would disrupt the existing international rules. If the network attacker only launched a general decentralized denial of attack, only led to the attacking country network system paralysis, if the attacking countries using conventional military and nuclear forces to fight back, will cause a lot of economic losses and casualties, which will Deviation from the “principle of proportionality” in international law, the return action will be the loss of legal legitimacy. Finally, cyber attacks are instantaneous, one-off, successful, or failing only in the twinkling of an eye. Successful attacks can cause harm, and the victim is retaliated after being attacked, and deterrence will be completely lost because the injury has arisen. In a cyber environment, a party that initiates a cyber attack usually attacks an attack through a “zombie computer” (a computer that has been hijacked after it invades), which adds significant difficulty to the attacker’s determination of the attacker. In addition, the process of determining the identity of the attacker takes a long time, after the confirmation is correct, the loss has been generated and irreversible. Re-implementation of such retaliation under such conditions would challenge the “self-defense principle” under international law, since Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations clearly stipulates that “self-defense” is prerequisite for action against force. The more challenging issue is that if the attackers are identified as being an organization or an individual, the various norms of international law will not work. Former deputy secretary of the United States Department of Defense William Lynn Lynn) also mentioned the difficulty of the network deterrent, “deterrence credible prerequisite for the identity of the adversaries to confirm no doubt, but in the cyberspace almost no such case.” [23] (d) “structural problems” threat to international cooperation and the real world, cyberspace is also in anarchy. In this state, there is no absolute authority, so the relationship between the cyberspace state is facing a “structural problem.” This is highlighted as two aspects: First, the network developed countries and emerging network power between the competitive relationship, which is reflected in the network security issues on the two camps, “different voices.” The first camp is the United States led the Western countries group, they have introduced the corresponding national network security strategy, and put forward the values ​​of Western countries to reflect the cooperation and governance philosophy. In March 2014, the United States stated that it had strengthened bilateral and multilateral coordination and cooperation with the EU in matters related to the Internet. The United States made it clear that US-European cooperation is based on shared values, common interests, multi-stake governance concepts, cyber freedom and the protection of cyberspace human rights. [24] Early 2015, the United States and the United Kingdom expressed the need to protect key infrastructure, strengthen network defense, support network academic research and other aspects of pragmatic cooperation. [25] In June the same year, the United States and Japan to enhance network deterrence and strengthen information and intelligence sharing agreement. [26] It is not difficult to find that the first camp headed by the United States places more emphasis on the values ​​of freedom and democracy in cyberspace and strengthens its own network deterrent. The second camp is China, Russia and other emerging countries group. “Prism door incident” occurred, China and Russia and other countries are very concerned about maintaining the network of national sovereignty, called on the international community to pay attention to the United States to cyberspace open, free in the name of the actual violation of the sovereignty of other countries. At the BRICS National Summit in Brazil in 2014, Russia proposed strengthening the BRIC network security cooperation. [27] Russia and China as the representative of the BRIC countries that “WikiLeaks” and “prism door incident” shows that the United States and other Western countries in the network security issues on the implementation of double standards: on the one hand advocate the so-called absolute freedom of cyberspace, On the other hand use the network to steal other countries information. One of the two camps advocated “network freedom first”, the other side advocated “network sovereignty first”, the two sides views obvious and difficult to eliminate. <A I = 32> Second is the inequality between developed and developing countries. Developed countries because of the advantages of early development, has been in the network information technology has the initiative; and the majority of developing countries due to historical, economic development and technical conditions and other factors, network information technology has long been lagging behind. According to the statistics of the International Telecommunication Union and other relevant agencies, the number of online online users has reached 2.3 billion by 2011, the Internet penetration rate in developing countries is about 25%, the penetration of the Internet in developed countries is 70%, and the per capita Internet users in Europe Bandwidth is equivalent to 25 times the bandwidth of Africa’s per capita. [28] Inequality in status will allow the vast majority of developing countries to remain marginal and passive. Although the United States and other Western countries put forward on the network security issues to the vast number of developing countries to provide the necessary assistance, but because they are in the implementation of assistance along with the concept of Western values, in fact, the majority of developing countries, “value output.” The majority of developing countries are very worried about the United States and other Western countries to form a network security technology level of “dependency”, the network space conflict governance North-South cooperation is also difficult to achieve. Third, the network space conflict mechanism of governance mechanism to explore the war has entered the information age, the existing international law should be necessary to improve and upgrade. The diversity of actors, the escalating offensive technology, and the uncertainty of the consequences call global governance of cyberspace conflicts. People are aware that cybercrime, cybercriminals, and cyber-terrorism have become global problems that can not be solved by the power of individual countries alone. Thus, the issue of cybersecurity is not just the domestic security of individual countries, but it is necessary to carry out long-term, extensive and in-depth international cooperation. At the same time, the existing international legal norms need to be updated and perfected. In the case of international legal norms governing the international conflict, prevention and control of cyberspace conflicts should be increased. At the same time, cyberspace cooperation requires the cultivation of peace and cooperation, development and win-win governance philosophy. Only the concept of governance enjoys popular support, international cyberspace conflict governance action will be concerned about, but also in the international community is widely recognized. (A) the transformation of global governance awareness Although there are Estonia, the Georgia network attack and “earthquake network virus” on Iran’s nuclear facilities caused serious damage and other typical cases, but so far there has been no large-scale inter-country network conflict. Nevertheless, people are still highly concerned about the cyberspace conflict, the urgent need to change the corresponding sense of governance. <A First, the most important subject involved in the management of cyberspace conflict is still the sovereign state. Although the role of individuals and groups is magnified by cyberspace, their power is still limited. Individuals and groups lead to large-scale network conflict and even the possibility of war is still minimal. Therefore, the focus on the network conflict should still be the country. Only countries in accordance with the law to effectively manage and regulate their own and their domestic organizations, individual behavior, cooperation between countries can play a role. Second, to coordinate and integrate the power and resources. Need to pay special attention to is that cyberspace itself beyond the borders, can not fully rely on government and national power. The United States and Europe and other Western countries in the network defense is the most worth learning experience is the full integration of civil resources, to achieve effective interaction between the official and civil. Should be aware of non-state actors in the field of cybersecurity in the important role, rather than national actors also hope to cooperate with the government to reduce network risk. [29] In 2010, the National Security Agency (NSA) in the Google company suffered high persistence attacks (Advanced Persistent Threat, APT), to provide information and technical assistance. [30] The basic elements of cyberspace are individuals and social groups, only to stimulate the vitality of individuals and social organizations, to enhance their network security and cooperation awareness, cyberspace will be more secure. In the government’s active promotion, the integration of technical personnel, experts and scholars, social groups, enterprises, government and other resources in order to effectively eliminate all kinds of cyberspace threats. In some cases, the need to deal with cyberspace problems also need to find answers in the network. In reality, the use of “white off” is an important strategic choice. In January 2014, the Russian Federation Committee proposed the use of “white off” (no criminal criminal record, can find a system of loopholes and experienced network of experts) services to deal with complex and volatile network attacks. [31] US network security software vendor experts also stressed that should be concerned about the “white” group, can not let it be tempted by the dark forces or even use. [32] Third, the implementation of hierarchical management of network behavior. The biggest challenge facing the international community is that countries can not agree on many cyberspace governance issues. From the point of view of harm, low to high behavior includes cyber vandalism, cyber espionage and cybercrime, denial of service, cyber attacks and large-scale cyber attacks. The first three categories already exist, and network attacks and large-scale network attacks have not yet occurred, although it is the most concern, but also the most likely to lead to network conflict behavior. Because cyber attacks and large-scale cyber attacks are targeted at key infrastructure, it can lead to serious social unrest in the attacked countries. Thus, such acts are almost intolerable and can cause reprisals by the injured State. For the first three categories of relatively light sabotage, the parties can be resolved through consultation and cooperation; for possible serious consequences of network attacks and large-scale attacks, countries should be through consultation to achieve a clear ban on such acts of cyberspace international code of conduct The (B) to cultivate the concept of cooperation in cyberspace “attack side overwhelming” reality makes cyberspace deterrence difficult to achieve, which will encourage the network intruder from another direction, eventually leading to network arms race. On the surface, the attack can bring some benefits and produce a sense of security, but the consequences will be cyberspace behavior between the competition, mutual hostility. Therefore, in the Internet, open network space is impossible to obtain absolute security. <A I = 42> On the contrary, if the defensive side is dominant, the behavior is more inclined to cooperate. Any threatened intrusion is carried out on the basis of successful defensive measures. Therefore, to enhance the defense capacity in order to obtain positive and lasting security. This requires the establishment of two types of mechanisms: one is the early warning mechanism, so that the attacked countries can early detection and take the necessary preventive measures. From the “network virus” attacks can be seen in the case, the virus invasion must bypass the victim’s security firewall. If you take a security defense measures, “earthquake network virus” is unable to implement the damage. Second, the information sharing mechanism, the parties to coordinate and cooperate with each other will help to achieve common security. This first requires the sharing of information between countries, which can increase mutual trust, is conducive to pragmatic and effective cooperation to achieve mutually beneficial win-win goal. Second, the sharing of information between government and private enterprises is also necessary. In many cases, the country’s infrastructure is operated by private enterprises, but there are obvious shortcomings in the information and intelligence collection channels, quantity and quality compared with the country. Third, in the network space conflict management should also focus on cultivating the “humanitarian” spirit, in the physical space to attack the party has the obligation to minimize the harm of civilians. Any country with strong technical capacity must also consider minimizing civilian damage when using cyber weapons. Some scholars even believe that the degree of damage caused by network weapons should be limited to less than a bomb damage. [33] (c) the establishment of conflict governance mechanism The international community has been advocating the creation of international mechanisms for conflict resolution, its purpose is through the policy coordination between countries, on the basis of consensus on the formation of network conflict management mechanism, and gradually establish cyberspace International order, and thus cultivate a global network of space management culture. [34] The international community attaches great importance to the inconceivable destructive power and influence of cyber space conflicts. In practice, attempts are made to bilateral and multilateral cooperation and have achieved some results, which can provide the necessary reference for the construction of global cyberspace governance mechanism. As the most influential intergovernmental organization, the United Nations should play a leading role in the governance of cyberspace conflict. The United Nations cyberspace conflict management mechanism is not widely represented and is not universally recognized by the international community. As early as 2006, the United Nations set up an open Internet Governance Forum (Internet Governance Forum, IGF). [35] As of 2014, the Internet Governance Forum has been held for nine consecutive sessions. In April 2015, the United Nations launched a dialogue with Russia on the International Convention on Cybercrime, but there was no consensus on the serious differences between developed countries and developed countries and organizations such as the United States, Canada and the European Union. This shows that countries have opened the door to dialogue for a global agreement. [36] As a specialized agency of the United Nations, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has also played an important role, actively advocating the “stakeholder” (stakeholder) concept, called on countries around the world to participate in the process of safeguarding the international community network security. The exploration and attempt of the international community shows that cyberspace governance itself is part of global governance. Every country faces the threat of cyber attacks, network conflicts and even cyber warfare. Participation in multilateral cooperation is the best choice for all countries to safeguard their own interests. At the same time, regional international organizations are also exploring new models of cyberspace governance. The 7th SCO Council of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), held in 2007, proposed the Action Plan for information security, emphasizing the state’s control over the network system and information content. At the beginning of 2008, NATO convened an emergency meeting of the North Atlantic Council for the Estonian incident and introduced a cyber-defense policy, which for the first time established cyber security issues as the content of its collective defense obligations. NATO claims that if its member countries are subjected to catastrophic cyber attacks, the new cybersecurity policy will provide an effective counterattack tool. In April, NATO Cyber ​​Defense Management Authority (CDMA) was established to form a unified deployment of allied network action capabilities. In May, the Cooperative Cyber ​​Defense Center of Excellence, CCS COE) was formally established in Tallinn to strengthen the comprehensive capabilities of NATO’s network defense, and the establishment of the two institutions became a symbol of NATO’s network defense. [37] NATO officials also expressed their intention to cooperate safely with cyberspace in South Korea and other East Asian countries. In the current global governance mechanism, the success of cyberspace conflict management is the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs). It is aimed at nationally recognized cybercrime, which stipulates that participating countries share information, evidence and other forms of cooperation. The treaty is mainly applicable to the use of the network system to implement the crime. The Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime (CEC) was signed by the Council of Europe in 2001 to define and punish the deterrence of cybercrime. The Cybercrime Convention is the most important multilateral cooperation agreement against cyber attacks and the world’s first international convention against cybercrime, which will have a significant impact on the legislation of many countries. Some scholars have suggested that international justice cooperation in the fight against cybercrime be carried out in accordance with the Convention. [38] Joseph Chennai believes that restricting all cybercrime is impossible, but it can be done from combating cybercrime and cyber-terrorism, and the great powers have many common interests on these issues. [39] Whether it is the United Nations or other regional international organizations, through their own practice to explore the global model of cyberspace governance. These practices will greatly enrich the theoretical basis and practical experience of cyberspace conflict management, which is of great significance to promote the international community to construct the relevant governance mechanism. The ultimate goal of cyberspace conflict management is to break through the differences of ideas, on the basis of common interests, to achieve beyond the borders, areas, levels of all-round, three-dimensional cooperation, and ultimately clean up the network space, to good governance. This process may take a long time and requires the joint efforts of the international community. China’s role and contribution in cyberspace conflict management According to China’s Internet Center (CNNIC) released the 36th “China Network Development Statistics Report” shows that by June 2015, the number of Internet users in China has reached 668 million, the Internet Penetration rate of 48%. 4%. This shows that China is already the largest number of Internet users in the country, but also shows that the Chinese people’s production and life, economic growth and innovation are closely related with the network, China has become a veritable global network power. As a global power, China has always positioned itself as a participant, builder and practitioner in cyberspace security governance. China’s national strategy is to develop from a network of major powers as a network power, and to promote the development of balanced development, sound rules and reasonable order of the global network space and make unremitting efforts. As the largest developing country, China has long been committed to the struggle for the vast number of developing countries, and actively participate in the construction of peace, security, openness and cooperation of cyberspace, and promote the establishment of multilateral, democratic and transparent global Internet governance system. At the same time, the Chinese government has put forward the principle of network governance with Chinese characteristics on the basis of the existing experience of governance, such as the rule of law, the order priority and the positive integration, which is similar to those of China. Furniture has important reference value and reference significance. [41] In September 2015, when the Chinese President visited the United States, he said in a written interview with The Wall Street Journal that China was a strong defender of cybersecurity. On the one hand, China will strengthen cooperation with the United States, the European Union, Russia, through the establishment of bilateral and multilateral cooperation mechanism to increase mutual trust, and is committed to building network security code of conduct. On the other hand, China will be more active in cyberspace global governance, and strive to incorporate the concept of safeguarding network sovereignty, network fairness and pragmatic cooperation advocated by China into cyberspace international standards. At the same time, China will also fulfill its commitments to actively promote the construction of cyberspace global order. In addition, China is working on the development of national network security for the relevant legal norms. In June 2015, the National People’s Congress for the first time considered the “People’s Republic of China Network Security Law (Draft)”. Article 5 of the General Regulations clearly states that “China will actively strengthen international exchanges and cooperation in the areas of cyberspace governance, network technology research and development and standard setting, and crack down on crimes against the Internet, and promote the construction of peaceful, safe, open and cooperative cyberspace. [42] This shows that China is committed to the law through the definition of network security, safeguarding network sovereignty, standardize network behavior, promote international cooperation in cyberspace. At the same time, China is also actively advocated in cyberspace governance to play the leading role of the United Nations. In 2011, China and Russia jointly submitted the International Code of Conduct for Information Security to the 66th Session of the General Assembly, put forward a series of basic principles of national conduct on the maintenance of information and cybersecurity, and called on countries to carry out further discussions within the framework of the United Nations. [43] In June 2013, China and the United States and other 15 countries in the United Nations network security dialogue, clearly advocated the “United Nations Charter” applies to cyberspace. [44] In 2014, China and the United Nations jointly organized the International Symposium on Information and Internet Security, which is an important manifestation of China’s international rules for promoting cyberspace. In December 2015, Chinese President Xi Jinping delivered a speech at the Second World Internet Conference to elaborate on China’s basic position on cyberspace development and security, demonstrating China’s forward-looking thinking about the future development of cyberspace and calling for Countries around the world should strengthen communication, expand consensus, deepen cooperation, and jointly build the network space fate community. [45] In addition, China is also actively safeguarding the cyberspace interests of developing countries and “network sovereignty”. China advocates bridging the digital divide on multiple international occasions. Cyber ​​space threat is no border, its impact is transnational. Network vulnerabilities in many developing countries will be targets of attack, and they may also be manipulated into “bonnet” (bonnet) to attack other countries. In the field of Internet technology applications and development, there is a clear gap between China and Western countries. China advocates that the network is primarily used for commercial purposes and not for political and military purposes. In the future, China will continue to carry out independent research and development and innovation in network security technology. These network security technologies can become an important part of China’s foreign technical assistance. At present, China is promoting the “one way along the road” construction, which focus on cooperation, including the promotion of national and regional network infrastructure. At the same time, China is also willing to assume more responsibility and play an active role in cyberspace cooperation. In 2014, China and the United Nations jointly organized the International Symposium on Information and Internet Security, which is an important manifestation of China’s international rules for promoting cyberspace. In December 2015, Chinese President Xi Jinping delivered a speech at the Second World Internet Conference to elaborate on China’s basic position on cyberspace development and security, demonstrating China’s forward-looking thinking about the future development of cyberspace and calling for Countries around the world should strengthen communication, expand consensus, deepen cooperation, and jointly build the network space fate community. [45] In addition, China is also actively safeguarding the cyberspace interests of developing countries and “network sovereignty”. China advocates bridging the digital divide on multiple international occasions. Cyber ​​space threat is no border, its impact is transnational. Network vulnerabilities in many developing countries will be targets of attack, and they may also be manipulated into “bonnet” (bonnet) to attack other countries. In the field of Internet technology applications and development, there is a clear gap between China and Western countries. China advocates that the network is primarily used for commercial purposes and not for political and military purposes. In the future, China will continue to carry out independent research and development and innovation in network security technology. These network security technologies can become an important part of China’s foreign technical assistance. At present, China is promoting the “one way along the road” construction, which focus on cooperation, including the promotion of national and regional network infrastructure. At the same time, China is also willing to assume more responsibility and play an active role in cyberspace cooperation. In 2014, China and the United Nations jointly organized the International Symposium on Information and Internet Security, which is an important manifestation of China’s international rules for promoting cyberspace. In December 2015, Chinese President Xi Jinping delivered a speech at the Second World Internet Conference to elaborate on China’s basic position on cyberspace development and security, demonstrating China’s forward-looking thinking about the future development of cyberspace and calling for Countries around the world should strengthen communication, expand consensus, deepen cooperation, and jointly build the network space fate community. [45] In addition, China is also actively safeguarding the cyberspace interests of developing countries and “network sovereignty”. China advocates bridging the digital divide on multiple international occasions. Cyber ​​space threat is no border, its impact is transnational. Network vulnerabilities in many developing countries will be targets of attack, and they may also be manipulated into “bonnet” (bonnet) to attack other countries. In the field of Internet technology applications and development, there is a clear gap between China and Western countries. China advocates that the network is primarily used for commercial purposes and not for political and military purposes. In the future, China will continue to carry out independent research and development and innovation in network security technology. These network security technologies can become an important part of China’s foreign technical assistance. At present, China is promoting the “one way along the road” construction, which focus on cooperation, including the promotion of national and regional network infrastructure. At the same time, China is also willing to assume more responsibility and play an active role in cyberspace cooperation. The focus will include advancing national and regional network infrastructure. At the same time, China is also willing to assume more responsibility and play an active role in cyberspace cooperation. The focus will include advancing national and regional network infrastructure. At the same time, China is also willing to assume more responsibility and play an active role in cyberspace cooperation.

 

Original Mandarin Chinese:

簡介
網絡空間安全治理問題正日益引起國際社會的普遍關注;其中,網絡空間衝突治理問題更是備受關注。與現實的物理空間衝突相比,網絡空間衝突具有行為體多元化、進攻手段快速更新、衝突後果不可預知等新特點。這導致網絡空間衝突治理面臨認知分歧嚴重、規範難以有效管轄、威懾無效和“結構性難題”等現實挑戰。因而,網絡空間衝突治理需要轉變治理理念,通過國家間務實合作,整合各方優勢資源,構建網絡空間全球治理機制,並培育合作、共享的治理文化。作為全球網絡大國,中國一直以來都積極倡導建立多邊、民主、透明的全球治理體系。同時中國將在創新治理理念,彌合數字鴻溝,開展雙邊、多邊國際合作等方面,為構建網絡空間國際規則和全球網絡治理機製作出積極貢獻。
正文
隨著網絡信息技術在全球範圍內的廣泛應用和快速發展,網絡與國家安全的關係日趨緊密且受到各國高度重視。在安全議題中,最引人關注的是網絡空間衝突。網絡空間被軍事戰略學家和未來學家稱為“下一個戰爭空間”(next battlespace)。各國政府在網絡空間中的首要目標是確保本國的核心利益不受損害,保障國民免受網絡襲擊的侵擾。但現實情況是絕大多數網絡襲擊並非由政府直接發動和實施,而是由非國家行為體直接策劃操作。而且,發動網絡襲擊的成本低廉、行動隱蔽,且能引發嚴重後果。這也造成網絡空間容易爆發衝突甚至網絡戰爭(cyber warfare)。一旦網絡空間發生衝突或戰爭,其規模和影響範圍將難以估量。網絡空間衝突也可能導致國家間在現實世界中的直接敵對與衝突。此外,由於缺乏必要的國際法律管轄與規範,網絡空間衝突治理也面臨著嚴峻挑戰。有效控製網絡空間衝突的烈度,制定網絡空間國家行為準則,將是國際社會探索網絡空間衝突治理的新課題。

一、網絡空間衝突的變化與挑戰

網絡空間衝突源於行為體對網絡威脅的感知和由此作出的反應。網絡威脅大致可分為兩類:一類被稱為網絡襲擊,是指蓄意破壞網絡系統的行為;另一類被稱為網絡牟利(cyber exploitation),即利用網絡基礎設施來達到非法目的,但不會對網絡系統本身造成傷害的行為。 [①] 網絡襲擊針對的目標是國家和非國家行為體,包括主權國家、組織和個人,既可以破壞軟硬件和計算機的其他方面,也可以通過非法入侵計算機操作系統,運用不正當的手段獲取信息或實施遠程控制。網絡襲擊可能引發網絡衝突,而網絡衝突又可能升級為網絡戰爭。網絡戰爭一般是指一個民族國家為滲入另一個國家的計算機或網絡所進行的破壞和擾亂行為。 [②] 網絡戰爭可能嚴重危害國家的政治、經濟和社會安全與穩定,是網絡衝突的最高形式。
網絡信息技術所具備的即時性、便捷性、廉價性特質,使衝突和戰爭變得易於操作和實施。網絡信息技術使傳統的衝突與戰爭發生了顛覆性變革。只要有一台聯網的計算機,少數人就可以實施網絡攻擊,發動一場沒有硝煙的小規模戰爭。網絡空間的武器開發成本極低,只要有一兩台計算機,且能夠實現網絡連接,再配備幾名高水平的黑客,就足以製造極具殺傷力的網絡武器。 [③] 因此,互聯網對國家安全的影響都將是全面的、徹底的和前所未有的。網絡信息技術源自通訊技術的不斷創新與發展。即時通訊技術的出現和不斷更新,提升了戰場上的政治決策效率。網絡信息技術對於武器技術的革新具有重要推動作用,尤其是在核武器時代,計算機技術使核武器更加精準、可靠和高速。冷戰時期,美、蘇兩國十分重視發展信息處理技術。隨著計算機技術的全面發展,美國率先提出了“信息戰理念”(information warfare doctrine),也就是利用信息技術力量,在策略和手段方面超越對手。西方學者表示,目前國際社會最大的隱患不再是大規模殺傷性武器,而是大規模破壞性武器(weapons of mass disruption)。 [④] 在技術突破之外,網絡空間衝突與戰爭更深刻的變革體現在行為主體、攻擊手段和衝突後果等方面。
(一)行為主體日益多元化
網絡空間為非國家行為體提供了更加廣闊的活動平台,使其可以超越領土和主權的限制,在現實和虛擬世界發揮更大的作用。傳統的衝突與戰爭發生在不同群體之間,一般被實力強大的國家所壟斷,而單獨個體難於發動對群體的攻擊。網絡信息技術極度放大了相對弱小行為體的力量。借助於網絡信息平台,小國可以向霸權國發起挑戰,規模小的群體可以向實力強大的主權國家發動襲擊,個人也可以發動對群體的攻擊。美國一直以來都將朝鮮視為網絡空間中的威脅。據美國福克斯新聞網透露,2010年年初的報告顯示,朝鮮已經培訓了數千名頂級的計算機專業學生成為出色的“網絡戰士”(cyber warrior),其行動目標鎖定為美國和韓國。 [⑤] 近年來,恐怖主義也藉助網絡載體和信息工具獲得了“新生”。基地組織利用互聯網技術宣傳其極端理念,並利用網絡平台實施成員招募、在線培訓、資金募集、遠程指揮等活動。可以說,網絡空間的隱蔽性和開放性特徵加大了國際社會防範和打擊恐怖主義的難度。 [⑥] 2008年,波蘭一名14歲少年通過入侵並控制洛茲市(Lodz)的有軌電車系統,從而引發混亂,導致4輛電車脫軌,12人受傷,所幸事故未造成人員死亡。 [⑦] 對於日益多元化的網絡襲擊者,美國戰略司令部司令凱文·希爾頓(Gen. Kevin P. Chilton)曾形像地認為,“我們的敵人范圍,不僅包括令人厭煩的年輕黑客,也包括犯罪組織,還涉及國家行為體”。 [⑧]
(二)攻擊手段不斷更新
互聯網發展的初衷是便於信息的有效流動,實現資源共享、互聯互通。開放的環境往往會給安全防禦帶來更多風險和挑戰,網絡空間中因而出現了“攻守不平衡”問題。這種結構上的不平衡會激發網絡惡意攻擊,從而降低對威懾和有效防禦的信心。 [⑨] 網絡空間中的簡單靜態防禦(static defenses),即被動防禦,是指最多被強大的黑客視為一個新挑戰或待解決的問題。 [⑩] 技術嫻熟的網絡襲擊者能夠輕鬆找到網絡漏洞並成功繞開安全防禦軟件。與傳統的衝突相比,網絡空間中的襲擊者處於隱蔽處,並專門攻擊目標的薄弱環節。在“攻方壓倒守方”的背景下,網絡進攻性武器變得十分普遍。一般的網絡進攻武器,包括計算機病毒、惡意軟件、邏輯炸彈(logic bomb)、拒絕式服務(denial of service)等。低端網絡武器的目標只是簡單的竊取信息、獲取密碼、修改程序等,一般不會產生重大危害。相比較而言,高端網絡武器能夠造成數據和關鍵設施的中斷或嚴重受損。一系列的網絡攻擊能夠演變為重大突發事件,在一段時期內中斷關鍵服務,包括破壞軍事指揮或信息系統,關閉電力供應或石油管道,停止金融服務等。 2008年,美國國防部儲存加密軍事信息的電腦網絡就曾感染惡意代碼。惡意代碼在未被察覺的情況下擴散到加密和未加密文件系統。雖然被及時發現,但美國軍方對此十分恐慌,認為此類事件可能會使其軍事機密文件被上傳給國外情報機構,甚至是未知的敵對勢力,後果將不堪設想。 [11]
複雜高端的惡意代碼具有很強的自我偽裝能力,很難被發現,往往是在已經造成嚴重傷害後才會被發現。 2010年,伊朗核設施受到“震網病毒”(Stuxnet)的攻擊,使伊朗納坦茲鈾濃縮工廠的1 000多台IR-1型離心機由於非正常運轉並遭到破壞而不得不更換。事實表明,“震網病毒”的攻擊目標非常精確或單一,即德國西門子公司控制系統(SIMATIC WinCC)。這是一款數據採集與監視控制(SCADA)系統,被伊朗廣泛使用於國防基礎工業設施。 “震網病毒”在入侵一台電腦後,就會自動尋找西門子軟件,確認找到軟件後,這種病毒會在無人察覺的狀態下控制工業用的電腦系統,並控制電腦軟件對工廠其他電腦發出既定指令。網絡安全專家認為,“震網病毒”是第一個以物理世界基礎設施為攻擊目標的“精確制導”蠕蟲病毒。 [12] 作為第一個披露“震網病毒”的德國著名網絡安全問題專家,拉爾夫·朗納(Ralph Langner)經過系統分析,認為“震網病毒”的結構比想像中的還要復雜,包含兩個不同的“數字彈頭”(digital warhead),分別針對不同的進攻目標,鈾濃縮設施和布什爾核電站的外部渦輪機。他認為第二個彈頭的威力相當於對布什爾核電站進行一次精確的空中打擊。 [13] 美國信息安全問題專家凱文·克萊曼(Kevin Coleman)2010年在美國國防科技網上發表的文章認為,網絡襲擊的數量將會急劇升級。為支持這一論斷,他提到2009年惡意軟件的數量達到了此前20年來的最高水平,多份報告顯示超過2 500萬個惡意軟件被確認,而且這種增長趨勢還將繼續。 [14]
通過以上事例,不難看出網絡空間中的進攻武器技術含量高且具有極強的針對性。這樣的武器比常規武器更隱蔽、更精準、更具進攻性和破壞性。與此同時,網絡進攻性武器不能重複使用,必須不斷升級換代。美國著名智庫蘭德公司的數字戰專家馬丁·利比奇(Matin Libici)認為,一旦有人了解了網絡戰武器的工作原理,它就不再是一種武器了。最好的武器是敵人所不知,但自己卻已擁有的。 [15]
(三)衝突後果不可預知
傳統衝突中的對手是清晰可見的,衝突的結果也是可以預測的。在網絡空間的衝突中,進攻武器一旦發揮威力,所造成的破壞規模和影響力一般都會不斷地複制和散播,很難像傳統衝突那樣能夠得到有效控制。更為嚴重的是,網絡襲擊會給社會帶來嚴重恐慌,其後果比傳統戰爭更為嚴重。現代社會中的各類基礎設施都是由計算機和互聯網系統控制,一旦網絡襲擊波及水、電、金融控制系統,帶來的損失將是無法估量的,甚至可能造成嚴重的社會動盪。美國學者設想了網絡攻擊可能引發的嚴重後果:沒有航空控制系統或者機場安監系統,沒有電子管控的鐵路交通,沒有依賴電子計算機日夜投遞的包裹或郵件,沒有雇主通過支付軟件支付工人工資的電子支票,沒有電子取款記錄,沒有自動取款機,醫院或者健康中心沒有可信賴的數字記錄,沒有電力導致沒有燈光,沒有熱力,沒有加油系統或者燃料、汽油,沒有交通信號燈,沒有電話,沒有網絡服務,沒有警察有效的治安管理,這一系列問題將使美國社會陷入短時癱瘓。 [16] 據美國中央情報局透露的發生在2007年針對美國公用電力網的多起網絡襲擊事件表明,由於擔心會造成嚴重的社會恐慌,電力公司的負責人甚至不願談及這些事件的風險。
此外,網絡空間的開放性特徵使網絡襲擊一旦發生,其影響範圍將具有擴散性。 2013年4月,黑客竊取了美聯社的推特賬號,發布了美國總統奧巴馬在白宮的一次爆炸中受傷的虛假消息。幾分鐘後,美聯社官方使用另一個推特賬號聲明之前的賬戶已被盜。白宮發言人也通過廣播澄清奧巴馬總統沒有受傷。但已有很多人看到了被盜推特賬號發布的消息,該事件導致道瓊斯工業指數和S&P500指數雙雙下挫,之後兩個交易指數又快速反彈。據稱美聯社的推特賬號有200萬受眾,其發布的即時消息影響力十分巨大。 [17] 這一事件也給美國政府敲響了警鐘,一起簡單的賬戶被盜事件很可能引發一場金融恐慌,從而嚴重擾亂社會秩序。
網絡衝突治理的上述新特點產生了嚴重的後果。行為體的多樣性使人們很難在短時間內轉變觀念,克服認知差異與分歧;網絡攻擊手段的不斷革新使國際法律制度和威懾很難發揮作用;而後果的難以預測則加重了國家間的相互猜疑。這些因素將嚴重阻礙網絡空間衝突治理機制的形成並發揮作用。

二、網絡空間衝突治理機制的困境

網絡空間衝突與傳統意義上的國際衝突有很大差異。現行全球治理機制的主要行為體是主權國家,它們在對傳統武裝衝突理解和認知的基礎上提出一系列管控規則。但在網絡空間中,對非國家行為體的行為進行有效規範在法律和道德方面是一個空白。而“結構性困境”等現實問題也加劇了網絡空間衝突治理的難度。
(一)認知分歧阻礙有效治理
當前,各國對網絡安全核心概念的理解以及對網絡安全事件的歸因(attribution)和認定都存在深刻分歧。例如,美、英、日、德、法和歐盟等都制定了網絡安全戰略,通過對比可以發現,各方對“網絡空間”、“網絡安全”、“網絡戰爭”等核心概念的界定存在明顯差別。 [18] 在網絡空間中,如何確定一些行為已經違反了國際法基本準則,並可以實施武力打擊?個人和組織是否可以成為國家發動網絡進攻的目標?如何界定網絡空間的國家主權?對

注释:

[①] Abraham D. Sofaer, David Clark, Whitfield Diffie, “Cyber Security and International Agreements,” in Proceedings of a Workshop on Deterring Cyberattacks: Informing Strategies and Developing Options for U.S. Policy, Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2010, pp. 179-180.
[②] Richard A. Clarke and Robert Knake, Cyber War: The Next Threat to National Security and What to Do about It, New York: Harper Collins, 2010, p. 10.
[③] 樊高月、赵力昌主编:《不流血的战争:网络攻防经典之战》,解放军出版社2014年版,第117页。
[④] Craig B. Greathouse, “Cyber War and Strategic Thought: Do the Classic Theorists Still Matter?” in Jan-Frederik Kremer and Benedikt Muller, eds, Cyberspace and International Relations: Theory, Prospects and Challenges, Verlag Berlin and Heidelberg: Spinger, 2014, p. 23.
[⑤] Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, “Special Report: The Cyberwar Threat from North Korea,” Fox News, February 14, 2014, http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/02/14/cyberwar-experts-question– north-korea-cyber-capabilities.
[⑥] 丛培影、黄日涵:《网络恐怖主义对国家安全的新挑战》,载《江南社会学院学报》2012年第2期,第2页。
[⑦] John Leyden, “Polish Teen Derails Tram after Hacking Train Network,” The Register, January 11, 2008, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/11/tram_hack/.
[⑧] Kelvin P. Chilton, “Cyberspace Leadership Towards New Culture, Conduct and Capabilities,” Air & Space Power Journal, Fall 2009, p. 7.
[⑨] Kenneth Lieberthal and Peter W. Singer, “Cybersecurity and U.S.-China Relations,” Brookings Institution, February 23, 2012, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/ 2012/2/23 cybersecurity china us singer lieberthal/0223_cybersecurity_china_us_lieberthal_singer_pdf_english.pdf.
[⑩] Erik M. Mudrinich, “Cyber 3.0: The Department of Defense Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace and Attribution Problem,” The Air Force Law Review, Vol. 68, p. 181.
[11] William J. Lynn, “Defending a New Domain: The Pentagon’s Cyber Strategy,” Foreign Affairs, September/October 2010, Vol. 89, No. 5, p. 97.
[12] 樊高月、赵力昌主编:《不流血的战争:网络攻防经典之战》,第123页。
[13] Jerusalem Post, “Stuxnet Specifically Targeted Iranian Nuclear Program,” The Jerusalem Post, November 20, 2010, http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/News/Stuxnet-specifically– targeted-Iranian-nuclear-program.
[14] Paul A. Matus, “Strategic Impact of Cyber Warfare Rules for the United States,” Homeland Security Digital Library, March 23, 2010, http://www.handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA522001.
[15] 《源代码之战》,载《国际金融报》2011年8月1日,第4版,http://paper.people.com.cn/ gjjrb/html/2011-08/01/content_885812.htm?div=-1。
[16] Michael J. Glennon, “State-level Cybersecurity,” Policy Review, February/March, 2012, p. 85.
[17] “Hacked AP Twitter Account Sends Dow Jones Down,” Southern California Public Radio, April 24, 2013, http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2013/04/23/31465/hacked-ap-twitter-account -sends-dow-jones-down/.
[18] 蒋丽、张晓兰、徐飞彪:《国际网络安全合作的困境与出路》,载《现代国际关系》2013年第9期,第56页。
[19] Yoram Dinstein, “Cyber War and International Law: Concluding Remarks at the 2012 Naval War College International Law Conference,” International Law Studies, Vol. 89, 2013, p. 284.
[20] Duncan B. Hollis, “Why States Need an International Law for Information Operations,” Lewis & Clark Law Review, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2007, pp. 1023-1024.
[21] Scott W. Beidleman, “Defining and Deterring Cyber War,” Military Technology, Vol. 11, 2011, p. 60.
[22] 顾德欣编:《战争法概论》,国防大学出版社1991年版,第9页。
[23] William Lynn, “Cyber Security,” Speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, June 15, 2009.
[24] “Fact Sheet: U.S.-EU Cyber Cooperation,” The White House Office of the Press Secretary, March 26, 2014, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/26/fact-sheet-us-eu-cyber– cooperation.
[25] “Fact Sheet: U.S.-United Kingdom Cybersecurity Cooperation,” The White House Office of the Press Secretary, January 16, 2015, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/16/ fact-sheet-us-united-kingdom-cybersecurity-cooperation.
[26] Franz-Stefan Gady, “Japan and the United States to Deepen Cybersecurity Cooperation,” The Diplomat, June 2, 2015, http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/japan-and-the-united-states-to– deepen-cybersecurity-cooperation.
[27]“China, Russia to Sign Information Security Pact: Report,” The Brics Post, October 21, 2014, http://thebricspost.com/china-russia-to-sign-information-security-pact-report/#.Vg4sYi-hdMs.
[28] 复旦国务智库编:《增量改进——全球治理体系的改进和升级》,复旦全球治理报告2014,复旦大学国际关系与公共事务学院,2014年,http://www.sirpa.fudan.edu.cn/_upload/arti cle/8e/7e/f72c6ae04f998c052fe4230493c5/b3ef8190-df38-40fb-829f-1a0c6f6f49a5.pdf,第36页。
[29] Salma Shaheen: “Offense-Defense Balance in Cyber Warfare,” in Jan-Frederik Kremer and Benedikt Muller, eds., Cyberspace and International Relations, Berlin: Springer, 2014, p. 91.
[30] Jon R. Lindsay: “The Impact of China on Cybersecurity,” International Security, Vol. 39, No. 3, 2014, p. 27.
[31] 《俄联邦委员会拟利用“白色黑客”应对网络攻击》,人民网,2014年1月26日,http://world.people.com.cn/n/2014/0126/c157278-24226902.html
[32] “The Chinese Cyber Threat: Challenges and Solutions,” AEI, July 22, 2015, http://www.aei.org/events/the-chinese-cyber-threat-challenges-and-sollutions/.
[33] “Cyber Security and International Law,” Chatham House, May 29, 2012, https://www. chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/public/Research/International Law/290512summary.pdf.
[34] 黄日涵:《网络战山雨欲来 安全困境亟须破局》,载《中国社会科学报》2014年12月10日,第B02版。
[35] 《联合国互联网治理论坛(IGF)简介》,国家工信部网站,2008年2月21日,http://www.miit.gov.cn/n11293472/n11295361/n11296722/11642344.html
[36] Mark Ballard, “UN Rejects International Cybercrime Treaty,” ComputerWeekly.com, April 20, 2010, http://www.computerweekly.com/news/1280092617/UN-rejects-international-cyber crime-treaty.
[37] 毛雨:《北约网络安全战略及其启示》,载《国际安全研究》2014年第4期,第112页。
[38] 王孔祥:《网络安全的国际合作机制探析》,载《国际论坛》2013年第5期,第4页。
[39] Joseph S. Nye, Jr, “From Bombs to Bytes: Can Our Nuclear History Inform Our Cyber Future?” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2013, Vol. 69, No. 5, p. 13.
[40] 《共同构建和平、安全、开放、合作的网络空间  建立多边、民主、透明的国际互联网治理体系》,人民网,2014年11月20日,http://politics.people.com.cn/n/2014/1120/c1024– 26057363.html。
[41] 丛培影、黄日涵:《中国网络治理模式的世界意义》,光明网,2014年12月15日,http://theory.gmw.cn/2015-12/15/content_18098761.htm
[42] 《中华人民共和国网络安全法(草案)》,中国人大网,2015年7月6日,http://www.npc. gov.cn/npc/xinwen/lfgz/flca/2015-07/06/content_1940614.htm。
[43] 《中俄等国向联合国提交“信息安全国际行为准则”文件》,新华网,2011年9月13日,http://news.xinhuanet.com/2011-09/13/c_122022390.htm
[44] Patrick Goodenough, “U.S., China Among 15 Countries Agreeing U.N. Charter Applies in Cyberspace,” CNS News, June 10, 2013, http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-china-among-15– countries-agreeing-un-charter-applies-cyberspace.
[45] 《习近平在第二届世界互联网大会开幕式上的讲话》,新华网,2015年12月17日,http://news.xinhuanet.com/zgjx/2015-12/17/c_134925295.htm

China’s Analysis of US Army Network Operations Conceptual Concept Conception: To fight for information dominance

US Army Network Operations Conceptual Concept Conception: To fight for information dominance

The US Army Training and Command Command assesses the future combat environment, clearly emphasizing the importance of obtaining information on all relevant aspects of future battlefields. Army forces in the color of people such as action in the face, with a new, network-based, technology-based threats. These threats use emerging technologies to build and maintain a cultural and social advantage; and make full use of these new capabilities for command and control, staff recruitment, logistics coordination, fundraising and dissemination of information. To take action in this new environment, the Army must re-adjust its message “focus”. Army leaders and soldiers must have an in-depth understanding of how to use information-based capabilities to capture and maintain situational awareness. In the future battlefield, know how to fight for information and give full play to information, while denying the opponent’s ability to win more and more important.

The assessment shows that the Army’s existing vocabulary, including, for example, computer network operations (CNO), electronic warfare (EW) and information operations (IO), will become increasingly difficult to meet demand. In order to meet these challenges, the full spectrum of military operations (FSO) should have three interrelated dimensions, each of which has its own set of causal logic and needs to focus on the development of the program:

The first dimension is the confrontation with the psychological will of enemies, hostile factions, criminal gangs and potential opponents.

The second dimension is a strategic alliance, including maintaining a friend in the country, getting ally in a foreign country, and obtaining their support or identity for the task.

The third dimension is the network power confrontation, including the acquisition, maintenance and use of a technical advantage.

The first dimension and the second dimension emphasize how commanders and staff officers should carefully plan and use information to fulfill their mission. The third dimension emphasizes gaining and maintaining an advantage in increasingly converged cyberspace and electromagnetic spectrum (EMS) media. The advantages of the Army’s access to advantages, protection advantages and opponents’ inferiority are included in these three dimensions; and contribute to the achievement of those actions that must be achieved through tactical, operational and strategic levels of unified action. The current combat action makes us more convinced that each dimension needs to have its own corresponding concepts and capabilities.

Information operations (IO) contain all three dimensions, but the word is increasingly becoming a generic term that can be used for any form of information. Computer network operations and electronic warfare itself is not enough to describe the full range of network confrontation. To this end, we are carrying out a comprehensive description of each dimension of the comprehensive research activities. The first two dimensions (Confrontation and Strategic Alliances of Will) will be presented in a conceptual plan to be developed separately, followed by a competency-based assessment.

This manual relates to the electronic warfare, computer network operations and cyberspace in the third dimension – networked confrontation. The Training and Command Command No. 525-7-8 is the first step towards a consensus on how the technological advances can change the operational environment, how the leaders should think about cyber operations, how to integrate their overall actions, and what they need ability. This manual provides a methodology for developing results-based, emphasis-based, and intelligent solutions that will enable the US Army to win in online confrontation. – Director of the Army – Ability Center for Lieutenant General

Executive summary

Describe the problem

The combat environment has changed significantly. The convergence and rapid development of computer and communication network technology, the global proliferation of information and communication technology (ICT) and its impact on social and social networks impact the combat environment. The use of this information revolution in the form of agents (agents) on the United States of key infrastructure and combat missions constitute a huge threat. These actors have both traditional national and non-combatants, multinational corporations, criminal organizations, terrorists, hackers, mischievous hackers and misuse of individuals. They together to create a continuous turbulence, never calm the environment. In this document, unless otherwise stated, the term “opponent” is used to describe them.

Develop a solution

Training and Order Command (TRADOC) 525-7-8, “CyberOps Concepts 2016-2028”, a comprehensive review of the 2016 to 2028 Army future forces how to make full use of cyberspace implementation of effective Network operations. The manual includes a conceptual framework for incorporating cyber operations into full spectrum operations (FSO), laying the groundwork for subsequent development of the order. This conceptual framework outlines how the commander integrates network operations to gain advantage, protect the advantages and set opponents at the disadvantage. The manual also establishes a common dictionary for the Army’s network operations, describing the relationship between cyberspace and the other four domains (earth and sea) and with the electromagnetic spectrum. Finally, it explains how the technology that continues to converge will affect full-spectrum operations and capacity development, providing strong support for Army design, development, acquisition and deployment of fully integrated network capabilities.

Program Background: Three dimensions of full spectrum combat

A, the US Army Training and Command Commander (CG) instructs the Joint Arms Center (CAC) to lead a working group to organize the mission domain for cyberspace, cyber warfare and information operations, as well as the training and commanding forces The modernization of the structure suggests a conceptual framework. On October 16, 2009, the Command and Command Command (CG) submitted a series of recommendations to the Army Deputy Chief of Staff. In his suggestion included the following:

(1) The Joint Arsenal Center believes that existing vocabularies (cyber-e-warfare) are enough at the moment, but will be increasingly insufficient to describe the challenges the Army faces in future combat environments.

(2) The joint arms center draws conclusions that should be considered from three dimensions, which run through full spectrum operations, and each dimension needs to be addressed by the design of forces and the development of orders.

(3) Thus, while the Army can now describe functions related to network and spectrum military operations as network-electronic warfare – information operations, the Joint Arms Center firmly believes that the future Army should describe them in the following ways:

The first dimension – the first dimension is the confrontation with the psychological will between the enemy, the hostile faction, the criminal gang and the potential opponent.

The second dimension, the second dimension, is a strategic alliance, including maintaining a friendly relationship with allies in the country, forming an alliance abroad, supporting or focusing on the mission of the military operations area.

The third dimension – the third dimension is the net – electromagnetic against. The continuous development of wired, wireless and optical technologies provides the conditions for convergence and cross-linking of computers and communication networks.

B, Training and Command Command No. 525-7-8 manual is mainly about how to win in this third dimension, that is, network confrontation, and put forward a concept – that is, network operations can promote the completion of the other two tasks.

Core point of view

A Win in cyber confrontation means getting progress in three ways: gaining the edge, protecting the advantage, and setting the opponent at a disadvantage.

B. The commander seeks freedom of movement in cyberspace and electromagnetic spectrum while losing opponents at the time and place they are determined; thus supporting various military in cyberspace and the other four domains of cyberspace (land and sea) activity. Cyberspace military operations are included in the network confrontation to take advantage, to protect the advantages and opponents in the disadvantages to take action. Network operations itself is not the ultimate goal, more as an important component of the whole spectrum of operations, to win the network confrontation is in peacetime military confrontation in the attention of the general activities. Network operations are ongoing and confrontation takes place every day, and in most cases there is no need for other forces to participate.

Solution framework

The existing terms of the term do not fully address the scope of the relevant tasks according to the definition of the Department of Defense cyberspace and cyber warfare. As a result, the framework developed by the manual defines four major components of network operations: CyberWar, CyNetOps, CyberSpt, and Cyberas.

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1. Related background

The combat environment (OE) has changed significantly. The hostile activities in cyberspace and through cyberspace have reached unprecedented levels, threatening the basic elements of the key infrastructure, financial systems and national power of the United States. These threats come from a wide range of sources, unknowingly hackers to sovereign states, and the level of competencies varies. They together to create a continuous turbulence, never calm the environment. In this document, unless otherwise stated, the term “opponent” is used to describe them.

B. The rapid development of technology and its widespread proliferation make it increasingly difficult to win in full spectrum operations. The combination of wired, wireless and optical technology leads to the convergence of computers and telecommunications networks; handheld computing devices are growing in number and performance. The new generation of systems is emerging to form a global, mixed adaptive network that combines wired, wireless, optical, satellite communications, monitoring and data acquisition (SCADA) and other systems. In the near future, the network will provide users with ubiquitous access, so that they can be near real-time on-demand collaboration.

C. With the rapid development of technology, the ability of national opponents also increased, which makes the combat environment more complex. Who can gain, protect and exploit the advantages in competitive, crowded cyberspace and electromagnetic spectrum, who will master the initiative. On the contrary, if a party fails in the confrontation, or because the system was disturbed or destroyed and can not be effective action, it will give a huge advantage to the opponent.

D. Access, protection and advantage are not easy. US rivals use the commercial market as a platform for their development, making them more agile and adaptable than Army’s long research, development, testing and identification, and acquisition processes. Opponents are increasingly good at using cyberspace and electromagnetic spectrum capabilities and activities that are often outside the sight of our Army’s conventional operations. In order to capture and maintain the battle and tactical advantages for these flexible opponents, the Army must make cyberspace and electromagnetic spectrum the core and conventional components of its operations; and commanders also need the relevant competencies and the corresponding experts to apply them.

1.2. Purpose

The purpose of the Handbook No. 525-7-8 of the Training and Command Command is to examine how the Army’s future forces will integrate the cyberspace capabilities and cyber operations into full spectrum operations between 2016 and 2028.

1.3. Scope

The 525-7-8 Handbook of the Training and Command Command draws out how the commander can integrate cyber operations with other capabilities to gain advantage in full spectrum operations and to protect the advantages of concatenating opponents’ initial research results. The results of the study will be further refined through a competency-based assessment and development process. The manual describes how the commander seeks freedom of movement in cyberspace and electromagnetic spectrum while losing opponents at the time and place they determine; thus supporting the cyberspace as well as using cyberspace in the other four domains (land and sea) Of various military activities. This manual establishes a common dictionary and framework for network operations and describes the relationship between cyberspace and air, land, sea, and domain, and electromagnetic spectrum. It also explains how the technologies that continue to converge increase the impact on full spectrum operations and capacity development; identifies the network operations and support capabilities needed to support future force modernization initiatives; and suggests the cyberspace and electromagnetic Spectrum related to research questions.

1.4 method

This manual follows the design process approved by the Training and Command Command. Chapter 2 describes the existing conditions and requirements for cyberspace in combat environments. Chapter 3 compares the existing conditions and the desired final state in the operational environment, thus establishing a plan for the formulation of the program. Chapter 4 presents frameworks, core ideas, support ideas and dictionaries. Appendix A contains the required and related references. Appendix B describes the structure of the evolving network operations. Appendix C describes how to incorporate cyber combat as an organic component into the whole process, rather than being free from the entire action, according to the commander’s intentions and objectives. Appendix D (published) and Appendix E (confidential) discuss the required capabilities. Appendix F identifies issues at the executive level throughout the process, organization, training, equipment, leadership and education, personnel, and equipment (DOTMLPF) to support subsequent cost-benefit analysis efforts.

1.5. Key Definitions

A, cyberspace is defined as “a global domain in the information environment, interconnected by information technology infrastructures, including the Internet, communications networks, computer systems and embedded processors and controllers.”

B, the network war is: “the use of cyberspace capabilities, its primary purpose is to achieve goals in cyberspace or through cyberspace, which includes computer network operations, as well as operational and defensive activities of the global information grid” The

C, the electromagnetic spectrum is from zero to infinite electromagnetic radiation frequency range. It is divided into bands numbered by 26 letters.

1.6. Relationship with the concept of union and the concept of the army

A The Manual No. 525-7-8 of the Training and Command Command is consistent with the concept of joint and the concept of the Army, which includes the concept of joint operations and the top concept of the Army. The capabilities described in this manual may be incorporated into the Joint Capability Domain (JCA) and related operational functions. The Department of Defense uses a joint capacity domain to describe how the various capabilities support the joint function. The joint competency domain establishes the foundation of the process based on the capabilities of the Department of Defense, and the network combat capability can be embedded in the combined capabilities of the first level of force use, protection, combat space perception and network center action. Similarly, the network combat capability not only strengthened the Army’s operational functions and combat elements, but also their necessary composition.

B, Training and Order Command Manual 525-3-0. The manual argues that war is the will of the will, and that in order to win, the army must try its best to play a psychological and technical influence as one of the six main ideas that support the top concept of the army. The top-level concept declares that the Army is increasingly dependent on the continuous integration of electromagnetic, computer networks and space-based capabilities, so the technical influence requires troops to prepare for a new “cyber battlefield” to fight and win. Because the technology that affects the movement of information is developing too fast, the Army must continually assess what capabilities it needs to acquire, protect and exploit advantages in high-intensity cyberspace and electromagnetic spectrum. This handbook supports this top-level concept by determining the capabilities required to successfully perform full-spectrum operations.

C, Training and Command Command No. 525-3-1 Handbook and Training and Command Command No. 525-3-2. These two manuals, in order to support the Army’s operational concept, define the capabilities of operational command, intelligence, fire and protection needed to carry out effective campaigns and tactical maneuvers in future combat environments. Network capabilities and the advantages of cyberspace for the future of the Army in the mobility of command and control to reduce operational risk is critical. The Training and Command Command Manual No. 525-7-8 complements the Army function concept that supports campaign mobility and tactical maneuver.

D, Training and Order Command Manual 525-7-6. With the convergence of wired, wireless and optical technologies, future force commanders will use electronic warfare and cyber warfare capabilities. The use of wired and optical technology is becoming increasingly frequent

美國陸軍網絡作戰概念能力構想:要為信息力而戰
美國陸軍訓練與條令司令部評估未來作戰環境時明確強調了獲取未來戰場全部相關方面信息的重要性。陸軍部隊要在各色人等中行動出沒,面臨著全新的、網絡化的、基於技術的各種威脅。這些威脅會利用新興技術建立並保持一種文化和社會優勢;並充分利用這些新能力進行指揮控制、人員招募、後勤協調、資金籌集及消息傳播。要在這種新的環境中有效行動,陸軍就必須重新調整其信息“著力點”。陸軍領導人和士兵們必須深入地了解如何使用基於信息的能力獲取並保持態勢感知。在未來戰場上,懂得如何為信息力而戰並充分發揮信息力,同時拒止對手的這種能力,對於取勝越來越重要。

評估表明,陸軍的現有詞彙,包括例如計算機網絡作戰(CNO)、電子戰(EW)和信息作戰(IO)等,都將越來越難以滿足需求。為了應對這些挑戰,全譜軍事作戰(FSO)應有三個相互關聯的維度,其中每個維度都有自己的一套因果邏輯,並需要集中製定方案:

第一維是與不能和解的敵人、敵對派別、犯罪團伙和潛在對手的心理意志的對抗。

第二維是戰略結盟,包括在國內維持朋友、在國外獲得盟友以及獲得他們對任務的支持或認同。

第三維是網電對抗,包括獲得、保持和利用一種技術上的優勢。

第一維和第二維強調指揮官和參謀人員應如何精心籌劃和使用信息力來履行使命。第三維則強調在日益融合的網絡空間和電磁頻譜(EMS)媒介中獲得和保持一種優勢。陸軍獲取優勢、保護優勢和置對手於劣勢的概念都包含在這三個維度中;並且有助於達成那些必須通過戰術、戰役和戰略級別的統一行動才能實現的效果。當前的作戰行動更讓我們堅信,每一維都需要有自己相應的概念和能力。

信息作戰(IO)包含所有這三維,但這個詞卻越來越成為一個對任何形式的信息使用都可以指代的泛名詞。計算機網絡作戰和電子戰本身又不足以描述網電對抗的全部範疇。為此,我們正在開展一項充分描述每一維的全面攻關活動。前兩維(意志的對抗和戰略結盟)將在即將單獨制定的概念能力規劃中進行陳述,之後還將進行基於能力的評估。

本手冊與第三維——網電對抗中的電子戰、計算機網絡作戰和網絡空間有關。訓練與條令司令部525-7-8號手冊是對以下問題形成共識的第一步,包括技術上的進步如何改變作戰環境,領導人應該怎樣思考網絡作戰,怎樣整合他們的整體行動以及需要哪些能力。本手冊提供了製定基於效果、強調集成並且充滿智慧的解決方案的方法,這些方案將使美國陸軍在網電對抗中獲勝。 —邁克爾-文恩陸軍中將 陸軍能力集成中心主任

執行概要

描述問題

作戰環境已經顯著變化。計算機與通信網絡技術的會聚和迅猛發展、信息與通信技術(ICT)的全球擴散及其對社會和社會網絡的影響衝擊著作戰環境。利用這一信息革命的形形色色的行動者(agents)對美國的關鍵基礎設施和作戰任務構成了巨大威脅。這些行動者既有傳統的民族國家,也有非戰鬥人員、跨國公司、犯罪組織、恐怖分子、黑客聯盟、惡作劇的黑客以及誤操作的個人。他們共同創造了一個持續動盪、永無平息的環境。在本文件中,除非另行說明,均採用“對手”一詞描述他們。

制定解決方案

訓練與條令司令部(TRADOC)525-7-8號手冊,“美國陸軍網絡戰(Cyber​​Ops)概念能力規劃2016-2028”,全面審視了2016到2028年陸軍未來部隊如何充分利用網絡空間實施有效的網絡作戰。該手冊包括1個把網絡作戰納入全譜作戰(FSO)的概念框架,從而為後續的條令開發工作奠定基礎。這個概念框架勾勒了指揮官如何整合網絡作戰從而獲取優勢、保護優勢並置對手於劣勢。該手冊還為陸軍網絡作戰建立了一個通用詞典,描述了網絡空間與其它四個域(陸海空天)以及與電磁頻譜之間的關係。最後,它解釋了不斷會聚的技術將如何影響全譜作戰和能力發展,從而為陸軍設計、開發、採辦和部署充分集成的網絡能力提供有力的支撐。

方案背景:全譜作戰的三個維度

a、美國陸軍訓練與條令司令部司令(CG)指示聯合兵種中心(CAC)領導一個工作組,為網絡(cyber)、電子戰和信息作戰的使命域的組織以及訓練與條令司令部有關部隊的結構現代化的建議確定一個概念框架。 2009年10月16日,訓練與條令司令部司令(CG)向陸軍副參謀長提交了一系列建議。在他的建議中包含了以下幾條:

(1)聯合兵種中心認為,現有的詞彙(網絡-電子戰-信息作戰)在目前還夠用,但將越來越不足以描述陸軍在未來作戰環境中所面臨的挑戰。

(2)聯合兵種中心得出結論,應從三個維度進行考慮,這三個維度貫穿於全譜作戰中,並且每一維都需要解決兵力設計和條令制定問題。

(3)因此,雖然陸軍現在可以把與網絡和頻譜軍事行動相關的功能描述為網絡-電子戰-信息作戰,但聯合兵種中心堅信,未來陸軍應該用以下方式來描述它們:

第一維——第一維是與不能和解的敵人、敵對派別、犯罪團伙和潛在對手之間心理意志的對抗。

第二維——第二維是戰略結盟,包括在本土保持與盟友的友好關係、在海外形成同盟、支持或關注軍事行動區域實施的任務使命。

第三維——第三維是網電-電磁對抗。有線、無線以及光學技術的不斷發展為計算機和通信網絡的會聚和交聯提供了條件。

b、訓練與條令司令部525-7-8號手冊主要是關於如何在這個第三維,即網絡對抗中獲勝,並提出一個觀念——即網絡作戰能促進另兩維中任務的完成。

核心觀點

a.在網絡對抗中獲勝意味著同時在三個方面取得進步:獲取優勢、保護優勢以及置對手於劣勢。

b.指揮官尋求在網絡空間和電磁頻譜中的行動自由,同時在他們確定的時間和地點使對手失去自由;從而支撐在網絡空間以及借助網絡空間其它四個域(陸海空天)的各種軍事活動。網絡空間軍事行動包含在網絡對抗中為獲取優勢、保護優勢以及置對手於劣勢而採取行動。網絡作戰本身並不是最終目的,更多的是作為全譜作戰的一個重要組成,贏得網絡對抗是在和平時期軍事對抗中受到關注的普遍活動。網絡作戰不斷進行,對抗行動每天發生,大多數情況下不需要其他力量的參與。

解決方案框架

現有的條令術語沒有完全解決根據國防部網絡空間和網絡作戰的定義明確相關任務的範圍。因此,該手冊所製定的框架確定了網絡作戰包括四個主要組成部分:網絡戰爭(Cyber​​War)、網絡(空間)網絡作戰(CyNetOps)、網絡支援(Cyber​​Spt)和網絡態勢感知(Cyber​​SA)。

第一章引言

1.1.相關背景

a.作戰環境(OE)已經顯著地改變了。在網絡空間以及通過網絡空間進行的敵對活動已達到空前水平,威脅到了美國的關鍵基礎設施、金融系統和國家力量的基本要素。這些威脅來源廣泛,從不知情的黑客到主權國家,能力水平參差不齊。他們共同創造了一個持續動盪、永無平息的環境。在本文件中,除非另行說明,均採用“對手”一詞描述他們。

b.技術的突飛猛進及其廣泛擴散使得在全譜作戰中獲取勝利日益困難。有線、無線和光學技術的結合導致了計算機和電信網的融合;手持計算設備在數量和性能上不斷增長。新一代系統不斷湧現,構成了一個全球性、混雜的自適應網絡,它綜合了有線、無線、光學、衛星通信、監控和數據獲取(SCADA)及其它系統。不久的將來,網絡將為用戶提供無處不在的接入,使他們能近實時地按需協作。

c.隨著技術飛速發展,國家對手的能力也隨之提高,這使作戰環境更加複雜。誰能在競爭激烈、擁擠的網絡空間和電磁頻譜中獲取、保護和利用優勢,誰就將掌握決對主動。反之,如果一方在對抗中失敗,或由於系統遭到干擾或破壞而不能有效行動,則會把巨大的優勢拱手讓給對手。

d.獲取、保護和發揮優勢並非易事。美國的對手把商業市場作為他們發展戰鬥力的平台,使他們比陸軍冗長的研究、開發、試驗與鑑定以及採辦過程更加敏捷,適應性更強。對手越來越善於利用網絡空間和電磁頻譜能力及活動,而這些能力和活動到目前為止往往還處於我們陸軍常規行動的視線之外。為了獲取並保持針對這些靈活對手的戰役和戰術優勢,陸軍必須使網絡空間和電磁頻譜成為其作戰的核心和常規組成部分;而指揮官也需要相關的能力以及相應的專家來應用它們。

1.2.目的

訓練與條令司令部的525-7-8號手冊的目的是研究2016-2028年間陸軍未來部隊如何將各種網絡空間能力和網絡作戰整合納入全譜作戰。

1.3.範圍

訓練與條令司令部的525-7-8號手冊得出了指揮官如何把網絡作戰與其它能力相整合以在全譜作戰中獲取優勢、保護優勢並置對手於劣勢的初步研究成果。該研究結果還將通過基於能力的評估和條令開發過程進一步提煉。該手冊描述了指揮官如何尋求在網絡空間和電磁頻譜中的行動自由,同時在他們確定的時間和地點使對手失去自由;從而支撐在網絡空間以及借助網絡空間在其它四個域(陸海空天)的各種軍事活動。這份手冊為網絡作戰建立了一個通用的詞典和框架並描述了網絡空間與空、陸、海、天各域以及電磁頻譜之間的關係。它還解釋了不斷會聚的各項技術如何加大對全譜作戰和能力發展的影響;確定了支持未來部隊現代化倡議所需的網絡作戰和支撐能力;並提出了適合開展試驗的網絡空間和電磁頻譜的有關研究問題。

1.4 方法

這份手冊遵循訓練與條令司令部批准的設計過程。第二章描述了作戰環境中屬於網絡空間範疇的現有條件和所需條件。第三章比較了作戰環境中的現有條件和所需最終狀態,從而為製定方案建立了想定。第四章提出了框架、核心思想、支撐觀點和詞典。附錄A包含了所需的以及相關的參考文獻。附錄B介紹了演化中的網絡作戰的結構。附錄C描述根據指揮官的意圖和目標,如何將網絡作戰作為有機組成納入到整個行動中,而不是游離在整個行動之外。附錄D(公開的)和附錄E(保密的)討論了需要的能力。附錄F指出了貫穿於條令、組織、訓練、器材、領導和教育、人員以及設備(DOTMLPF)全過程中的執行層面的問題,從而為後繼的成本效益分析工作起步提供支持。

1.5.關鍵的定義

a、網絡空間被定義為“信息環境中的一個全球域,由信息技術基礎設施互相依賴結網而成,包括了因特網、通信網絡、計算機系統和嵌入式處理器和控制器。”

b、網絡戰是:“對網絡空間能力的運用,其首要目的是在網絡空間中或借助網絡空間達成目標。這類行動包括計算機網絡作戰,以及操作和防禦全球信息柵格的各種活動” 。

c、電磁頻譜是從零到無限大的電磁輻射頻率範圍。它被劃分為以26個字母進行表示的頻段。

1.6.與聯合概念和陸軍概念的關係

a、訓練與條令司令部的525-7-8號手冊與聯合概念和陸軍概念是一致的,這些概念包括聯合作戰頂層概念和陸軍頂層概念。本手冊所描述的能力可納入聯合能力域(JCA)和相關作戰功能。國防部用聯合能力域來描述各種能力如何支持聯合功能。聯合能力域奠定了基於國防部能力的過程的根基,而網絡作戰能力可內嵌於兵力運用、防護、作戰空間感知和網絡中心行動這些第一層次的聯合能力域之中。同樣,網絡作戰能力不僅強化了陸軍各項作戰功能和戰鬥力各要素,同時也是它們的必要組成。

b、訓練與條令司令部525-3-0號手冊。該手冊認為,戰爭是意志的較量,為了獲勝,陸軍必須盡量發揮心理上和技術上的影響力,並將其作為支撐陸軍頂層概念的六個主要思想之一。頂層概念宣稱陸軍越來越依賴不斷集成的電磁、計算機網絡和天基能力,因此發揮技術影響力要求部隊準備在新出現的“網絡戰場”中作戰並打贏。因為影響信息運動方式的技術發展太快,陸軍必須不斷地評估需要哪些能力在高強度的網絡空間和電磁頻譜中獲取、保護和利用優勢。這份手冊通過確定成功遂行全譜作戰所需的能力來支持這一頂層概念。

c、訓練與條令司令部525-3-1號手冊和訓練與條令司令部525-3-2號手冊。這兩本手冊為了支撐陸軍的作戰概念,確定了在未來作戰環境中實行有效戰役和戰術機動所需的作戰指揮、情報、火力和防護方面的各種能力。網絡能力和發揮網絡空間優勢對於陸軍未來部隊在機動中實現指揮控制和降低作戰​​風險非常關鍵。訓練與條令司令部525-7-8號手冊補充了支持戰役機動和戰術機動的陸軍功能概念。

d、訓練與條令司令部525-7-6號手冊。隨著有線、無線和光學技術的會聚,未來部隊指揮官將綜合運用電子戰和網絡作戰能力。對有線和光學技術的使用日益頻繁

Chinese Cyber Conflict Discussions, Information & Reasearch